Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not agree with Minister's explanation for why she cannot include this timeline. I accept the timeline I set was too tight, which is fair enough. Then let us have a longer timeline but we need to have a timeline. It does not make any sense not to have it. The Minister's rationale for not having it is completely wrong. She insists on saying that she does not agree with the court, which is fair enough. However, if she did not agree with the Supreme Court in Ireland, she would need to amend the law. This is the supreme court that our Supreme Court answers to whether we like it or not. The Minister cannot just say she does not agree with this and away we go.

That is a problem. There is a lot that is wrong with this legislation. The Minister said she does not agree with the ECJ but the European Court of Human Rights is another body that has serious problems with what is in this legislation. An amendment of mine - amendment No. 2 - involves the definition of the security of the State. It is not defined in this legislation. I know the Minister's excuse will be that it is not defined in other legislation so the Government is not defining it here as well but it has to be defined somewhere. The European Court of Human Rights holds that it does have to be defined. Speaking about Russian law, the court said:

Nor did the law give any indication of the circumstances under which communications could be intercepted on account of events or activities endangering Russia's national, military, economic or ecological security. Instead, it left the authorities an almost unlimited discretion in determining which events or acts constituted such a threat and whether the threat was serious enough to justify secret surveillance. This created possibilities for abuse.

The European Court of Human Rights, not the ECJ, is saying this so even if you do not agree with the ECJ, we have been members of the European Court of Human Rights since its foundation in 1948. We are doing stuff here that is wrong and this legislation is compounding that. The Minister is not going to put in a sunset clause, which is completely wrong.

See this speech in context