Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the data retention directive. I read in a newspaper recently that it is already three months overdue to be enacted. While the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has given an indication that it will happen in the new future it was pointed out in the newspaper article that there has not been a proper debate about it. A debate is necessary because the directive provides for strong powers. One wonders whether it is necessary.

The primary objective of data retention is to be able to hold on to and analyse traffic. It covers mass surveillance of the population if one wants to take it to its limits and it certainly has the capacity to do that. That we seem to be signing away agreement to do this worries me. What it means is that we will allow mobile phone traffic or correspondence on computers and websites that is delivered to be held for a period of three years. The argument often given is that it is a prevention measure against terrorism. That is one reason people do not like to alter it. If the State is under threat, anything that can be done to help bring people to justice should be done. It is hard for people to argue against it.

Let us look at the most recent acts of terrorism, particularly the Madrid bombings. Before this directive was introduced the culprits there were brought to justice on the basis of existing levels of data retention. I consider as excessive what is proposed in this directive.

I have raised this matter because there has been no debate on it. That is what worries me. I may learn from the Minister of State that it has been signed. I wanted to raise it because it is important the Houses of the Oireachtas get an opportunity to approve it as it constitutes an infringement of civil liberties and I am not sure it is in consort with the European Convention on Human Rights. On the one hand, how can we grant powers, albeit for laudable aims, when on the other hand, they are interfering with other more fundamental powers?

I was also interested to listen to a report this morning on a terrorist who was killed in Damascus yesterday. He had been on the most wanted list for many years. It was interesting to hear a private detective who had been pursuing him for 20 years speak about his practices. He never kept the same mobile phone for longer than a day. He kept changing codes. The levels to which he went to circumvent any kind of traceability were extraordinary. The devious mind will always find a way round conventions or monitoring systems that are in place. If one is a subversive one will look at ways of getting around controls or normal procedures.

That is the problem with this directive. It is not the guilty who will have their records kept indefinitely. The idea of the State watching over one is what worries me. We know that drug dealers buy credit and pay as you go phones, ones that are not and cannot be recorded. Legislation has been proposed providing that people who purchase such goods will have to be registered. Perhaps this is where it has got bogged down. It will be very difficult to register that.

My purpose today is to highlight that we should have the debate. If I am to learn it has not been transposed, I would hope we might have a chance to have greater debate in this regard because it is an important issue. If the State deems it is necessary, so be it, but the opportunity to discuss the matter is one I would welcome. I look forward to the Minister's response.