Alex White (Labour)

I support the comments of Senators O'Toole and Fitzgerald on the Lisbon treaty debate. I did not hear the Leader's remarks last week and, therefore, I cannot comment on them. It does not serve us at all to engage in such cross-party slagging about who is doing more on the issue. We all have a responsibility to explain the terms of the treaty. Fine Gael is doing that where I live. In case colleagues miss any of the Fine Gael meetings, they will have an opportunity to attend a Labour Party meeting next Thursday night in Taney Parish Centre, Dundrum, where they will hear myself and others doing our bit to explain the treaty. Senator Mary White lives nearby and she might find a half an hour to come along.

It is vitally important that information is disseminated on the treaty. There are complexities to it and Senator O'Toole is correct that in the lead-up to the referendum people want information. They genuinely need information and guidance regarding what is in the treaty. We can have the more robust debate about voting "Yes" and "No" closer to the date of the referendum. We have a responsibility as public representatives to inform the public because there is a great deal of misinformation.

On 30 January I raised the issue of an EU directive the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform proposes to introduce in respect of the retention of information about all e-mail and Internet activity by citizens of the State for a period of three years. The Leader kindly wrote to me the following day but the issue has come to light again today. I seek a debate in respect of the range of offences it is proposed the statutory instrument will encompass. Of course people have concerns about Bank of Ireland, loss of laptops and retention of data, but when it comes to the State, it is vital the Houses of the Oireachtas should have a supervisory role in determining the law in this area. It is not good enough for the issue to be dealt with by way of statutory instrument. I ask the Leader to arrange for the Minister to come to the House to debate the matter and explain why he proposes to deal with the matter by way of statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation, which is the correct way for it to be done. Will the Leader revisit the issue and call upon the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the House and facilitate debate on this important issue?