Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have listened carefully to what Members said on these issues and I agree that we should give the matter due and full as well as careful consideration, but I am concerned that these issues of considerable importance will be decided in the legislation. Aspects of the amendments are far-reaching. The importance of the text is influenced by a recent recommendation of Joint Committee on Justice and Equality arising from pre-legislative scrutiny of the Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2017. The joint committee's report has only been tabled recently, and the Government, including, importantly, the Office of the Attorney General, has not had the opportunity to examine the recommendation in the detail that is required. That is why I agree with Senator Higgins that these issues can be examined at a later stage. They are far-reaching, detailed and important. Second, I reiterate that the legislation is not the correct vehicle for such a wide-ranging and far-reaching statutory provision. The Long Title confines the content of the legislation to data protection matters. The Senators have gone beyond those in the amendments.

The provision in section 38(3) whereby the High Court could permit identification of confidential sources of information where a journalist "is the subject of investigation for suspected commission of a serious criminal offence" raises important issues that go well beyond data protection matters, and the GDPR and this legislation, which is a direct consequence of the GDPR. For example, what is a "serious offence"? I do not wish in any way to take from the importance of the amendments but balancing the right of journalists to protect their sources with other rights is a matter for the courts. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has underlined, for example, that protection of confidential sources is an essential means of enabling the press to perform its important function on a daily basis and it should not be restricted or inhibited. The important role of the press as public watchdog should not be interfered with except in exceptional circumstances where a vital public or individual interest may be at stake. I do not want in any way to detract from the importance of the amendments. I suspect that there is a relationship between the tabling of the amendment and the joint committee's report, which deserves due and careful consideration. It would not be appropriate to insert such a far-reaching, consequential amendment in this legislation. I am not minded to accept it for the two reasons I outlined. The first is the recent origin of the amendment but I will certainly examine that issue. I have a difficulty with the wider issue, which I hope Senators will accept in the spirit in which I tender it.