Akel, understandably, has been trying to make the most out of the issue of the surveillance software companies that are based in Cyprus. It has been attacking the government and the attorney-general’s office for weeks now over the laxness with which it had treated the ‘spy van’ scandal and the lack of transparency that followed.

Wednesday’s House legal affairs committee meeting kept up the pressure, with Akel deputy, Aristos Damianou firing a broadside against the government and Disy for turning Cyprus into a “greenhouse of companies that produce malignant software”. He repeatedly pointed a finger at Disy chief Averof Neophytou for helping one of the Israeli surveillance software companies export equipment to The Netherlands.

The matter was up for political exploitation, three months before the presidential elections, but the preliminary report by the European Parliament committee Pega issued on Tuesday identified a more general problem we have as a country – the failure of the authorities to enforce laws. Pega’s report said Cyprus was “an important European export hub for the surveillance industry”, despite having a robust legal framework for the protection of personal data and privacy.

It damningly said, “it seems to be the lax application of the rules that makes Cyprus such an attractive place for the trade in spyware…. In practice Cyprus is reportedly rather lenient in providing spyware companies with export licences. Companies use tricks to circumvent the rules.” In plain language, the Republic may have a strong legal framework regulating the matter, including EU rules but, as is so often the case, it fails when it comes to enforcement and spyware companies have been taking advantage of this.

The report was not just an embarrassment for the country, it drew attention to how the authorities could abuse discretionary powers. “On paper there is a legal framework providing for the protection of private communications, the management of personal data and the individual right to information, but in practice, when national security is allegedly involved, there are no clear rules on the use of interception devices and the protection of people’s constitutional rights.”

In short state authorities could place any person under surveillance and tap their phones by citing reasons of national security, because there are no clear rules. While state authorities in most countries have such powers, there are rules and regulations that have to be complied with so that these powers are not abused. In Cyprus, this does not seem to be the case. The laxness in enforcing the law and following the rules regarding spyware companies is probably also exhibited when decisions on the surveillance of individuals are taken.

This is what we should be concerned about and what deputies interested in protecting people’s right should focus on.