I move amendment No. 26: In page 44, line 32, after “goods,” to insert “except for pedal cargo bicycles,”.

This is the wrong direction of travel. It is literally saying any tool can be used for any kind of data. It does not clarify. The definition for cameras has been extended to include "other data-gathering devices" The definition of "data-gathering device" proposed by amendment No. 36 is extraordinarily vague, wide and dangerous: "‘data-gathering device’ means any device, apparatus or equipment used or capable of being used for the gathering of data”. Again, it is any device and any data. There is no clarity. There i…

We could all come up with many forms of data-gathering devices. If toll tag readers or speed guns are needed, then specify them. To say technology evolves all the time and moves so fast that we might need to use it before we have time to legislate for it is a very dangerous message to send. The Minister has recognised the concerns about artificial intelligence, the use of algorithms and facial recognition. If, in some other legislation, the Government is running to implement things before they are regulated or befo…

It is the same thing. It is not simply a matter of saying we do not want to use the facial recognition technology on all these data that we gathered for whatever reasons. This is the thing with data. One does not get to gather data, potentially any kind of data, without having clear purposes as to why they are being gathered and what is being done with them. Again, we do not have the mechanisms or the framework. It is putting the cart before the horse as the AI directive has not yet been finalised in terms of the E…

I will be very brief. The Minister is the one seeking to expand the scope of this Bill. This is us responding to the expansion he has proposed. Frankly, his expansion includes every single thing. That is what the definition he is proposing effectively is. One could argue we should not try to have to name every single thing but the answer is also not to use every single device which is what he has here. It is literally any device for the gathering of data: "any device, apparatus or equipment". It is the Minister who…

The Data Protection Act.

The Minister might wish to respond to Senator Ruane's proposal. It is a really good compromise. It is not as strong as my proposal of naming each device but it is making it very clear that it is only to devices attached to a very particular and explicit purpose, namely, the investigation and prosecution of particular offences under the Road Traffic Act. That does not tie it to the device but ties it very narrowly to the purpose in terms of what are relevant data-gathering devices for this Bill to be legislating abo…

I think we just have a fundamental disagreement. I hope there can be conversations between this Stage and Report Stage but this definition is extraordinarily wide and there does not seem to be a willingness to look to narrow it in an effective way.

The issue is the data is being gathered. People will not be aware. This legislation creates a circumstance where persons may have large amounts of data gathered around and about them of which they will not even be aware. Their consent will not have been sought. A legislative basis will be used as the rationale, namely, we are gathering data about you based on the Road Traffic Act but there is no constraint within that Act that says the data we are gathering about you will only be related to road traffic.

Under the GDPR, there is a need for a legislative basis or a consent basis for the gathering of data. The concern here is we have legislation being proposed that will give a very much wider permission for the gathering of data and that creates that dynamic. There are questions about the compatibility of the legislation with the GDPR in that context but we can come to that.

To identify each device was one solution. Two solutions were put to the Minister. There is no amendment which states that each device should be identified. We have clarified that the problem is the Minister's proposal that all devices of any kind that gather data should be allowed and included under the definition of "camera". We have suggested two solutions. One is that we specify only such devices that are related to these offences and the other, which I put forward, involves specifying the particular devices. Th…

I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, line 12, after “child,” to insert “foster parent,”. Amendments No. 1 and 12 deal with the same issue, which is the concern that some of those who are providing parental care may accidentally or inadvertently fall outside the remit of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 seeks to include foster parents within the definition of "relevant parent" under the Bill. Whether or not it is the relevant parent in another context, in the context of this Bill people may, for example, have to take periods…

I would appreciate that clarification between Committee and Report Stages. I am not going to press my amendment at this point but, because there is concern, it would be useful for us to be made absolutely certain that there is no inadvertent effect.

I support the amendment. I have similar amendments, relating to another Part of the Bill, on the six-month criterion. The six-month requirement makes it less likely that people will be able to enter employment in the first place because requiring full-time availability for six months with no flexibility is exactly the obstacle for those who are parenting alone or returning to the workforce. One of the huge employment issues in Ireland is that women, in particular, tend to leave the workforce and then face an obstac…

Senator Seery Kearney might be correct. My amendment on the six-month period is coming later, so I am glad there is support for that principle.

We will have a chance to discuss it later.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 9, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: "(2A) Subsection (1) shall also apply to the following persons where a person is in need of significant care or support for a serious medical reason and no persons prescribed under subsection (2) have applied for medical leave for that case— (a) a niece or nephew of the employee, (b) an aunt or uncle of the employee, or (c) a grandchild of the employee.". I feel quite strongly about this amendment. It points to a gap in the underst…

The term "cohabitant" is not always interpreted that widely, although it does cover certain households. To be clear, the provisions of the EU directive are a signal of direction, an encouragement and a move in the right direction, but they do not set a limit on what we can do. Just as many countries had much better parental leave policies than Europe required them to have, there is nothing that says we cannot have something that is better or that goes further. Ireland has a particular record in recognising differen…

The section says "a parent or grandparent of the employee".

The Bill provides for an employee to take medical care leave to care for a parent or a grandparent. It does not work both ways. It covers grandparents but not grandchildren. It covers half that relationship. I put it to the Minister that, between now and Report Stage, he should consider this and see if there is any practical reason not to do this other than that Europe is not making us. I do not believe these provisions would be taken up to any great degree but, in a number of individual circumstances, it could mak…