It does, but it does not give where a person is at a particular time or where he or she might have been. As with a given name and address, it does not necessarily tell anything more than one’s IP address. It is no different from having knowledge of a person’s name. In the case that brought a lot of this about, it was the location data that made the significant difference. We should note that the courts themselves have ruled that general data do not really impede on somebody’s privacy because the information is volu…

One still has to set out the reason-----

-----one was looking for it. It is there, but one cannot just access it for no reason. The 12 months is because it is not seen as being as significant as accessing someone’s location.

The court said that it does not feel this infringes in the same way so it included all user data, which includes what the Senator outlined, as not being as significant in terms of impeding. All of this is about whether retaining this type of data, Schedule 2 data or Internet data would create a greater impediment on someone’s privacy or right to privacy. However, the court ruled both in 2020 and more recently in April, and obviously the Supreme Court ruled the same way, that it is not as much of an infringement on …

It is a similar argument to the previous one. It is a question of what the court has ruled and what categories it has deemed general data to fall under. Specifically, the court concluded that the interference entailed by the retention of user data cannot be classified as "serious". That is what it set out in the ruling. It went on to state that legislative measures concerning the processing of user data are capable of being justified by the objective of preventing, investigating, detecting and prosecuting criminal …

For general data, it can be just a criminal offence. It does not have to be a serious offence. That is on the basis that the court has ruled that, for the purposes of the detection, prevention or prosecution of crime, general data is not seen in the same way as Schedule 2 data, which is a person's location information. The latter is seen as impinging much more on a person's right to privacy. It is only for security issues that a person can retain or seek access to Schedule 2 data, whereas for a criminal offence or …

At present, a member of the Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners or others can access this data without going through much of this process. We are reducing the amount of data that will be available in the longer term. It is about how it can be accessed. We have included an additional safeguard by inserting the words "reasonable grounds". It will be necessary to make a case. In the case of a suspicion or view that a person may have committed a crime, the garda or other person investigating will have to provide …

There is no court hearing required in this instance. The court, in its ruling, did not ask for such a provision because it did not deem general data as being as serious as location data and the other information it specifically singled out. I should not get into it but, obviously, all present area aware that can have a greater impact in terms of cases. The court has deemed that more general data is not really in the same serious category. At the moment, it can be accessed. That is being changed to an extent because…

In response to one of the Senator's last comments, I wish to say that this is an emergency Bill and we are addressing the courts. That is specifically what we are doing in the provision. Everybody has expressed a view on the really short time that it has taken us to bring this legislation to the committee and bring it to Cabinet. Everything has been done at a much faster pace than I would have liked and I believe that such speed does not give us the time to tease through wider issues. That is why I have given a ver…

In one sense what we are proposing here, to comply with the European Court of Justice ruling, is tying members of the Garda's hands behind their backs because it limits what they can do. It limits their access in respect of national security grounds and the time for which the data can be kept. It absolutely limits what they can do when it comes to fighting crime, including serious crime. The terms "preventing" and "preventing or detecting" are already in the principal Act. They are absolutely appropriate in the con…

I understand the concerns in the amendment. We have to be very sensitive to anything relating to data that journalists have collected. The Murray report published in 2017 made a number of recommendations on data retention issues specifically relating to journalists. There are two elements. One of these is what is being maintained from what was in the principal Act. The intention is to bring forward a general scheme later this year in which we will look at outstanding issues, including some of the issues relating to…

The definition of "journalist" is something we will look at. It is a recommendation in the Murray report. The general scheme will be introduced by the end of this year. There will not be any time limits put on how we will debate it. I regret the timeline in which this Bill has been brought forward. It is based on the timeline of the 2020 ruling, the April ruling and getting clarity that it would not change in the Supreme Court. The legislation was brought to Cabinet the following week and we have moved as quickly a…

I will start by apologising. When I was walking out, somebody said to me that I was "saved by the bell", but anyone who knows me knows this is a topic I really want to talk about and respond to. In fact, I am really pleased that the last debate to which I will contribute in this term is on the night-time economy. I thank Senator Warfield for putting forward this motion, especially given the very difficult period the night-time economy has gone through, not just over the past number of years but in particular throug…

As I am only one Minister, I cannot commit to all of the others, but I think we agree on everything.

The motion is another example of Sinn Féin speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It criticises the Government but wastes valuable time with a charade of a motion that was never going to succeed, using its time to criticise the Government with no clear direction of its own insight. Its only purpose is to cause a pointless drama and an unwelcome distraction when there are so many issues at hand. As a member of the Government I am proud to stand on our record of working for the people. Nobody on these benches is de…

I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the House. The purpose of the Bill is to make certain priority amendments to the current Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011, referred to as the principal Act. To comply with rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the principal Act provides for the general and indiscriminate retention of certain categories of communications data held by communication service providers but not the content of such communications. Senators will be aware there has been a civ…

I thank all Senators for their contributions. I will start with the last point and reassure Senators that this is not about mass surveillance or retaining data for indiscriminate purposes. From our point of view, what this Bill does is reduce the amount of data that can be retained in comparison with what is currently the case. It increases the number of safeguards of judicial oversight and other types of discretions in terms of An Garda Síochána. This is the very least we should have, to be honest, and this is the…

I thank the Deputies for their comments. I will go through some of the points I made last night because I know not everyone was able to stay for my remarks. On the timing, I think everyone will appreciate this has been an evolving situation. We had the initial legislation and various rulings. We then had a Bill that was drafted in 2017 and subject to pre-legislative scrutiny in 2018. There was then the Graham Dwyer case and in 2019, a decision was taken to pause bringing forward any legislation as the case was goin…

I know we probably will not get time to go through all the amendments so I will try to respond to the other amendments in this contribution. With all due respect, we do not know where any of us will be in 24 months or nine months. I am very genuine and clear in what I am saying. I have set out - I intend to have a justice plan 2023 all going well - how and when we will progress this legislation but that is not to say I or this Government will not be here. That is not to say anything cannot happen. We are not provid…

No, it does not but legislation can then be prioritised or not prioritised and move along at different rates. While I might have a particular timeline-----