I might be missing something elsewhere in the legislation, but section 5 states: A member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of superintendent may require a service provider to disclose to that member user data in the possession or control of the service provider— (a) where the member believes that the data relate to a person whom the member suspects, on reasonable grounds of— (i) having committed an offence It just refers to an offence; not a serious offence.

It may be down to how I am interpreting it, but I am concerned that there is an element of pre-emption in the powers being granted under the Bill, even in the case of minor offences. The section refers to suspicion. It is not even a court order. It seems pre-emptive and that it could be used in respect of minor offences. My fear is that it dips over into the idea of powers of surveillance in terms of the Revenue Commissioners and the Garda having access to user data on suspicion of an offence having been committed,…

It does not have to go before a court, however. Basically, a superintendent can make the decision. There is no court hearing. A superintendent can decide to give access to the data, potentially with reasonable grounds and evidence, but there is no court involved. A superintendent can make that decision.

I know Senator Higgins is waiting to come in, but it is easier to stay on this thread and jump back to her. I understand the point in respect of Schedule 2 data and the seriousness of the threat in terms of a threat to security or the State and all those things. Obviously, that needs to go before a court as that is where the bar needs to be set in that regard. It seems less harmful when we talk about minor offences or the presumption of minor offence or the general user data and that not being so harmful in terms o…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 8, line 13, to delete “preventing,”. Similar content has been covered in the last group of amendments but I will repeat for clarity. Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 13 would again limit the scope of Garda and Revenue officer powers in respect of “user data”. The Bill currently states that “user data” can be retained in order to prevent or detect crime, and this does not have to be for national security concerns nor does it have to be for serious crime. I want to repeat the following f…

I second the amendment.

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 37, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Protection of journalistic sources 7E. (1) Sections 6B, 6D, 6E, 7B, and 7D shall not apply in the case of data belonging to a journalist, and no powers may be exercised in respect of the retention, preservation or disclosure of data of a journalist as a matter of urgency, without relevant authorisation issued by an authorising judge. (2) All sections of this Act, other than those listed under subsection (1),shall only apply in the…

We are on Committee Stage. I do not think we need a seconder, just for efficiency and time.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to insert a new section into the Bill which would provide additional protection in respect of data journalists. It would provide for the non-application of certain sections of the Bill in respect of journalists' data, specifically the sections which provide for the use of emergency powers in respect of data retention. Certain sections of the Bill, for example, the proposed sections 6B, 6D, 6E, 7B and 7D, provide for emergency powers to retain data in situations of urgency whereby members of t…

I thank Senator Ward and the Minister. They have made a valid point on how to define the online space. This is where it stings us as Opposition Senators that we are doing all Stages together. We recognise there is an issue and if there was time in between the Stages we would have been able to work together to ensure that perhaps we could look at and sensitively handle what the definition of journalism would be and how to approach it. It has been said many times that we are responding to a court ruling and this is e…

I move amendment No. 1: In page 13, to delete lines 33 and 34 and substitute the following: “ “student union” means an independent and self-governing body, elected by students in a higher education institution, that is established for the purpose of promoting the general interests of students of a designated higher education institution, and of representing students, both individually and collectively, in respect of their well-being and academic, disciplinary and other matters arising within, and outside of that in…

Amendment No. 1 specifically defines a student union as an independent body elected by students. The electoral mandate is the key element here, not the recognition of a particular Minister or a governing authority. We spoke about this in detail last week but it remains an unanswered and fundamental point. If we say external recognition of a students' union has more weight legally, rather than an electoral mandate, that will serve to undermine the democratic frameworks both within student unions themselves and withi…

I thank the Minister and his office for their engagement and for the detailed email response to many of the amendments, which has been helpful. When he indicated the definition would be detrimental, is that purely because it would be out of line with that in the sectoral legislation? In the context of what is the best possible definition of a student union, if making it out of line with that in the sectoral legislation is the only issue, there is no reason that, through legislation, we could not conduct keyhole sur…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 13, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following: “ “United Nations Sustainable Development Goals” means the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 1 to 17 set out in the document entitled “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015” or any document which amends or replaces that document.”.

The amendment proposes to insert a definition of the UN sustainable development goals into the Bill. I propose this amendment because in subsequent amendments Senator Higgins references the SDGs and, given Ireland has signed up to these, it is important that we reflect our international obligations in how the higher education sector functions into the future. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment as it is an exact copy of the definition the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, has in the circular economy …

I thank the Minister for his response. It is not to say the Bill has not been made better on previous Stages but it possibly has not been made its best. The Seanad is trying to bring it to that next level of better. We are hugely concerned by the outdated definition in the Bill. I will press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 13, to delete lines 39 and 40, and in page 14, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: “(3) In this Act, references to environmental development and sustainability shall be construed as references to development and actions that meet the needs of the present and which contribute to climate action without accelerating or worsening the climate emergency for those already experiencing its effects and those who belonging to future generations who may experience its impacts.”…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 13, to delete lines 39 and 40, and in page 14, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: “(3) In this Act, references to environmental development and sustainability shall be construed as references to development and actions that meet the needs of the present and which contribute to climate action, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, without accelerating or worsening the climate emergency for those already experiencing its effects, in line with …

I move amendment No. 5: In page 13, to delete lines 39 and 40, and in page 14, to delete lines 1 to 3.