Results 1,741-1,760 of 11,469 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I am disappointed to hear the Minister of State's response. It is perhaps misleading to suggest everyone has agreed these retention periods as this week the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland has been in touch with us to indicate that it sees the Bill, as currently drafted, as placing Ireland at a competitive disadvantage. It refers specifically to the overly long period for...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 3: In page 5, subsection (1)(d), line 43, after "preserved" to insert the following: "or that are the subject of a request under section 6". This is a technical amendment to make it clear that data should not be destroyed where a request for disclosure has been made. The Minister stated in the Dáil that this point was catered for by the reference to "one month" in...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection: "(6) Where data that relate to a person are in the possession of a service provider, and a disclosure request in respect of that data has been made under this section, that person shall be notified of the existence of the request within three months from the date of the request.". This is proposed...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I had anticipated that response. It is a pity that the issue was not examined more during the long period between Second Stage and now. The practical difficulties could easily be overcome. For example, the State authorities could have the obligation to inform the subject. It is worth taking note of other jurisdictions where there is a duty to notify. Without that duty to notify, the...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 7: In page 6, before section 7, to insert the following new section: 7.--A provider shall comply with a disclosure request made to the service provider only where it is technically possible and reasonable in scope in that the request is not so wide as to place an undue cost on the service provider.". This amendment is in the same spirit as the earlier amendment we tabled...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: In anticipation that the Minister would not accept our amendment to the section, we have opposed the section. We have done so for self-evident reasons. The section, as currently constituted, is too broadly framed. We believe that simply to provide that a service provider shall comply with the disclosure request without any proviso would place an undue burden on the service providers. I...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 8: In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following subsection: "(5) A report under this section shall contain details of the numbers of prosecutions actually commenced as a result of investigations to which requests related, and a detailed justification for any significant excess of numbers of requests over numbers of prosecutions actually commenced.". This...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: My amendment would do the same thing in a different way by deleting the phrase "render that disclosure request invalid or". For the same reasons, we believe section 6 should have meaning and a breach of it should have consequences and that it should not be open to abuse as suggested in section 10(1) as currently worded. We are concerned that a breach of section 6 must have consequences.

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I take the Minister of State's remarks on board. It was not our intention to jeopardise prosecutions. We are trying to ensure the Bill is sufficiently tested at this stage and that its provisions are sufficiently rigorous.

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 11: In page 9, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection: "(2) Where the designated judge finds that an officer or member of the Garda Síochána, Permanent Defence Forces or the Revenue Commissioners has engaged in a breach of this Act, he or she shall refer the individual concerned to the Commissioner, the Minister for Defence or the Chairperson of the...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I anticipated that response. This amendment was tabled in the interest of trying to ensure sufficient mechanisms for oversight and scrutiny in the legislation. The Data Protection Commissioner, in his briefing in November 2009, made the point that safeguards in the Act were not adequate. One must also consider the numbers of requests for access to data already made under the Criminal...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful for that reply.

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 12: In page 10, lines 10 and 11, to delete "Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1995" and substitute "Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889". This is a technical amendment concerning the Title of the legislation. The Minister of State responded on this amendment in great detail in the Dáil in respect of the wording used to refer to an individual Act rather than a...

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I have no wish for the Minister of State to read it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Communications (Retention of Data) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages (20 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: It is unfortunate the delay has been so extensive. I re-read the Second Stage speeches of April 2010, at which time I pointed out we had been found to be in breach of our obligations by the European Court of Justice owing to the delay in transposing the 2006 directive. The Minister of State said there was extensive consultation between Second Stage in April 2010 and now. That there has...

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment proposed by Senator Hannigan, that the whistleblower legislation be published, as we are anxious to have the debate on it tomorrow night in Private Members' time. It will probably be the last Private Members' Bill to be debated in the lifetime of this Seanad. I join others in asking the Leader for clarification on what other legislation will be dealt with this week....

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I am asking the Leader for clarity on the date. Others have commented or engaged in a long rant about political parties, but I would like to defend them, particularly the Labour Party. The imperative from our point of view and that of constituents was to ensure we would have certainty to bring to an end the political instability and chaos and that an election would be scheduled as soon as...

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: We have guaranteed that the civil partnership provisions will be dealt with in another finance Bill.

Seanad: Order of Business (25 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, the Government agreed the timetable.

Seanad: Order of Business (26 Jan 2011)

Ivana Bacik: I agree with Senators Fitzgerald and Alex White that the instability of the current Government is demonstrated by the fact that we still do not know whether the Finance Bill will pass. The Government clearly has no popular mandate and it is essential we have an election date as soon as possible. The lack of clarity about the date does affect the everyday lives of those outside the political...