Seanad debates

Wednesday, 13 July 2022

Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Bill 2022: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

10:00 am

Photo of Alice-Mary HigginsAlice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

While we acknowledge the case for the previous amendments was really strongly made, I still have concerns. I am thinking of amendment No. 4 in particular. It was asked what would happen if the Minister did not make regulations. That would be an issue for the Government, including the Minister, in that it would have failed to make them, but the point is that we are being asked to give the power to make regulations, with the usual caveats attached, and also a blanket provision. The scope of the regulations may be wide, but when we talk about necessity it is not just a matter of the time period but also of proportionality. Proportionality means being proportional in respect of a purpose. The regulations may provide for the retention of a large category of the Schedule 2 data by a certain kind of service provider because there is a relevant purpose but I am concerned about a blanket provision regarding retention. I am specifically concerned about when we move beyond the security of the State and some of the specific criminal provisions. The Minister mentioned potential future uses. It would be absolutely inappropriate to have information retained because of potential future uses. Information being retained needs to be retained because there is a purpose in mind, not because we might be able to think of a future purpose. While I have agreed with the Minister on the points on the security of the State, criminal investigation and so forth, I am concerned about overreach regarding the use of such data.

I am conscious of an equivalent example, which we flagged as a data-protection concern at the time in question. The Minister might recall the issue of the public service card and the fact that data were being retained on the movement across the State of those with free travel. That was an example of a blanket provision and blanket retention, which again was a matter of concern.

The purpose should be clear. Positing a potential future purpose is not adequate in itself without it being named. It is sufficient that the Minister would have the power to regulate in this area, and a blanket provision is too much. We might just disagree on that one.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.