Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 27, lines 5 and 6, to delete all words from and including “Protection,” in line 5 down to and including line 6 and substitute the following:

“Protection.”.

This section provides for the sharing of data and exchange for the "purposes of assisting the courts in the collection of fines." It details how the Revenue Commissioners, the Minister for Social Protection and "such person as may be prescribed . . . shall provide the courts with any information in their possession or control which the court may require in order to fulfil its functions in relation to the payment and recovery of fines."

I am concerned by the provision which includes the words "such person as may be prescribed". I am not sure what it means. It is massively open to change and even interpretation. As all public representatives should be concerned with the protection of citizens' data, the Bill should strictly limit the sharing of information, in this case on fines.

I am particularly concerned about the sharing of information which could impact on a person who must pay a fine. Some information, for example on his or her personal possessions, could be shared with the court which would then share it with the receiver. For example, a person's personal details of, say, his or her property, which could then be seized by someone entering his or her house, should never be shared in this way. It is unfair, unjust and an infringement on a person's purely private life. Section 23 needs to be amended and the phrase "such persons as may be prescribed" deleted in order that "relevant person" will be limited to the Revenue Commissioners and the Minister for Social Protection. That makes common sense. As legislators, we must protect a person's basic rights in terms of his or her private business and data protection and not leave a very ambiguous phrase in legislation, which is always dangerous. With this amendment, the limits would be much more strictly defined, meaning that a person's basic rights would be much better protected. Only the Minister for Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners should provide information of relevance on a person. In broad terms, that would mean a person's tax status or if he or she was receiving social welfare payments. In the legislation we should aim to limit it to this. I, therefore, urge the Minister of State to accept this very sensible amendment which would result in a much better definition of terms and the better protection of personal data. I am concerned about the term "such person as may be prescribed". It is too wide and open and should not be left as vague and wide as this.