Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome some of the signals the Minister has given in respect of employment. It is very clear that poor employment practices create a cost for the State. Not only do they deny revenue but they also create huge pressure in respect of supplementary payments. I understand she is addressing those. I urge her to engage with the ideas that come from many other Opposition groups, which have made some very good proposals. In the past the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, has been willing to engage constructively with Opposition proposals. For example, there is a valid concern in respect of the 12 months versus 18 months. The Minister should be open to engaging because there is cross-party concern on these issues and I believe we can move forward on them.

Does the Minister believe she will be able to contribute in some way to the right to work for those in direct provision? While there has been a small increase in payment, a key step would be to move on the right to work, especially given the ruling.

I have some interest and background in the EU semester processes. I would like to engage with the Minister on that separately. I will give some thought to that process.

Points have been made about the difficulty of living on fixed income. Those difficulties are compounded by persons with a disability in terms of the costs they can face. I strongly endorse some of the work done, for example, by the Vincentian Partnership on minimum essential standards of living, to which the Minister has indicated sensitivity and which consider the real costs different cohorts of people face. People on different payments may have very different costs and we need to address that.

I wish to signal two issues of concern to which I believe the committee will return. There are many questions on the public service card. I will not now go into all the concerns over identity cards, the data breaches which have been covered, the question of biometrics or even some of the concerns over costs and benefits. However, I believe the committee may end up looking at them. I certainly believe the committee will want to know both the responses the Minister and her Department may send to the Data Protection Commissioner and to be assured the latter is satisfied with the responses given. I will flag two issues of concern. One is the important legal principle that if a person gives data for a specific purpose, consent for other usage cannot be assumed. If an individual shares data with the Department and legislation subsequently adds new specified bodies, there is a question as to whether the person can be assumed to have given consent to use of those data by these subsequently added bodies.

Another key concern is why we are effectively rushing this process. I know we will be told it started in 2005, but there appears to be a rush to issue almost 3 million cards just months before the new EU general data protection regulation, GDPR, will come into force in May 2018. I believe we are rolling this out in a somewhat heavy-handed manner just before these new regulations come in. I may share an interesting article with the Minister on the matter. Based on legal opinions, the way it is being done at the moment seems to be contrary to the spirit and letter of the GDPR. There is a question whether data are freely given when there is pressure, for example, on someone's income, someone's freedom to travel or someone's education being in the balance.

We only received correspondence from the Minister this morning in respect of the forced restructuring of the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, and the citizens information services, CIS. That letter reiterates the same line we have heard from the Citizens Information Board, CIB. People have written to the committee and the Department indicating that this has shaken their faith in the democratic process. There has been an overwhelming vote by the Dáil, and a very clear and detailed report from this committee. MABS and CIS representatives have been very clear that this restructuring has been thrust upon them. There are many other outstanding concerns but consultation after the fact has been largely inadequate and covers implementation rather than the actual restructuring.

In her response, the Minister has indicated that she has a mandate in respect of policy direction but not in regard to a specific decision such as the restructuring of CIB's governance arrangements. However, in our analysis the committee was clear that this is a question of policy direction, which contradicts clear Department policy statements made previously, for example the assurances made when MABS was integrated with the CIS and previous policy statements on the CIS. It is a matter of policy and not a matter of day-to-day administration. It does not relate to the CIB's governance arrangements but to the governance arrangements of numerous independent boards. It is effectively a decision to exert financial pressure on those boards to dissolve themselves. This cannot be seen as a day-to-day issue; it is an exceptional thing. It is also a pressure on them because clearly these are independent boards and are not part of CIB. The CIB is deciding to exert pressure on those boards, which is a policy decision.