Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 54 is merely a drafting amendment that seeks to insert the word "detecting" after the word "preventing", which will have the effect of bringing the wording into line with provisions elsewhere in the Bill. I note the point made by the Chairman regarding amendments Nos. 54 and 55. In any event, I am unable to accept amendments Nos. 52, 53, 55 and 56 and I shall give my reasons.

Amendment No. 53, in section 38, has a provision for the processing of personal data for certain public interest purposes for which the data were originally collected but only to the extent that such processing is necessary for and proportionate to the purpose, and that acts very much as a restrictor. The position is as follows. Statutory provisions that permit, or require, further notification or disclosure of personal data are to be found right across the Acts of the Oireachtas.

Let me give a brief example. Section 42 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010 refers to a range of designated persons such as financial institutions, auditors and property service providers who know, may suspect or may have reasonable grounds to suspect, on the basis of information that they have that another person has been or is engaged in an offence of money laundering or terrorist financing. Of course there is an obligation that such knowledge or suspicion on those grounds be reported not only to the Garda but also to Revenue.

Under sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, it is an offence to withhold any information on offences referred to in that Act. The Children First Act 2015 requires a range of mandated persons, including health practitioners, teachers and youth workers, who know, believe or suspect that a child has been harmed, is being harmed or, indeed, is at risk of being harmed, to report that to Tusla.

I am sure that committee members would agree that the public interest in such cases should not in any way be jeopardised or compromised. This section provides an effective and appropriate safeguard in the words "necessary and proportionate". I cannot accept the proposals in amendments Nos. 52 and 56 to remove the reference to special categories of personal data in section 38 and add a new section. Neither can I accept insertion of the words “having regard to the fundamental rights and legitimate interests of the data subject” as an addition in amendment No. 54, because this would place an additional burden on, for example, a youth worker reporting suspected harm to a child or perhaps even a bank official reporting his or her suspicion that certain transactions may from time to time be linked to money laundering or illegal activity.

I see where Deputy Daly is coming from but I think there are adequate safeguards. If I were to accept her amendments, I would be jeopardising long-standing obligations on persons.