Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 36, to delete lines 17 and 18 and substitute the following:

“him or her to—

(I) make representations to the controller in relation to the decision,

(II) request human intervention in the decision-making process,

(III) request to appeal the decision.

(2) In the case of requests made under subsection 1(b)(ii) or (iii) the controller shall—

(a) comply with the request, and

(b) notify the data subject in writing of—

(i) the steps taken to comply with the request, and

(ii) in the case of an appeal under section 1(b)(iii), the outcome of the appeal.”.

Article 22.1 of the GDPR specifically states that people should not be subjected to automated decision-making, which it describes as "profiling". The GDPR provides member states with possible exemptions and Article 22.2(b) is different from (a) and (c) in the sense that there does not seem to be a provision in (c) for a data subject's right to obtain human intervention on behalf of the controller. I also accept the fact that section 54 of the Bill refers to suitable and specific measures and, therefore, the toolbox of safeguards. I accept that automated decision-making might be necessary at times but we are uncomfortable with blanket, catch-all, automated decision-making. In the Seanad debate, the Minister talked about the unintended consequences of amending this section in line with our amendment, suggesting it would facilitate wrongdoing and fraud. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this.

One of the problems with this section of the Bill is that it is not specific in any way on the matter of automated decision-making. It gives the power to introduce automated decision-making in a whole host of cases and we feel this may alienate certain vulnerable people from the institutions of the State. I do not know if anybody has seen the film "I, Daniel Blake" by Ken Loach, which would remind one of the issue in this case.