Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am in Leinster House. I am substituting for Senator Lynn Ruane. The Minister will be aware from debates in the Seanad that Senator Ruane and I have strong concerns about the method of operation of the commission and especially about the confidential committee. I want to focus on two sets of concerns.

The Minister mentioned in his statement that he has no role or knowledge of the operational decisions taken by the commission. Does he expect that when these documents and the archive are transferred to him that he will, at that point, have knowledge of the operational decisions taken by the commission? Will he be given the answers or information that he needs about the processes employed by the commission in its work? I say that in the context of the serious concerns about the confidential committee and the actions and decisions it took, which may be in breach of section 31 of the 2004 Act. The 2015 statutory instrument that established the commission explicitly stated that the confidential commission should provide in its procedures for individuals who wish to have their identity remain confidential during the conduct of the commission. The commission should provide for a consent-based exception for those who wished confidentiality rather than having the imposition of privacy, which seems to have been the practice. In that context, will the Minister get the information that he needs? Is he confident about that? Will the Data Protection Commission get the answers that it needs about the processes?

I have mentioned the statutory instrument and the 2004 Act. The most crucial aspect of EU law and the GDPR is the right to consent in processing. Deletion is one of the strongest forms of processing in GDPR. The right to rectification is also crucial, as others on the committee have highlighted. Does the Data Protection Commission have the answers it needs from the commission of investigation? Does the Minister or will the Minister have the information that he needs from the commission? If he is not confident that he will have all of that information, does he not think that we may need to extend the terms so that the commission can be extended and be available to give that information as it might be required?

To follow on from Deputy Whitmore's point, he is in many cases receiving duplicates of at least half the files, which may not perhaps have been protected by him except for the changes that we made to the legislation. Could he not still get copies of the archive and maintain the commission for a period so that it is available to answer these important questions?