Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I cannot support amendment No. 289. The objective of it would appear to be to elaborate on the purpose of the contact preference register. However, the people for whom the register provides a service is already clearly outlined in section 38(3) and, as such, we feel this amendment has no material effect.

I also cannot accept amendment No. 290. The objective of the amendment is to maintain the existing national contact preference register. Again, we consider the amendment is unnecessary, as the transfer of the existing information that is on the existing register to the new contact preference register is already provided for in section 42. Section 42 enables the existence of a single contact preference register once the existing data have been transferred and six months have elapsed after the date on which the section comes into operation. Rather than creating no ambiguity, as was suggested, it would copper-fasten ambiguity, as we would have two contact preference registers in existence at the same time, so that would cause confusion, but it would also be a clear breach of the GDPR, in particular Article 25 on data protection by design and by default. Article 25 is clear that unnecessary data should not be retained. That is why we oppose the amendment.