Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 8 would make the following change: "In page 10, line 38, after “persons” to insert “, following notification to the prescription holder”." We recognise that he Minister has gone some way to addressing the farmers in respect of data processing. They tell us that concerns remain, however.

The power invested in the Minister under section 7 is quite broad. The section outlines the persons with whom information held on the national database may be shared and, in some cases, why that information will be shared with them. The questions that naturally arise in this regard relate to what type of data will be shared. Will it be on individual farmers, as requested by those referenced? Will they be aggravated data? The approach outlined here strikes me as very blunt. The "as needed" style actually goes against the spirit of the GDPR. Data is rightfully gathered for purposes. We must be clear that it is only used for that purpose. At the very least, farmers are entitled to know with whom their information is being shared. This should be fairly straightforward in an electronic system. If a farmer's information is transferred to another authority, he or she would simply receive a notification that it has occurred and, ideally, he or she would be told why that was the case.

A particular area of concern might be around the clause related to Bord Bia and quality assurance, for example. The language used is "for the purpose of quality assurance inspections and processes." People need to receive an undertaking that Bord Bia will engage with farmers directly and seek permission to utilise their data in this way if that is being sought. The Chair will recall that during the Second Stage debate, I queried whether a data protection impact assessment had been carried out. I would welcome if the Minister could confirm that has been done.