Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I support both amendments in Deputy Billy Kelleher's name. I did not submit amendments because I find the proposition of what the Bill sets out to do offensive. There are elements of it which I identified in my Second Stage contribution with which I agree and understand must progress, but these are coupled with the proposition that the medical card will be taken from 20,000 people who will be affected by the reduction in the threshold from €700 to €600 per week. The big question in my mind, given that the national service plan of the HSE signalled a 40,000 reduction in medical card numbers in the current year, is where do the other 20,000 people rest. Clearly, further steps will be taken by the Government. Is it prepared to advise if further legislation will be required to disempower a further 20,000 persons entitled to a full medical card?

In regard to these two amendments, section 8(9) states that, for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that references in this section to personal data shall include references to sensitive personal data. The Minister of State has indicated what the Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003 defines as sensitive personal data. It includes racial or ethnic origin, political opinions or religious or philosophical beliefs of the data subject, whether the data subject is a member of a trade union, the physical or mental health or condition or sexual life of the data subject, the commission or alleged commission of any offence by the data subject or any proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the data subject and the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings. What puzzles me is what the Minister is proposing to do. Why would the HSE require such information on any citizen or resident in this jurisdiction? It is beyond belief that the HSE, the responsibility of which is to provide for the physical or mental health of all who reside in the State, requires information of this girth on any one of us or on citizen or resident across the Twenty-six Counties, or that it should be protected in legislation in securing this information. It beggars belief. As I said, the HSE's remit covers physical or mental health. Obviously, the health status of a person is relevant but not the huge range of other categories covered.

Deputy Billy Kelleher referred to Big Brother. This is in the same vein as 1984 and any of the other references that describe this kind of state intrusion into the rights and personal integrity of every person. Where are the personal protections in regard to what the Bill provides for? Where are the rights to privacy upheld? They are being set aside in a bold and brazen way, as the wording makes very clear. It states, "for the avoidance of doubt", in case any of us thought otherwise. It is very bald, bold and clear and there is no doubt. I am not prepared to accept this.

The amendment tabled by Deputy Billy Kelleher is as it should be. The insertion of the word "not" is a requirement after the word "shall". I also support the amendment to section 8(10) in Part 3 for the same reasons I have explained.

See this speech in context