Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

In that case, I misunderstood the Deputy. As the Deputy knows, this is clearly set out in the amending legislation of 2003. I do not believe the definition was in the principal Act. In any event, it is in legislation. Lest anybody is tempted to imagine for a moment that we are just bringing in the definition, he or she should note that personal data and sensitive personal data are already understood and clearly defined in statute. There is no danger of inappropriate, excessive, officious or extensive use of personal data being licensed in this legislation, as the precise opposite is the case. I again draw the attention to the House to subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 8. Subsection (1) provides that the HSE may request the Minister for Social Protection or the Revenue Commissioners to furnish it with personal data held by that Minister or the Revenue Commissioners, as the case may be, when the HSE requires the personal data for the purpose of assessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons for services provided under the Health Acts 1970 to 2013. Subsection (2) provides that the Minister for Social Protection may request the HSE to furnish to him or her with personal data held by the HSE when he or she requires the personal data for the purpose of calculating the means of persons to assess or review entitlements. Similarly, subsection (3) provides that the Revenue Commissioners may request the HSE to provide personal data held by the HSE when the Revenue Commissioners requires the personal data for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty or other charge payable. Therefore, the basis upon which the respective bodies may request data of one another is clearly circumscribed in the Bill, such that there may be a request only where the body requires the data for the purpose of assessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons - for example, in the case of the HSE. Therefore, there can be no suggestion whatsoever that the Bill will lead to anything like what is being suggested in respect of 1984 and personal data flying around the place willy-nilly. This is simply not borne out in the plain terms of the Bill.

Subsection (6) provides that a data exchange agreement may be varied by the parties to the agreement, while subsection (7) states that the HSE shall consult the Data Protection Commissioner in relation to a data exchange agreement before it is entered into or varied. The House should be aware that there will be a requirement for advance consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner in respect of any data sharing or exchange agreement between any of the bodies involved. The Data Protection Commissioner is very much at the heart of the proposal. Consultation with the Commissioner is not optional but mandatory. The HSE shall consult the Data Protection Commissioner in relation to a data exchange agreement before it is entered into or varied.

An issue arose regarding the consent of individuals. An extensive amount of data is held right across the State by all kinds of bodies, both public and private. The reason we have data protection legislation is to protect that data from improper use. It is very important and necessary legislation. The role played by the Data Protection Commissioner is crucial, and it will not change by virtue of this legislation. What we are simply doing is introducing what I understood everybody believed was a good provision, that is, a provision in law for data exchange. We are embedding in the legislation additional protections or at least clarifying the basis upon which the data may be sought. It can only be done where it is necessary or when, for example, "the HSE requires the personal data for the purpose of assessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons for services provided under the Health Acts 1970 to 2013". Therefore, we should not suggest that data are being cast about the place or sought for officious, irrelevant, improper or inappropriate purposes, be the circumstances akin to those in 1984 or otherwise. This simply does not arise; the very contrary is the case in respect of what is being set out.

See this speech in context