Alex White (Dublin South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

With respect, Deputy Ó Caoláin is, again, completely misunderstanding what is proposed. In regard to the protection of privacy and how data are dealt with, I refer Deputies to the data protection legislation, in particular the Data Protection Act 1988, section 2 of which relates to the collection, processing, keeping, use and disclosure of personal data; section 3 which relates to the right to establish the existence of personal data; section 4 which deals with a person's right of access; section 5 which deals with restriction of right of access; section 6 which deals with right of rectification or erasure if something is wrong; section 7 which deals with duty of care owed by data controllers and processors; section 8 which deals with disclosure of personal data in certain cases and section 9 which deals with the commissioner. There are extensive provisions in the 1988 Act, as amended in the 2003 Act, which address the problems referred to by Deputy Ó Caoláin.

We are not taking away the protections in place in respect of protection of citizens' data. We are not asking the House to amend the data protection legislation. All of the justifiable protections in respect of privacy that currently exist in law for data, including access to it, the right to have it altered and dealt with in particular ways, remain in place. There are no changes in that regard. The data protection legislation, which is good legislation, will remain in place if the House passes this legislation.

An individual's rights with respect to his or her data are dealt with extensively in the data protection legislation in terms of when one can have access to it, the circumstances of having access, who can keep it and when they can keep it. That is provided in legislation. We are not taking that away.

Deputy Kelleher made a fair point about people's knowledge of this and whether they should be informed of it. It is good practice that public bodies, in particular, should indicate to individual citizens that their application is subject to data protection legislation. That is the practice in regard to applications for medical cards. Applicants are told that their application is subject to the potential for data exchange. It is quite right that they should be told that. There is not a provision that an individual citizen should in all circumstances be asked for his or her consent. No such provision is being put forward in this legislation, nor has Deputy Kelleher, in his amendments, suggested that.

As I understand the Deputy's amendments, he wants to remove sensitive personal data from the remit of the data that can be exchanged. He is probably happy enough with the inclusion of personal data but I think what he is seeking is the removal of sensitive personal data. That is the way I read his amendments. However, I am not prepared to divide up personal data and sensitive personal data. Subsection (9) provides 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." I understand Deputy Kelleher seeking to remove the reference to sensitive personal data, but I am not sure if he wants to take the references to all personal data. I am not quite sure what his intention is, but in any event it would not be acceptable to the Government that we would do so because it would change the entire sense and intention of the section. I respectfully say that it would make it unworkable.

I return to the point, and respectfully also say to Deputy Ó Caoláin, that the protections are in place in respect of how this can be used. Deputy Ó Caoláin said that there is no restriction, that any of this data can be sought and used in any way, but it cannot. It can only be used where the body seeking it requires it for the purpose indicated, as against seeking it in the generalised way suggested whereby it could ask for it and use it for any reason under the sun. It can only be used when it requires the personal data for the purpose of accessing or reviewing. It is a reasonable interpretation of that phrase to say that the data must be necessary in order that the body can carry out its function of accessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons or services. It must be referrable to a particular task the HSE is required to carry out, namely, the accessing or reviewing of the eligibility of persons. It cannot be in any sense a gratuitous seeking of information or data. It seems that no reasonable reading of the section, as proposed, could conceivably lead to the conclusion that there would gratuitous seeking or exchange of data for some improper, excessive or unnecessary purpose, as has been suggested.

Deputy Kelleher referred at the outset to the time allocated for the debate and used that phrase we often hear used in these Houses to describe the passage of legislation, namely, that it is being rammed through. There are some circumstances where the use of the phrase "rammed through" might be justifiable. If legislation is being put through in a period of hours, it might be conceivably reasonable to say that something is being rammed through the Houses. However it is not fair or reasonable to say that this legislation is being rammed through the Houses. It was a subject to a Second Stage debate last week, which as far as I can recall finished before the time allotted to it. There has been an opportunity for Deputies to submit amendments and Deputies have done so.

In respect of stakeholders, these announcements in respect of the intention with regard to the eligibility limits were made at budget time. There has been an opportunity, quite properly, for interested bodies and advocacy groups to make their views known publicly, as I know they have. I do not accept that this legislation is being rammed through in the manner that is being suggested.

I would tentatively make the point, as I do not want to fall out with anybody, that the issues in this Bill are fairly net. I do not think that they are of huge complexity; they are relatively net in terms of the eligibility limits. There is the additional provision in respect of data exchange, which everybody seems to think is a good idea, although there is a quibble about the particular data involved. I would respectfully say that we have given this legislation a good airing. We have time to give it some more airing if need be.

It is not fair either to say that sweeping powers are being afforded to anyone, as Deputy Kelleher has said. They are not sweeping powers; they are entirely in line with what is in the data protection legislation. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) carefully circumscribe, define and delineate the circumstances where the data can be exchanged. In addition, there is the protection of the necessary involvement of the Data Protection Commissioner who must be consulted with regard to any exchange agreement before it is entered into or varied.

See this speech in context