Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

As we stated on Committee Stage, amendment No. 20 in this group advocates a small but possibly significant change. It appears from the current wording of section 37(4) that the processing of personal data in the public interest would be possible without being specified in regulations made by a Minister. In such circumstances, who would decide what constituted the public interest and who would process the data in the public interest? This is a significant point as the understanding of what constitutes the public interest is important to several sections of the Bill. The amendment is an attempt to make processing in the public interest explicitly dependent on regulations. We advocate changing the word "may" in subsection (4) to "shall" to avoid any confusion; in other words, ministerial regulations would be mandatory for this type of data processing.

On amendment No. 62, as a result of amendments agreed to on Committee Stage in both the Dáil and the Seanad, section 50 has changed somewhat. At one point, the section, as amended in the Seanad, would have required that the Data Protection Commissioner to undertake an impact assessment before a Minister could introduce a regulation. We accept that this requirement would have compromised the independence of the Data Protection Commissioner. To maintain the independence of the commissioner, the amendments we introduced on Committee Stage proposed that the data protection officer in the relevant public authority should instead conduct an impact assessment. As the amendment was defeated, we have introduced another proposal in amendment No. 62 similar to the proposals we introduced on Committee Stage which met with some success. This is an important section as it provides for the processing of special categories of personal data, for example, political opinion, ethnicity and sexual orientation, and doing so in the name of a substantial public interest. We should have a very high threshold for invoking this type of processing.

Amendment No. 62 is designed to provide checks and balances for future regulations. Like most legislation, the Bill gives the Minister considerable power to introduce future regulations. It is difficult not to be concerned about what this or another Government might introduce via regulations given the Government's recent attitude to data rights.

Amendment No. 81 is self-explanatory and intended to achieve a similar outcome. It is an attempt to introduce a proportionality clause to section 59, given the nature of the section in permitting the restriction of the rights of data subjects for the objectives of the general public interest.

With amendment No. 79 we are trying to establish a requirement that the Minister provide a written rationale should he or she seek to introduce restrictions to the rights and obligations to which the section refers.

Of course, I understand that such restrictions may be necessary in certain circumstances, but it is a reasonable request and would not be unworkable that such a written rationale would be put before the Houses. We are talking here only about the so-called important objectives of general public interest, other than those listed in paragraphs (a) to (n), inclusive, of subsection (7).

See this speech in context