Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, this is a monster group of amendments that covers a lot of different aspects of GDPR rights and sections that could open us up to fines and legal proceedings, so I must take some time on this. The potential of exposing Members to that was the reason for siding with the Minister with regard to our previous amendment to an earlier section. They are very important aspects.

I will speak on amendment No. 25. The new section inserted by the Government on Committee Stage designates direct marketing by politicians, as long as it is in writing, as being carried out as a task in the public interest. It is highly questionable that a politician perpetuating his or her existence and inflicting it on anybody else could be legitimately defined as "in the public interest". It is completely unnecessary. Politicians and political candidates can already rely on the legitimate interest ground in the GDPR. Artificially designating written communication, which could include text messages from politicians, as being "in the public interest" when they could rely on the legitimate interest ground could cause problems because it takes away some of the obligation we have to balance the rights of citizens and the rights of politicians. This is why we have tabled amendment No. 25, which proposes to delete the odd public interest designation. We believe it is unnecessary. Politicians can already communicate and it is already lawful.

We must, however, take into account the fact that in the 2011 election, the then Data Protection Commissioner, Mr. Billy Hawkes, received many complaints about politicians' unsolicited text messages. Unlike the old data protection legislation, section 38 of this Bill would allow for that. We are weakening citizens' position in that regard.

Deputy Thomas Byrne's amendments would make the situation worse. He is extending the definition of "electoral activities" and referring to communications with party memberships, but since the latter are allowed for under the GDPR on a range of grounds, the amendment is unnecessary. The Deputy is proposing that fundraising and political surveys could be deemed to be in the public interest. That would make it lawful for a political party to send me an email every day for the rest of my life looking for money. I would have no legal way of making it stop.

See this speech in context