Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This group of amendments seeks to provide protection for the DPO. The objective of the amendments is to ensure that he or she is able to carry out his or her functions independently and without inappropriate interference by senior management or the person who has appointed them. Not only will a DPO have the benefit and advantage of the protected disclosures legislation but he or she will also have the advantage of protection under employment law. If a DPO is dismissed for performing his or her functions, he or she is entitled to seek the protection of the court for wrongful or unfair dismissal or for constructive dismissal if his or her senior manager is preventing him or her from carrying out his or her functions as required.

I support amendment No. 86 but it does give an extraordinary level of protection to a DPO stating that he or she shall "not receive any instructions regarding the exercise of such functions". The objective is to try to ensure that a DPO is not inappropriately interfered with. We have also to recognise the possibility that DPOs who are incompetent, who do not perform their functions in an appropriate manner or who do not carrying them out in accordance with what their job requires will be appointed. Are they to be completely immune from any instructions from their supervisors to say they must carry out their functions in a competent and particular way?

Deputy Clare Daly's and Deputy Wallace's amendment No. 88 would give a DPO extraordinary protection. He or she could never be dismissed for performing his or her tasks. A situation might arise where a DPO is performing his tasks with extraordinary incompetence. Is he not to be dismissed because he is failing to perform his job competently? Providing that an officer shall not be dismissed would be an extraordinary power to insert and would make a DPO immovable.

On Deputy Ó Laoghaire's amendment No. 92, the objective of which is to try to ensure that the data protection officer is protected from inappropriate interference, duress, harassment or victimisation, all employees have protection under employment law from an employer who is imposing duress, harassment or victimisation upon them. I note the objective of the amendment and I support it, but I believe it would be unnecessary to include such a specific provision here when there are protections in place.

See this speech in context