Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

At the heart of the amendments is the idea that the once-only collection of data that the Government is proposing seems to be justified solely on the grounds of so-called efficiency. It is not really clear for whom it is efficient. If one boils things down to basics, the Bill has two main goals, namely, to provide a legal basis for public bodies to share data among each other and to set down safeguards for the individuals whose data are being shared. The latter aspect concerns governance. While the Government has spent quite some time thinking about the sharing aspect, our key concern boils down to the fact that the governance aspect does not seem to be as well developed. That is potentially a great problem for the State as it could result in litigation in the years ahead.

One of the arguments for the sharing aspect is that having to give details to every public service body with which one has to interact every time one signs up is an absolute pain. Sharing is pitched as something to make it super-handy for everybody such that he or she will not have to bother submitting information as the relevant bodies will already have it. Not everybody will be of that view. Everybody agrees that Google, for example, is a really handy search engine, but it happens to do worrying and intrusive things with one's data. Many might say they are happy with the trade-off and that it does not really bother them all that much, which is grand. Those people are not affected by anything we are doing here. For most people, the trade-off is worth it, but it is not for everybody. If the Government was trying to implement a system whereby we all had to use Google by law and accept the privacy trade-off, it would be pretty extreme and outrageous and there would be a big outcry. However, that is what the Government is trying to do in opposing our amendments. It is not really that different. The Government is stating that if one wants to use public services, one must sacrifice control of one's private data. Many could not care less and that is a trade-off they would be happy to make, but some would care and Irish and European law is on their side. We are setting ourselves up for a hiding to nothing if our amendments are not accepted.

We have heard the Government state previously that the ability to opt out is not necessary because people have a right to object after their data have been shared. That is a little late. It is after the damage has been done, which is not sufficient.

Private data are best understood as a form of private property, of which I had believed Fine Gael Deputies, in particular, would have been very fond. If we use this as a metaphor, data are really like a private house. What the single customer view does is give the keys of one's house to hundreds of people and tells them they can come in any time they like without being asked. Our amendments are trying to state: "You can have a copy of our keys and that it is very nice of you to come in and feed the cats while I am away, but I would rather you did not share my keys with everybody else without asking me first from now on." That is not a huge ask and that is all we are seeking. It is eminently reasonable. The Government has stated it might be a little costly to implement what we propose, but we are only talking about small numbers because most will accept the trade-off for convenience. As I stated, however, not everyone will accept it, but the numbers will not be considerable.

It is extremely likely that down the line the Government will be forced to give people an opt-out, whether on foot of an individual case being taken to the Europe court or by the European Commission. It is far better that we address this issue now before more specified bodies come on board and rolling this back becomes even more expensive. Let us face it - that is what the Government is trying to do.

We saw the other week the consequences of the Government not listening when it was told that what it was doing was not legal and could not stand up. An example arose in the Graham Dwyer case. He won his case on the retention of mobile phone data. A former Chief Justice described the data retention and access system in Ireland as amounting to mass surveillance of the entire population and had told the Government to fix it, but it ignored him. The Data Protection Commissioner, in her 2017 annual report, said the retention of the current regime of access to telephone and Internet records by State agencies was not an option, but she was ignored also. Look where that mess got the Government. Why do we not avoid setting ourselves up for another huge mess down the road and correct the problems now by offering an opt-out for those who want one?

See this speech in context