Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 6 and 9. The two amendments, in the names of Deputies Wallace and Clare Daly, propose that a person be allowed to opt out of the once-only principle that a person need provide details only once for a public body. The once-only principle is only one of a list of purposes in section 13 of the Bill, at least one of which must be engaged for the data sharing to be permitted. If the amendments were to be agreed to and this were to be the only purpose on which a public body wa relying to share data, individuals would have to resubmit documents to public bodies, rather than enjoying the benefit of the once-only principle. For example, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance which is paid to almost 105,000 families requires no application to be made by beneficiaries.

Nobody in the House wants to see that collapse as a result of the amendments. A vulnerable family who opted out of the once-only principle would have to provide all of the information. Surely that is not what the House wants.

Let us take another example. When people die, their data need to be shared to update records throughout the public service. This ensures public bodies do not keep attempting to make contact, which can be very distressing for the relatives. I am sure that is not what Deputies want either, but it would be the net outcome of the amendments. It also reduces the likelihood of identity fraud occurring. If before he or she died, a person had opted out of the once-only principle, there would be no way to update their records automatically and prevent letters, emails and telephone calls from continuing to be made during what must be a very difficult time for any person's family. That is why we have included provision for the sharing of data of deceased persons in section 11 of the Bill.

Another example is the centenarians bounty paid to persons who reach the age of 100 years. Deputy Clare Daly referred to grounds of efficiency. Payment of the bounty requires the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection to provide details of persons approaching their 100th birthday for the President's Establishment. Under the amendments proposed, they would no longer be able to be provided. Those who would choose to opt out of the provision would be likely to miss out on receiving the bounty.

To ensure a person can be offered a third level place the CAO and QQI share personal data, including examination results. This is required to be done to determine eligibility for third level education courses. If people could opt out, how would they get into college if their results still needed to be verified?

The amendments would militate against the purpose of the Bill and the obligation placed on public bodies to provide an excellent and efficient service. They would also militate against the efficient and effective use of taxpayers' money by public bodies. I am sure the House does not intend that to be the outcome.

Amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Eamon Ryan would require the express consent of every person in each instance of data sharing. That would not be practical and it would impose a huge burden on people to provide consent every time they wanted to avail of a service that relies on data sharing. I have a few examples. I mentioned the back-to-school allowance. The scheme supports almost 105,000 families in providing clothing and footwear for almost 190,000 children. The payments are completely automated and require no application to be made. The net result of the amendment would put them in jeopardy. Does the Deputy want to create a situation where all 105,000 families would have to contact the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection to give their consent before the payments could be processed? How many children would be left out and what cost, burden and level of bureaucracy would be placed on the Department as a result?

Another example is the warmer homes scheme, with which I know that the Deputy is very familiar. It offers free energy efficiency upgrades to vulnerable families in receipt of welfare payments such as the fuel allowance. The Deputy is no doubt aware that one of the biggest barriers to the uptake of the scheme to retrofit housing stock is inertia. The paperwork involved is off-putting and results in non-participation. If the Bill is enacted, it will finally be possible for the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection to share data with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. The application of the once-only principle in this area will drive greater uptake of the scheme since it will make it more accessible to people by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and make it easy for the SEAI to offer upgrades to those who might not necessarily even know that they are eligible for the scheme. That will make a significant contribution to reducing our carbon emissions and lift vulnerable persons out of fuel poverty through the scheme. They may not necessarily be aware that they are eligible for it and they may find the bureaucracy involved burdensome. I presume the Deputy does not want to create new barriers of bureaucracy to the uptake of the scheme by requiring people to give their consent before the SEAI or the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection could share the information, but that would be the net result of the amendment.

I will refer to some of the situations in which it is inappropriate for public bodies to require people's consent to share their data. The local property tax involves data sharing between the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, local authorities and Revenue. Where a person did not give express consent for sharing to be undertaken, the property tax could not be collected. There is also application of penalty points to a person's driving licence, an issue with which Deputy Wallace will be very familiar as I had this discussion with him on Committee Stage. It requires information to be shared between the Courts Service and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. If consent was n ot given, penalty points could not be applied.

Every citizen aged 18 years or over whose name is on the register of electors can be called for jury duty. If consent was to be required for information on the electoral register to be shared with the courts, it would have a hugely detrimental effect on the judicial system. In fact, it would probably bring the criminal justice system to a virtual standstill. I know that the Members who have proposed the amendments do not want to see such a situation emerging. However - this is important because we had a lot of discussion on it in the Seanad - the net result of what is being proposed would be a virtual collapse of existing public services because information is already shared between public bodies, as Deputy Eamon Ryan knows as a former Cabinet Minister. The net result of his amendment and the amendments proposed by Deputies Wallace and Clare Daly would be to remove legal certainty that this can happen. The net result of the amendments would be the virtual collapse of the criminal justice system, while aspects of the clothing and footwear allowance scheme would become questionable. Access to schemes that some find burdensome and bureaucratic would be further away, while our carbon footprint would be even bigger. I am sure Deputy Ryan would not want to have his name attached to something that put barriers between people and a sustainable energy carbon reducing scheme.

See this speech in context