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

I was speaking to the amendments in the first instance and on those specific issues. My officials advise that as this matter is not pertinent to the Bill, it referred to the Minister for Justice and Equality. Rather than me discussing an issue with which I am not familiar - this is the first I have heard of it - my officials will refer it to the Minister.

On the point made by the previous speaker, this Bill relates to data sharing and governance. It is about the sharing of information between public bodies. We have had a great deal of interaction on the legislation in this House, at the relevant committee and in the Seanad. My officials were available to discuss the Bill long before it was brought before the Dáil. It was discussed at length with Opposition spokespersons and other Members, including Deputies Cowen, Calleary, Jonathan O'Brien, Wallace and Clare Daly. I am unsure whether Deputy Burton availed of the opportunity to be briefed on the Bill. We have not had any interaction with her on the floor of the Dáil in respect of it.

To be clear, I am not taking responsibility for public services cards. That matter is not dealt with in the Bill. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is not assuming responsibility for public services cards. Responsibility for these cards remains with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, as was the case when Deputy Burton was Minister. We are making no changes in respect of public services cards. These cards are not referred to in the Bill, with the exception of a reference in section 7 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. We are not changing the latter either.

As to some of the other contributions, the Bill does not dilute the GDPR in any way. As I have stated in both Houses previously, the GDPR is specifically acknowledged and referred to in a number of sections. In any event, everything that we do in the context of data sharing must have regard to the GDPR.

I am amused in some ways by Deputy Wallace's summation of my powers and what I, like Mystic Meg, might have been able to do in the context of bringing the Bill back to the House. My powers do not extend to what he was referring to a while ago when he stated that it is somehow miraculous that we are here again.

There has been a great deal of interaction and engagement since the previous occasion on which the Bill was debated in the Dáil. That is a good thing because it provided me with an opportunity to go through the implications of the amendment to section 7 to which Deputy Clare Daly, who obviously read the transcript of the debate in the Seanad, referred. Section 7(6) states, "A specified body may not make presentation of a public services card or access to a person’s public service identity the exclusive basis ...". We had to take the advice of the Attorney General on that matter. The Deputy acknowledged previously that some people may not choose to engage with the system. As I informed her at the time, if a person chooses not to engage with the system - for example, in the context of interaction with the Revenue Commissioners, matters relating to penalty points or accepting jury duty - I have to be confident that the system which will come into place upon enactment of this Bill will not have a negative consequence in respect of any other service for which there is a necessity to verify people's identities. If I would to allow the Bill to proceed in its current format, I could not do that. I have to take cognisance of the impact it could potentially have on the delivery of services, whether that is in the calling up of a jury - where a person may not choose to engage with the system - or in the delivery of basic social welfare payments. There was acknowledgement in the Seanad that the Attorney General's advice, which is predicated on section 262(5) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and which I have relayed to the Dáil and the Upper House, is based on that.

The reason we are bringing forward this Bill is because of the data regime and the potentially illegal way in which data is currently handled. We did not want a situation where there would be any question of illegality or any semblance of an issue where the Government or the State would not be able to stand over it. As I pointed out previously, data is currently being shared between organisations but there is not legal basis for this.

The Bill also provides for the data portal whereby people can access their data to see how it is being handled and who else has accessed it. This matter was discussed in detail on Committee Stage and on Report Stage.

The public services card is still the same today as it was yesterday; there is no change to it whatsoever. Responsibility for public services cards has not migrated to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

I have covered most of the points raised. The final comment I wish to make relates to the basis upon which we have made our decision - this is extremely important decision, in respect of the specified bodies that are referred to. We must ensure that what we are seeking to do is not in conflict with the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 in any way. We have been very clear that this is not our intent. As stated previously, both here and in the Seanad, the Bill does not specify how Departments or agencies should do their business. It is a matter for them and their line Ministers, in the context of individual items of legislation, to decide how they will collect information in the future and to address how they collected it in the past. The Bill is purely about dealing with how that information, when it is collected, is relayed from public body A to public body B, the level of oversight that will be in place and how people can access their data in order to see what is being done with it. The Bill does nothing other than that. It does not change the position relating to public services cards. It does nothing with regard to altering responsibility for those cards, diluting the position in respect of them, specifying their use in the context of the free travel scheme or anything of that nature.

Having reflected on the matter with the Attorney General and taken soundings from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, it has been necessary for us to make these amendments. I have had a lot of engagement in respect of the Bill. The officials in the Department have opened their doors to everybody. Some have chosen to engage while others have not, which is their prerogative. I have nothing further to add.

See this speech in context