John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This morning, during Question Time, the Minister rhymed off examples of how the PSC is so convenient, citing the 70,000 citizens who used the card to apply for passports while failing to mention the fact that they had no choice but to apply for the card if they wanted to get passport. Other examples cited included further services that could not be accessed without a card, including SUSI, the National Driver Licence Service and the national childcare scheme. It is not so much choosing the public services card for convenience but rather having no other option. It was in no way convenient for people needing to apply for a passport to first have to apply for and wait to get a PSC and it did not result in their application being processed any faster; moreover, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has stated that introducing the card as a mandatory requirement for all passport applications would have a "significant negative impact" on processing times.

I welcome the move by that Department to remove the card as a requirement to apply for a passport, as was the case in some instances. The Department clearly does not share the confidence of the Minister and the Taoiseach in the legality of the card beyond social welfare supports. I also welcome the Taoiseach’s comments that the card will not be a requirement under the new national childcare scheme. I understand the Department of Children and Youth Affairs is exploring an alternative to the card, albeit late in the day. The Minister might be content with the position she has taken but other Departments are clearly not as content.

Every time she talks about the card, she mentions high levels of satisfaction based on a survey of 1,000 people. This tiny sample equates to "strong public support" according to the Minister but a survey does not excuse illegality. Convenience is not an excuse for the Government to violate a citizen's right to privacy. Popularity is irrelevant when required use of the card has been found to be illegal outside the Minister's Department. The Department has argued to the DPC that there is"no evidence of dissatisfaction with the SAFE process and public services card" but this is contradicted by the Data Protection Commissioner in her report and a long list of media reports. The Minister knows that this statement is untrue. Her Department received complaints, along with the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Foreign Affairs and Trade, and issues came to light with citizens who were adopted and who were unable to access the card without providing an adoption certificate. There were long delays for people applying for the card in order to be able to apply for another service. Instead of making access to public services easier, the card excluded people from accessing basic public services and cut people off from their legal entitlements where they did not have a public services card.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the despicable attitude of the Minister and her Department towards the Data Protection Commissioner by threatening legal proceedings when she did not get her way on seeking additional time to respond to the draft report. The Minister sent 470 scanned pages to the commission as a response and has continuously raised the fact that the commissioner has refused to meet her as requested to discuss the report. She has been corresponding with the Data Protection Commissioner on the matter for over two years. We have seen the correspondence and the Minister was given the opportunity to respond to her findings in the draft report. It was not enough and nothing provided to the commissioner made a difference to her findings. It is clear she has no intention on backing down from her position and I hope she knows the consequences if she is wrong.

The Minister has stated that her only option is to appeal any enforcement notice issued by the Data Protection Commissioner, which is fundamentally wrong. It will expose the taxpayer to serious financial penalties and legal costs. There is another logical option available, which is to abide by the findings of the commissioner.

See this speech in context