Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I was not in the Chamber when the Minister opened the debate, but I listened to what she said. In some of it she repeated mantras about access to public services. However, it is important to note what the Data Protection Commissioner said that instead of it being an enabler for citizens to receive their entitlements, the public services card was being used as an impediment. We need to pay attention to this.

The Minister also said it was not a national identity card. If it will be required to apply for public services - it may have other uses, something highlighted by the Data Protection Commissioner i it will de factobecome a national identity card by stealth. If we are to have a national identity card, let us have a debate on the issue and consider the legislation that would be required. The report sets out clearly that there is no legal underpinning for the card.

The card features a chip, yet no public sector body has invested in technology capable of reading it. There may be incorrect information on the card, yet people are not in control of this information that is being held on them by public bodies. Anyone seeking a public services card must provide forms of identification such as utility bills. That is understandable. What is not understandable is the Department's need or desire to hold onto these validation documents instead of destroying them. As data controllers, we are all required to destroy information we do not require.

Fears about what data might be held on file by the Department are very real and well founded. Today's society is acutely aware of the value of data and the importance of being digitally aware. This is National Fraud Prevention Week during which there have been advertisements on television and radio warning people to be careful with their data.

I have asked about 70 questions about this issue in the past few years and engaged with the Minister in the House on various aspects of it. There is a feeling a dismissive attitude has been taken towards concerns that have been raised by me and others and which were subsequently raised in the Data Protection Commissioner's report. We await hearing the Data Protection Commissioner's view on whether photographs and how they are taken and stored are biometric data.

The job of legislators is to look below the surface. The card might be presented as being useful in accessing public services, but what if something goes wrong? That is where our scrutiny is important. State bodies are key targets for hacks and data breaches as they possess so much valuable data on citizens. We need the upmost security in that regard. Holding onto data that are not necessary is part of this question. We must also be mindful of the State's exposure for losses incurred. Has a contingency amount been set aside if the State is exposed? What consideration was given to this aspect of the scheme?

I reiterate points raised by others, including the dissatisfaction felt by people who believed they had no choice. To use the Minister's words, it might not have been compulsory but it was mandatory. People cannot access services in the Department of Employment and Social Protection without it.

It is mandatory from that point of view but it is not compulsory to have it. It is not compulsory if one does not want the payments. This is a serious report that has been presented. The Data Protection Commissioner has been hugely undermined by the Department's response and this has a long way to play out.

See this speech in context