Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I do not for a minute question any Deputy’s view about the spirit of what we are trying to achieve here. We all are trying to achieve, as Deputy Murnane O’Connor just said, the full access to and the full release of all information. However, I do not believe the change being proposed in this amendment furthers that goal. I think it actually restricts that goal.

Deputy Funchion spoke about the broadest definition of personal data but here we are providing a definition of personal data. It is a lengthy one and I will talk about its length in a moment, but the amendment is providing a definition that will be in this legislation and the only way that definition can be changed is if this legislation is amended. What the legislation currently does is include a definition of personal data which is defined as the EU defines it, as the European Court of Justice cases evolve the definition of personal data. We are referring to the use of personal data in the GDPR and that is interpreted by the European Court of Justice. If that court changes the definition through its case law, the definition of personal data that we use changes as well. What this amendment seeks to do is to provide a definition of personal data for this legislation and while it is lengthy, it is conclusive and the only way of changing it is to bring forward amending legislation. This means that the definition of personal data in this legislation may start to diverge from the most up-to-date interpretation of personal data as per decisions of the European Court of Justice. I do not think that is a position we want to be in. We do not want to see Irish law start to diverge from European Court of Justice jurisprudence, particularly when it comes to a definition of personal data that is central to what the GDPR is all about. That is why I am opposing this amendment. I do not believe this particular change should be made.

As I said, the definition in the amendment is lengthy, with 46 different sections but the majority of these are already covered by the definitions contained in the legislation. The definitions of birth, early life, care, medical information and provided items cover the majority of those 46 listed types of personal information proposed in the amendment. However, the list of 46 also contains items of information that do not pertain to the relevant person. As Deputy Cairns said, this is all about ensuring that information pertaining to the relevant person is available to them but some of those points are not pertaining to the relevant person. They are pertaining to others and that is not something we can include in the definition of personal data.

We want our definition, the definition we use in this legislation, to be able to expand as the definition from the European Court of Justice expands as well but this amendment would restrict that. I do not think that is something any of us wants to do and on that basis, I will be opposing the amendment.

See this speech in context