Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We will also be opposing this amendment. There is definitely something going on here and I would be interested in hearing the case from the Government for this amendment. A lot of concern has been expressed about it. It is already the view of many that the DPC uses its powers to direct non-disclosure far too liberally and this is only going to increase that practice. I have some sympathy for the DPC because it is working within the constraints imposed upon it by the Government. I note that some extra funding was provided after we advocated for it but there is an issue of accountability here.

The proposed section 26A, which was introduced like a three-card trick at the last minute, is going to allow the DPC to single-handedly declare virtually all procedures before it confidential, even if there is no commercially sensitive material discussed, and sharing information about procedures would become a criminal offence. Has this been run past the Attorney General? Does the Attorney General have an opinion on it? Is it compliant with the right to freedom of expression? It has been criticised across Europe and at home. Why are we rushing this through? Why is it not in a stand-alone Bill or in some other Bill rather than being lumped in with this legislation?

The new language will apply to members of the public. Confidentiality conditions previously applied to the DPC's staff but there is an exemption for the staff when speech is permitted by law. However, members of the public have that legal permission to speak provided in the Constitution which seems to make the amendment moot. Has the amendment been adequately considered?

We have heard Government spokespersons in recent times denying that this is a last-minute intervention. They said the Dáil was notified in October or November but very little was said and it was clouded in vagueness. There has been no pre-legislative scrutiny of this and no debate in the Dáil until now. Aside from the briefest of mentions, nothing much was said in the Seanad either. These ministerial amendments should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other amendments made as the Bill was passing through. Only a single hour has been allowed to us to debate this amendment, along with 23 other amendments, before the Bill is passed. We should not be rushing this. The amendment should be withdrawn. Government spokespeople have said the amendment will not prevent people from saying that they have sent a complaint to the DPC but I am not sure that is the case. What matters is that the amendment could gag people and prevent them from speaking about how the DPC actually handles their complaint. People might not be able to speak about how big tech firms or public bodies are misusing their data. That is an opinion that is out there. For example, will it still be possible to use disclosures made at the Oireachtas Committee on Justice in the past or will the DPC be able to silence critics and cut off some sources?

There has been a new era of fairness and openness in the light of new litigation guidelines. The Supreme Court has said that even quasi-judicial bodies should hold public hearings. In contrast, this amendment will make decision-making even more opaque, adding to the exemptions from freedom of information rules that could have aided in its reform. I urge the Minister of State to consider withdrawing the amendment and allowing proper scrutiny of it at a later stage.

See this speech in context