Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I share the concerns raised by my party colleague, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, and others about this proposed amendment. This last-minute amendment was inserted in the Bill in the Seanad.

As such, it has not undergone pre-legislative scrutiny or previous scrutiny in the Dáil. This is a valid procedural concern, first of all. All Members are conscious it is an occupational hazard of miscellaneous provisions Bills that we see a hotchpotch of different amendments to different sets of legislation. That is often to be expected but this amendment goes further.

Serious and substantive concerns have been raised by organisations such as Amnesty International, the ICCL, and others, as well as by a Government Deputy just now, in respect of the import of the amendment. It would make a significant change in terms of the powers of the Data Protection Commissioner. The definition of confidential information has an overly broad ambit. It refers to: "information the disclosure of which could, in the opinion of the Commission, reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of the performance of a relevant function". There is a valid concern in respect of the breadth of that definition.

Deputy Ó Riordáin referred to Max Schrems, who is well known as a litigant on these issues. He, along with his colleague, Professor Herwig Hofmann, reached out to us to outline their concerns that the amendment would, in effect, allow the DPC to single-handedly declare procedures before it confidential, even where no commercially sensitive material is discussed. Given that information has previously been declared confidential in several significant cases here, there is a further concern that putting this in place would amount to a departure from the European Union common approach whereby such information is usually available. In addition, there is a concern that it would conflict with and violate the constitutional provisions on freedom of expression. That concern has already been raised by a Government Deputy, as well as with many Deputies by the ICCL. The Minister must address the concern that this would make DPC decision-making more opaque and could damage the flow of information between the DPC and peers across the European Union. A range of issues have been raised with us.

It is unfortunate that none of us has had sufficient opportunity to consider the amendments in more detail prior to them coming to the House. In refer to the concerns that have been raised, the correspondence that I am sure the Minister of State has received and, in particular, the concerns in respect of the source of the amendment and the reason it was produced at the last minute. Who was pushing for this amendment? Why has it been tabled now? Why is the Government using a miscellaneous provisions Bill to do this in July, in the last few weeks of the term? It is an old chestnut in the Department of Justice. When I did a lot of justice debates in the Seanad, we always saw last-minute miscellaneous provisions Bills coming in. Some of them sought to make significant changes. It is not good legislative practice and all present would like it to be changed. Many of us thought it had changed. That is why it is particularly disappointing to see these amendments. Like previous speakers, I appeal to the Minister of State to withdraw the amendment and give us more opportunity to consider it and hear further about the impetus for it, from where it came and its purpose. Why are we considering the amendment now? Why was it slipped in at the last minute? The Labour Party certainly cannot support it. A number of Deputies across the House have expressed their concerns on and critique of it. It is important for the Minister of State to hear those concerns.

See this speech in context