Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance if he has projected the amount an average person will lose a year when maternity benefit is taxed from July; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15069/13]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The precise number of recipients that will be liable to income tax on their maternity benefit payment is not available. However, I understand that the Department of Social Protection have estimated that the average weekly maternity benefit recipients in 2013 to be 22,800, including those who will not have an increased liability to income tax.

As a result of maternity benefit payments becoming liable to income tax for all claimants, from the 1 July 2013, a number of possible tax outcomes could arise:

1.An individual may pay no income tax on their maternity benefit payment as their tax credits will be sufficient to reduce their tax liability to zero.

2.An individual may pay income tax on some or all of their maternity benefit payment at the standard rate.

3.An individual may pay income tax at the standard rate on a portion of the maternity benefit and the higher rate on the balance of the maternity benefit payment.

4.An individual may pay income tax on their maternity benefit payment at the higher rate.

Accordingly, the tax liability on maternity benefit payments will ultimately depend on the total income of the individual or couple concerned in the tax year or years concerned.

I would point out though, that maternity benefit payments will remain exempt from Universal Social Charge and PRSI.

It is not that people might be trying to hide something which is criminal or illegal. They may have very good grounds for doing so, particularly in the areas of sexual orientation, religious beliefs and so on. We are really beginning to probe into citizens' very personal details. We have always spoken about Big Brother watching us. As software and communications between various agencies evolve, there will come a time when a citizen's information will be passed around the system very easily. Why should an agency have the right to the information a person puts on an application form, particularly in the area of health? In any decision made in this regard the applicant should be made fully aware that all information will be made available on request to the Department of Social Protection, the Revenue Commissioners and other agencies, not in the small print at the back of the application form where he or she signs. They would then not know that was the case. There should be an obligation to clearly highlight this. We could debate the issue of personal and sensitive data forever and a day. It is welcome that the Data Commissioner was involved in the consultation, as I would not have expected anything less. However, it is a little disturbing.

The other issue in section 8(3) is that a data exchange agreement may be varied by the parties to the agreement. At what stage would it be varied? That is critical. If a person makes an application and submits all of his or her personal data based on the exchange agreement of the day, are we now saying information previously furnished will be furnished under the new agreement? That is something which would be of concern to many. If someone makes an application and provides information in good faith based on the exchange agreement in place, he or she might find sometime in the future that the agreement has been changed by the parties to it without consulting him or her and that the information may be furnished to other agencies of the State. If people make an application in good faith and furnish full information, that information should only be passed on with their consent if there is a change to the data exchange agreement. Am I missing something in this regard? Is the applicant also a party to the agreement?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support both amendments in Deputy Billy Kelleher's name. I did not submit amendments because I find the proposition of what the Bill sets out to do offensive. There are elements of it which I identified in my Second Stage contribution with which I agree and understand must progress, but these are coupled with the proposition that the medical card will be taken from 20,000 people who will be affected by the reduction in the threshold from €700 to €600 per week. The big question in my mind, given that the national service plan of the HSE signalled a 40,000 reduction in medical card numbers in the current year, is where do the other 20,000 people rest. Clearly, further steps will be taken by the Government. Is it prepared to advise if further legislation will be required to disempower a further 20,000 persons entitled to a full medical card?

In regard to these two amendments, section 8(9) states that, for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that references in this section to personal data shall include references to sensitive personal data. The Minister of State has indicated what the Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003 defines as sensitive personal data. It includes racial or ethnic origin, political opinions or religious or philosophical beliefs of the data subject, whether the data subject is a member of a trade union, the physical or mental health or condition or sexual life of the data subject, the commission or alleged commission of any offence by the data subject or any proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the data subject and the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings. What puzzles me is what the Minister is proposing to do. Why would the HSE require such information on any citizen or resident in this jurisdiction? It is beyond belief that the HSE, the responsibility of which is to provide for the physical or mental health of all who reside in the State, requires information of this girth on any one of us or on citizen or resident across the Twenty-six Counties, or that it should be protected in legislation in securing this information. It beggars belief. As I said, the HSE's remit covers physical or mental health. Obviously, the health status of a person is relevant but not the huge range of other categories covered.

Deputy Billy Kelleher referred to Big Brother. This is in the same vein as 1984 and any of the other references that describe this kind of state intrusion into the rights and personal integrity of every person. Where are the personal protections in regard to what the Bill provides for? Where are the rights to privacy upheld? They are being set aside in a bold and brazen way, as the wording makes very clear. It states, "for the avoidance of doubt", in case any of us thought otherwise. It is very bald, bold and clear and there is no doubt. I am not prepared to accept this.

The amendment tabled by Deputy Billy Kelleher is as it should be. The insertion of the word "not" is a requirement after the word "shall". I also support the amendment to section 8(10) in Part 3 for the same reasons I have explained.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not accept the suggestion made by the Deputies that this represents some kind of licence for inappropriate or excessive use of personal data or sensitive personal data. The contrary is the case. Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caolain has asked where is the personal protection of the privacy of citizens.

The answer to his question lies in the Data Protection Acts and is evident from the central role of the Data Protection Commissioner, as clearly referenced in this Bill. Deputy Kelleher may not have intended to convey the impression at the outset of his contribution that sensitive personal data are open to interpretation in some way. They are not as they are defined.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say that.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In that case, I misunderstood the Deputy. As the Deputy knows, this is clearly set out in the amending legislation of 2003. I do not believe the definition was in the principal Act. In any event, it is in legislation. Lest anybody is tempted to imagine for a moment that we are just bringing in the definition, he or she should note that personal data and sensitive personal data are already understood and clearly defined in statute. There is no danger of inappropriate, excessive, officious or extensive use of personal data being licensed in this legislation, as the precise opposite is the case. I again draw the attention to the House to subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 8. Subsection (1) provides that the HSE may request the Minister for Social Protection or the Revenue Commissioners to furnish it with personal data held by that Minister or the Revenue Commissioners, as the case may be, when the HSE requires the personal data for the purpose of assessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons for services provided under the Health Acts 1970 to 2013. Subsection (2) provides that the Minister for Social Protection may request the HSE to furnish to him or her with personal data held by the HSE when he or she requires the personal data for the purpose of calculating the means of persons to assess or review entitlements. Similarly, subsection (3) provides that the Revenue Commissioners may request the HSE to provide personal data held by the HSE when the Revenue Commissioners requires the personal data for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty or other charge payable. Therefore, the basis upon which the respective bodies may request data of one another is clearly circumscribed in the Bill, such that there may be a request only where the body requires the data for the purpose of assessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons - for example, in the case of the HSE. Therefore, there can be no suggestion whatsoever that the Bill will lead to anything like what is being suggested in respect of 1984 and personal data flying around the place willy-nilly. This is simply not borne out in the plain terms of the Bill.

Subsection (6) provides that a data exchange agreement may be varied by the parties to the agreement, while subsection (7) states that the HSE shall consult the Data Protection Commissioner in relation to a data exchange agreement before it is entered into or varied. The House should be aware that there will be a requirement for advance consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner in respect of any data sharing or exchange agreement between any of the bodies involved. The Data Protection Commissioner is very much at the heart of the proposal. Consultation with the Commissioner is not optional but mandatory. The HSE shall consult the Data Protection Commissioner in relation to a data exchange agreement before it is entered into or varied.

An issue arose regarding the consent of individuals. An extensive amount of data is held right across the State by all kinds of bodies, both public and private. The reason we have data protection legislation is to protect that data from improper use. It is very important and necessary legislation. The role played by the Data Protection Commissioner is crucial, and it will not change by virtue of this legislation. What we are simply doing is introducing what I understood everybody believed was a good provision, that is, a provision in law for data exchange. We are embedding in the legislation additional protections or at least clarifying the basis upon which the data may be sought. It can only be done where it is necessary or when, for example, "the HSE requires the personal data for the purpose of assessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons for services provided under the Health Acts 1970 to 2013". Therefore, we should not suggest that data are being cast about the place or sought for officious, irrelevant, improper or inappropriate purposes, be the circumstances akin to those in 1984 or otherwise. This simply does not arise; the very contrary is the case in respect of what is being set out.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One can interpret the matter both ways. The reason I tabled the amendment was to find out what would be said by the Minister of State. The Revenue Commissioners may request the HSE to furnish it with personal data held by the HSE when the Revenue Commissioners requires the personal data for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty or other charge payable to the commissioners. That is fair enough, but the point I am making is that people should be informed well in advance of making an application for what they believe is a medical card. If they feel the information being sought is too intrusive, for whatever reason, they should be informed well in advance. People should have a right to information, including the information retained on them. This is the issue of major concern. We should be quite clear that not everybody is fully aware of the Data Protection Act. The Department of Health was not even fully aware of it, and there was a difficulty in recent days with the Guthrie cards. We must be up-front with citizens. If they make an application for a medical card, any detail supplied for determining eligibility, including very sensitive personal data, can and will be transferred to other Departments, if requested, on foot of discussion with the Data Protection Commissioner. However, every citizen should be informed that sensitive information included in an application form could be transferred to other agencies of the State. The State should be duty-bound to inform citizens of this. That is my issue of concern.

Despite all that is noble about what the Minister of State said about subsections (7) and (8), subsection (4) of section 8 concerns me. More often than not, when we have passed legislation, we ask why we did not tease it out further. This relates to my original point, that is, that the legislation is being rammed through the Dáil.

It was published only last week, following which we dealt with Second Stage. Today we are dealing with Committee and Remaining Stages, following which it will be out the gap. There has been no discussion on it with stakeholders and Deputies have not had an opportunity - unless they did so over the weekend with the Data Commissioner - to tease out the detail of it, the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 and Health Acts 1970 and 2008, which are substantial bodies of legislation. We are expected to pass this legislation without having had the opportunity to explore it in detail, which is at variance with decent parliamentary democracy and with what is stated in the programme for Government, namely, that there would be a minium of two weeks between various Stages from publication to Final Stage. That has not happened. This legislation is being rammed through for reasons I do not know. I cannot understand the urgency of passing this legislation.

In passing this legislation we will be agreeing to sweeping powers with regard to personal data. The definition of "sensitive" and so on is defined in the Data Protection Acts. We are in my view passing legislation tonight that will allow for the transfer of data, which the Minister of State may not consider sensitive but which is sensitive to the applicant, without informing the applicant in advance of signing a declaration for medical card eligibility that such information could be transferred to other agencies of the State. There is an obligation and onus on the State to inform citizens about this.

This is rushed legislation. I will be opposing section 8.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State indicated in his response to our opening contributions that the purpose of this was to "protect from improper use". What about the issuance of sensitive, personal data to any agency of the State and its employees? In this regard, I mean the unnecessary and inappropriate release of critical information regarding a citizen. Let me be clear, I have no problem with appropriate and relevant data exchange. The Minister of State and I are not in conflict in terms of that need. What this Bill seeks to do is to open up the release of sensitive, personal data regarding any citizen at the request of the two other named bodies. It is a two-way street in terms of the information flow. Nowhere is it specified in the Bill that such release will be particular or relevant to the exercise to be undertaken.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does. I will read it again for the Deputy.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill states, "That the Minister for Social Protection may request the Health Service Executive to furnish to him or her personal data held by...", "...when he or she requires it for the purpose of calculating...". There is no guarantee in that language that the data to be released are to be particular to the exercise to be undertaken by the Minister for Social Protection nor is that encompassed in the wording of section (8)(3) in relation to the Revenue Commissioners. They can require the information held. Nowhere in the wording of subsections (2) or (3) or that which applies to the Health Service Executive in relation to the two-way flow of information, is there an absolute requirement on the releaser to ensure the information released is particular to the exercise to be undertaken by the recipient agency. What will happen, therefore, in real terms is that whatever information is held on file in relation to citizens Alex White, Billy Kelleher or Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin will be transferred as requested. In terms of oversight and final determination of the utilisation or relevance of that information, this will be done by the receiving agency. There is nothing in the wording of this legislation that places the onus on the initial holder of the data to properly assess and determine the relevance of the information before it is released. This legislation as drafted offers no protection. There is no guarantee. As I have already stated, there is no personal protection or affirmation of the rights of citizens to privacy within Part 3 of the Bill. It is open season for the release of any and all information held by the Health Service Executive, the Minister for Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners. My only question is, why did the Government stop at these agencies. Why not add everything else besides and let us open up a real spaghetti junction of information in relation to each and every citizen? The Minister of State has no defence. He has not been able to counter the arguments made or to challenge the amendments put forward by Deputy Kelleher.

Again, and accordingly, I support amendments Nos. 6 and 7 for the same and sound reasons explained by Deputy Kelleher and myself.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, Deputy Ó Caoláin is, again, completely misunderstanding what is proposed. In regard to the protection of privacy and how data are dealt with, I refer Deputies to the data protection legislation, in particular the Data Protection Act 1988, section 2 of which relates to the collection, processing, keeping, use and disclosure of personal data; section 3 which relates to the right to establish the existence of personal data; section 4 which deals with a person's right of access; section 5 which deals with restriction of right of access; section 6 which deals with right of rectification or erasure if something is wrong; section 7 which deals with duty of care owed by data controllers and processors; section 8 which deals with disclosure of personal data in certain cases and section 9 which deals with the commissioner. There are extensive provisions in the 1988 Act, as amended in the 2003 Act, which address the problems referred to by Deputy Ó Caoláin.

We are not taking away the protections in place in respect of protection of citizens' data. We are not asking the House to amend the data protection legislation. All of the justifiable protections in respect of privacy that currently exist in law for data, including access to it, the right to have it altered and dealt with in particular ways, remain in place. There are no changes in that regard. The data protection legislation, which is good legislation, will remain in place if the House passes this legislation.

An individual's rights with respect to his or her data are dealt with extensively in the data protection legislation in terms of when one can have access to it, the circumstances of having access, who can keep it and when they can keep it. That is provided in legislation. We are not taking that away.

Deputy Kelleher made a fair point about people's knowledge of this and whether they should be informed of it. It is good practice that public bodies, in particular, should indicate to individual citizens that their application is subject to data protection legislation. That is the practice in regard to applications for medical cards. Applicants are told that their application is subject to the potential for data exchange. It is quite right that they should be told that. There is not a provision that an individual citizen should in all circumstances be asked for his or her consent. No such provision is being put forward in this legislation, nor has Deputy Kelleher, in his amendments, suggested that.

As I understand the Deputy's amendments, he wants to remove sensitive personal data from the remit of the data that can be exchanged. He is probably happy enough with the inclusion of personal data but I think what he is seeking is the removal of sensitive personal data. That is the way I read his amendments. However, I am not prepared to divide up personal data and sensitive personal data. Subsection (9) provides that: "For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that references in this section to personal data shall include references to sensitive personal data." I understand Deputy Kelleher seeking to remove the reference to sensitive personal data, but I am not sure if he wants to take the references to all personal data. I am not quite sure what his intention is, but in any event it would not be acceptable to the Government that we would do so because it would change the entire sense and intention of the section. I respectfully say that it would make it unworkable.

I return to the point, and respectfully also say to Deputy Ó Caoláin, that the protections are in place in respect of how this can be used. Deputy Ó Caoláin said that there is no restriction, that any of this data can be sought and used in any way, but it cannot. It can only be used where the body seeking it requires it for the purpose indicated, as against seeking it in the generalised way suggested whereby it could ask for it and use it for any reason under the sun. It can only be used when it requires the personal data for the purpose of accessing or reviewing. It is a reasonable interpretation of that phrase to say that the data must be necessary in order that the body can carry out its function of accessing or reviewing the eligibility of persons or services. It must be referrable to a particular task the HSE is required to carry out, namely, the accessing or reviewing of the eligibility of persons. It cannot be in any sense a gratuitous seeking of information or data. It seems that no reasonable reading of the section, as proposed, could conceivably lead to the conclusion that there would gratuitous seeking or exchange of data for some improper, excessive or unnecessary purpose, as has been suggested.

Deputy Kelleher referred at the outset to the time allocated for the debate and used that phrase we often hear used in these Houses to describe the passage of legislation, namely, that it is being rammed through. There are some circumstances where the use of the phrase "rammed through" might be justifiable. If legislation is being put through in a period of hours, it might be conceivably reasonable to say that something is being rammed through the Houses. However it is not fair or reasonable to say that this legislation is being rammed through the Houses. It was a subject to a Second Stage debate last week, which as far as I can recall finished before the time allotted to it. There has been an opportunity for Deputies to submit amendments and Deputies have done so.

In respect of stakeholders, these announcements in respect of the intention with regard to the eligibility limits were made at budget time. There has been an opportunity, quite properly, for interested bodies and advocacy groups to make their views known publicly, as I know they have. I do not accept that this legislation is being rammed through in the manner that is being suggested.

I would tentatively make the point, as I do not want to fall out with anybody, that the issues in this Bill are fairly net. I do not think that they are of huge complexity; they are relatively net in terms of the eligibility limits. There is the additional provision in respect of data exchange, which everybody seems to think is a good idea, although there is a quibble about the particular data involved. I would respectfully say that we have given this legislation a good airing. We have time to give it some more airing if need be.

It is not fair either to say that sweeping powers are being afforded to anyone, as Deputy Kelleher has said. They are not sweeping powers; they are entirely in line with what is in the data protection legislation. Subsections (1), (2) and (3) carefully circumscribe, define and delineate the circumstances where the data can be exchanged. In addition, there is the protection of the necessary involvement of the Data Protection Commissioner who must be consulted with regard to any exchange agreement before it is entered into or varied.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to the section as there are two amendments to it and we are opposing the section.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will asking everyone to speak to the section.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Subsection (2) provides that "The Minister for Social Protection may request the Health Service Executive to furnish to him or her personal data held by the Health Service Executive when he or she requires the personal data for the purpose of calculating the means of persons". The HSE is retaining information on a particular applicant who goes about his or her business in applying to establish his or her eligibility for a medical card. The HSE will not decide how much information is furnished because, according to this legislation, if enacted, once the Minister for Social Protection makes the request that he or she want all this information, the HSE will be obligated to pass it on. The requester is the one who will decide on the amount of information that will be given, as the opposed to the person who is currently retaining the information.

Subsection (4) provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003, but subject to this section, a person who receives a request made in accordance with subsection (1), (2) or (3)", as already discussed. Quite clearly, there is even an attempt in this legislation to dilute and diminish the protections of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003. There is an effort in that respect in terms of this legislation. I have concerns about this section, and I know the Minister of State will try to convince me forever and a day that there is no cause for them. There has been a creeping effort by the system over a period of time to gather further information on citizens through their interactions with the State. This happens slowly but incrementally all the time. We see further evidence of such creeping effort in every item of legislation that has been passed in this House in recent years. We have the Data Protection Act to provide protection, but at the same time all the other information is being collated on a continual basis.

We should not have hiding places for vagabonds and others but this is about medical card eligibility. This is about a person making an application to establish whether he or she is entitled to a medical card. One would have to ask the fundamental question about the necessity for being so intrusive into people's lives in terms of the potential information that is gathered by a legitimate application being passed on to other agencies of the State.

In the broader context of his summing up about the legislation being rammed through, it is in a way because the programme for Government, that novel, states that it is two weeks from the passing of one stage of a Bill to another.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is straying away from the amendment.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know but the Minister of State referred to it.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes but the Deputy raised it first and he responded.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did I?

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes the Deputy did.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This goes back to my original point which is that it is very hard for us to assess legislation in detail. The Minister of State has all the arms of State, the Attorney General up the road-----

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is doing an excellent job.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He has a plethora of eminent highly qualified officials who can tell him this and that. I know he does not need to be told much because he knows it already. I have a difficulty in trying to peruse huge Bills in the space of a few days. That is all we have. I have tabled these amendments both because I believe some of this requesting of information is wrong and to see the veracity of the Minister of State's argument in this case. Unfortunately I am still not convinced and I will be pushing for a division in this case because I do not believe that there is enough protection in place.

Only a couple of years ago 10,000 people were out on the streets to protest at the content of this Bill. It is fundamental legislation. I was one of the people on the other side of the House who had to go around to the Merrion Square side of the building to get into the Dáil. This deserves to be thrashed out and discussed because people were out on the streets protesting against the removal of their entitlement to a medical card. Not only is this Bill removing the entitlement but it reduces the eligibility criteria that in 2009 brought 10,000 people onto the streets. They are not here tonight but I will advocate for them. That is why I will oppose this section and the Bill.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his last response the Minister of State relied on language such as "gratuitous" and "improper" in his defence of the position. Nobody was suggesting something gratuitous or improper other than the fact that I believe that the release of unnecessary and irrelevant information in this two-way flow is improper. It is important to understand that. It does not mean that other access to, and knowledge of, the information then disseminated could not lead to something further improper. The key point is that there is nothing in this wording that prevents or even suggests that the releasing agency exercise sufficient and appropriate restraint in respect of the information that it holds, when requested under this legislation to release information to either the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Social Protection. It is not there, no matter what way one reads it. That is a significant flaw.

The Minister of State falls back in his defence on the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003 yet it has just been correctly highlighted with regard to Part 3 section 8(4) that the Bill states, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003, but subject to this section,". This Bill takes precedence. It is superior to the Acts that the Minister of State believes are the ultimate defence for each of us citizens.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should read the rest of the section.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have read it on numerous occasions.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should read it out loud.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will use what time I have left as I judge appropriate. The key point here is that it goes on to deal with the person who receives and I am talking all the time about the person who releases. The Minister of State either will not grasp this or he is avoiding it. There is nothing to prevent the release of inappropriate and unnecessary information between these three agencies in the way described and provided for in this legislation. That is a fundamental undermining of our rights as citizens to proper protection and to be sure that sensitive personal data is not released merely on the basis of a request. The key point is that we have a responsibility to provide the protection in law. We cannot now depend on what the Bill requires, a data exchange agreement between the HSE, the Minister for Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners. We have no sight of that agreement and may never have because it may never pass through this Chamber for the purposes of democratic accountability and oversight or evaluation. The only thing to which we can turn and stand over on behalf of the citizens who elected us is the text of the Bill placed before us. I am sorry but as I have repeatedly explained, this Bill fails the test and the Minister of State's defences do not hold up in respect of the charge I make that this significantly undermines our rights to privacy and the protection that we should usually enjoy.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Subsection (8) makes it very clear that the Data Protection Acts "shall apply to any personal data furnished to a person under this section". All the protection in those Acts applies. The Deputy is focusing on the releaser but the agreement protects people and the system from the release of improper information. There is an agreement required to be entered into pursuant to subsection (4) between the releaser and the seeker of the information. It must be done only by way of agreement and that agreement has to be made on the basis of consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner, the great protector of data. That is exactly what the commissioner is.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That each of the sections undisposed of are hereby agreed to, the Title is hereby agreed to, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, that Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."