Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to my amendments Nos. 20 and 21. I do not propose to press amendment No. 20 as I do not wish to create an artificial disadvantage for new candidates compared with existing representatives. I recognise the concern that has arisen on this matter, on which I have engaged with the Department. Nonetheless, there remains a concern that the section, as constituted, goes significantly beyond what is envisaged in the general data protection regulation regarding the use of data collected for electoral purposes. The relevant section of the GDPR refers to data that are designed for use by political parties. This is very much the way in which its use is constrained.

I recognise that we have many independent candidates and representatives, including me. The electoral purposes envisaged in the GDPR appear to be those that are internal to persons who are putting themselves forward for election to public office. However, the provision in this section is constructed with a much wider scope. We discussed the fact that a body established by or under an enactment is extremely wide in scope. It could allow, for example, political opinions to be processed for electoral purposes or to influence such matters as manifestoes. It potentially blurs the line between the role of various bodies established under enactment and the role of political parties, government and Departments. The section is unclear and I expect it was designed to encompass, for example, a referendum commission and similar bodies. However, it is framed much too widely and could potentially lead to inappropriate use.

Amendment No. 21 is a much more important proposal providing that the section will "not permit the sharing or processing of personal data revealing political opinion with or by any private or commercial company, even when that private or commercial company has been contracted by the actors or entities specified under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)." We have seen the role played by companies such as Cambridge Analytica in the Brexit vote and Trump campaign. There is a real and present danger of private companies being contracted to influence and shape electoral outcomes.

The Standards in Public Office Commission has indicated it is not satisfied with the adequacy of regulation in respect of how social media advertising and promotion are being and could be used to influence electoral outcomes. If we include in the Bill a provision that results in a politician, party or aspiring candidate being able to share with a private company information about citizens' political opinions, which may have been entrusted to the candidate in confidence, for example, in the course of constituency work, democracy will find itself on dangerous and shaky ground. This is a serious concern.

I do not want to focus on one company. With regard to the forthcoming referendum, for example, analytics companies have been hired which have very close relationships with companies that were highly active on the vote on Brexit and various elections. This is a real and present danger and one which is not exclusive to extreme cases. A well resourced political party should not be in a position to share extensive information on the political opinions of citizens with an expensive company. While I do not wish to digress, we have seen in recent weeks how strongly members of the public feel about the importance of integrity in communicating messages and advertisements and promoting positions. Absolute transparency is needed on how such communications are conducted.

While I acknowledge that this section does not explicitly provide for a right to share personal data related to political opinions with private companies, it does not preclude the sharing of such data. I hope the Minister will be able to work with me to ensure the legislation preclude the sharing of such data.

It may be more effective to divide section 42 into two sections. Anyone who has sought or seeks political office will know the publicly available register of electors may be used to ensure his or her message is communicated. It may be effective to deal with issues such as the register of electors in a specific section. Other areas of political opinion, which extend beyond information that a person has or has not voted or is registered, could be teased out in another section. This may a constructive approach to addressing this issue. I do not expect people to stand in the Minister's way on the use of the register of electors. We could have a separate section on that issue and another section dealing with other uses of data related to a person's political opinion. It is not clear whether the provisions of section 42, as currently worded, include data on persons who may have contacted political representatives by email or other means expressing a political view on an issue of the day. Perhaps the Minister will assure me that such data are not covered by the section.