Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We are going around the houses and we are going around the amendments because the section on pensions has absolutely nothing to do with this section, section 6, and base registries have nothing to do with these amendments. The key questions and concerns I raised have not been addressed. I have not raised concerns about pensions or base registries. Nobody is in a position to invoke the Data Protection Commissioner as endorsing the Bill as the data protection commission is the adjudicator on rather than the promoter or presenter of a Bill. We await a decision and report from the data protection commission on the public services card and, more importantly, the public services data set, which is addressed here.

PPS numbers are very widely used and they are a key point but over the past year and a half photographs and biometric data have been added to that data set. There is nothing wrong with the PPS numbers being shared as a normal category of personal data but there is a concern in regard to the processing of photographic and facial images, especially given the new contracts in social welfare and other areas. Ultimately, there may need to be a mechanism whereby the PPSN element is shared but the photographic element thereof is shared under a different set of provisions compatible with Article 9 of the GDPR. Article 9 is clear that the data may be shared but provides the circumstances in which that may be done. Section 12 provides a completely different set of rules for the sharing of those data. That is not to say that facial images cannot be shared but, rather, that that must be done in a manner compatible with Article 9. It may be that the rest of the data set is shared under one set of rules and the photographs under another or that section 12 is adapted such that it is compatible with Article 9 of the GDPR. It may be that section 12 will provide the grounds for most processing public bodies but specified bodies will operate on different grounds. There is an incompatibility. Saying it is confusing or talking about inadvertent consequences does not deal with the incompatibility which we must address.

I ask the Minister of State to outline his objection to amendment No. 3. If he is of the belief that the Bill already provides for the provisions in the amendment, why not clarify that such parts of the public service identity which constitute special categories of personal data would not be processed under section 12? That would reiterate what the Minister of State has said he is confident will happen anyway. I hope he will accept that amendment.