Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is correct that there is a lacuna and that a large amount of data sharing is taking place without a clear legal basis. It is good that he acknowledged that.

On another issue to which I will return on Report Stage, the definitions of "public body" in the Data Protection Act and this Bill are inconsistent. The definition of "public body" in this Bill is very wide. A significant number of potential actors will fall within the scope of this definition. A large number of bodies will share data, which is the reason we need to get this right. With respect, the Minister of State spoke of the Bill having undergone scrutiny but this discussion - the legislative process - is scrutiny. Many Ministers come to this Chamber and many Senators engage with them and give a higher degree of engagement in terms of recognising that this is the legislative process. Our role is not to congratulate Ministers on bringing legislation to the House and agree to rubber-stamp it. It is to ensure we are confident that legislation is as it should be and the proposals being put forward are constructive. I ask the Minister of State to revisit the provisions of this Bill because I do not want a case to be taken against the State in the European Court of Justice on the basis of the grounds on which data may be shared.

Crucially, the Minister of State referred again to convenience for individuals. This would have been a different discussion, although there may still have been problems, if the Minister of State had spoken about the financial and administrative burdens on individuals. However, the Bill makes no such references but refers instead to the financial and administrative burden on public bodies. Convenience for individuals is not the ground on which data will be shared, although it, too, is included. I am specifically querying the inclusion, as a reason for sharing data, of the financial and administrative burden imposed on public bodies. This will allow any one of the large and growing number of public bodies to refuse a request on the basis that it would be inconvenient. If the goal were convenience for the individual, a mechanism would be provided to allow individuals to abide by the "once only" principle or to allow all their data to be shared to the maximum and in the most convenient way. It would still be the individual's data, however, because none of them belong to the public bodies, they all belong to the individual. The public bodies are sharing data for the benefit of the individual and not for their own benefit and convenience.