Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick County, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As I said, the reason there is a wide definition of public bodies in the Bill is the same reason to which Senator Higgins referred. If I excluded the Health Service Executive, an education and training board, An Garda Síochána, the Commissioners of Public Works or another body, I would be pilloried and people would say it was more of the same and the Government was covering something up.

If I did not include any other public body specified under section 9(4)(q), I would also prevent any future public body which has not been established from being included in the Bill. That is why the definition is as wide as it is. Section 9(4) states that:

The Minister may, at the request of a body that would not otherwise be included in the definition of “public body” in subsection (1) and with the consent of the Minister of the Government in whom functions in relation to that body are vested, by order designate that body as a public body where—

(a) that body is financed wholly or partly, whether directly or indirectly, by means of moneys provided, or loans made or guaranteed, by a Minister of the Government or the issue of shares held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government, and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the principal activity of the body is the delivery of services to the public under an agreement with a public body.

This covers circumstances in which there is part funding or whole funding.

I completely understand the issues relating to bodies and authorities. The term "authority" is used more in European Union law than in Irish law. Irish law has generally and historically referred to bodies and it is on that basis that references are to "public bodies". The wording in the amendment would mean the Bill would only apply to those public bodies established under the Companies Act 2014. An unintended consequence of that would be that the Bill would not apply to the Civil Service, local authorities, the HSE, the Garda, education and training boards and several other bodies.

As I said when I introduced the Bill in the House last week, it is the Department's intention that the Bill should apply to as wide a number of public bodies as possible. At a minimum, Government Departments and offices, local authorities and the HSE should be able to share data under the Bill. They already do so, albeit in a legal vacuum which needs to be addressed. It is on that basis that we are introducing the Bill. If further bodies need to be included in the legislation in the future, subsection (4)(q) will allow a future Minister to make the relevant additions, as necessary.

I should clarify that the primary reason the definition of a public body is different in the Bill compared with the definition in the Data Protection Act is that the Bill needed to specify a legal person who can sign the data sharing agreements. As no similar requirement applied in the case of the Data Protection Act, a different approach to the definition was necessary and was used. The two definitions do not have to be identical because the processes are completely different and the differences reflect the different requirements of both pieces of legislation. In any event, the Data Protection Act and GDPR continue to apply to all public bodies or authorities within the scope of the Bill.