Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

When we speak of unintended consequences, this is exactly what I am seeking to avert. Entities are listed in two lists under two different definitions.I recognise that the Minister of State needs to have a different definition in the Bill but I suggest that, perhaps in the section on definitions, he seeks to clarify that, for example, the definition of public bodies in the Bill relates to the public bodies and the elements thereof specified in the Data Protection Act. There needs to be some clarity because entities are defined differently in the Bill and the Act. It would not be insurmountable for such direction to be given. In terms of unintended consequences, it would be better to address the issue than to ignore it and hope that no conflict arises between the Bill and the Act. The issue could be addressed and dealt with.

The Minister of State did not alleviate my concern in regard to bodies wholly or partly funded by the State. In fact, he confirmed it. As he stated, the Bill allows him to designate as a public body entities that are wholly or partly funded by the State. My concern regards entities that are partly funded by the State and also funded by private entities, commercial interests or other actors. I ask the Minister of State for his perspective on regulations, guidelines or safeguards in respect of entities which receive State funding along with other funding. Again, I have not sought to be prescriptive in terms of what the regulation or safeguard should be, but it is important that we allow space in the Bill to ensure that only the State-funded actions of an organisation or entity partly funded by the State can access public data which it receives.