Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 33, line 35, after “registry” to insert the following:“other than where that information may be sought or collected on the basis of direct consent of the person or data subject”.

This potentially is one of the more sinister aspects of the Bill and it would be a source of real concern if it was not amended.Under section 42, there is an obligation to use the base registry so that when personal data which has been gathered on individuals is in a base registry public bodies must go to the base registry. This effectively precludes public bodies from asking individuals for their data. I recognise that there are situations in which public bodies might be more appropriate where consent is not the appropriate legal basis, particularly in situations with vulnerable users. However, this does not simply state that there are certain circumstances under which a public body would go to the base registry and use that as the legal basis. This literally forbids public bodies from engaging in other ways with citizens and individuals in the public and there are many public bodies where that data is on a base registry. For example, someone cannot necessarily be asked what their address is. Many public bodies provide services that need to be done on a legislative basis and there are other cases in which consent is the appropriate mechanism. It may be the difference between being included in a Christmas raffle list as well another list. At the moment somebody cannot be asked if they want to be in the Christmas raffle list as well as whatever else, their data has to just be taken from the base registry. The provision precludes public bodies from having the discretion to recognise that there are certain aspects of their business whereby asking people might be the appropriate route.

My amendment simply states "other than where that information may be sought or collected on the basis of direct consent of the person or data subject". I am simply introducing the option for a public body, in some of its dealings with people, to occasionally use consent. That is the key concern there. I recognise that there are certain situations or circumstances where it is not appropriate but this basically forbids the use of any other method or means of engagement. It must be borne in mind that there is not a right to be informed on this. If a person's name or address is in the base registry, he or she cannot be asked. If that person's name, age and address and any other information are in the base registry he or she cannot be asked for that information, it has to be taken. That seems to me to be excessively onerous on public bodies and to be an overreach.

I regard my amendment as excessively mild and I may revisit some issues on Report Stage. I have genuinely come into this on Committee Stage with what I thought were achievable and reasonable amendments. If progress does not come in any of these areas then I will come back with amendments for my ideal Bill and what it would look like. Right now, at a minimum, we should allow public bodies, in the circumstances where it is appropriate and consent is an option, to have the option of using consent. Part of that is the relationship that public bodies have with those clients and users of their services. Part of it is the iterative process such as in the case of people who are accessing the data of vulnerable people. Sometimes the dynamic of repeatedly asking questions is part of the relationship building that leads to the effective functioning of a public body and an effective delivery of a service. The Minister of State might indicate if he is willing to give that flexibility because I am worried that we are cutting the data subjects out completely from the operation of public services.