Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 11 and 17 relate to the concern about the public service card and the single customer view dataset. Again the measure we are looking to tackle here has become more important because we now have the Social Welfare Consolidation Act included in the rubric and it is now explicitly implicated in this Bill.

We have major questions around the public service card and legal concerns have been raised. There is a report on this, which is not yet published but due to be published under a section 10 investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner. There have been numerous stories during the summer since our last discussion, highlighting the very serious concerns, including potential legal concerns, on this matter. On that basis, amendment No. 11 is very reasonable. It simply proposes that while a public service card might be presented as a basis for conducting a transaction or accessing a service, it cannot be the sole or exclusive basis for so doing. While there are still question marks over this mechanism and a serious concern that has not been addressed, it should not be the case that it is the only basis on which a service user can be identified. One is effectively forcing people to comply because many of these services are vital. We have seen very positive movement from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in respect of the driver's licence because there was a situation whereby one could not access a driver's licence. In some cases a person's employment would be precarious if they could not drive unless the individual was willing to agree to the exchange of data or joining the single customer view dataset. This is again around the options for the individual. It is particularly important at a time when we cannot robustly stand up and say the single customer view dataset is adequately and completely to the satisfaction of the Data Protection commissioner in terms of the legal basis for sharing how information is stored. It may be the case that we get to that point, but at present we do not have that assurance. That is the basis for this amendment, which is simply saying if one wants to access a bus or other service, one should not have to have a single customer view dataset card as the only acceptable identification. That causes a lot of distress for people. These issues can be abstract but they can be deeply personal as well, as we know from the large number of people who were distressed at having to get a PSC as a condition to attend college or access child benefit. This is particular to other bodies outside of the social protection system. So much for amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 17 effectively addresses the same issue.

I turn to amendments Nos. 38 to 41, inclusive,. Amendment No. 38 provides that the Minister will "have regard to whether provision is made for a person’s right to verify their identify using an

alternative process". We have been told that the PSC is not an identity card. Surely there must be another mechanism by which a person can prove their identity. Amendment No. 39 is the Minister of States and I will respond when he has contributed.

Given the changes that he is making, I will not speak to amendments Nos. 40 and 41 yet. Amendment No. 40 will no longer be necessary if the Minister's amendment is successful, as I am sure it will be. I acknowledge that it represents progress, but it is not fully clear to me. I find it hard to see what it means. I was concerned about this Part of the Bill because it seems to suggest that in cases where information is stored in a base registry, the public body would be obliged to go to the registry to access the data and would not have other mechanisms or opportunities. I recognise that there has been a change. Perhaps the Minister of State can explain how this change addresses my concern, namely that there are instances in which the best practice is to gather information from a person. I am particularly thinking of some of the social and other services that may involve particular vulnerabilities. Sometimes the very act of asking for consent or information has an empowering and sociologically necessary function. I am genuinely not sure about this. I can see that the Government has changed it. I am not exactly sure how it addressed my concerns, and I apologise that I need clarification on that.

Finally, amendment No. 41 still stands. It is perhaps a little more bluntly worded. It inserts the wording, "other than where that information may be sought or collected on the basis of direct consent of the person or data subject". There might be times when someone should be personally asked for a name or address, for example, for inclusion in a Christmas list or a therapeutic project. Whatever the reason might be, this allows for human engagement, which is one of the indicators of success for social work. It is quite technical. I apologise, but I am not clear on amendment No. 39.