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

I will respond in simple language to what the Senator said in proposing amendment No. 13 about the difference between how public bodies are defined in existing legislation and in this proposed legislation. To put it simply, there must be a definition in this Bill to facilitate the sharing of information between body A and body B. That is why we have taken the approach we have taken. Otherwise, we could get into an even more difficult situation. If we were to provide for a loose definition of the bodies that are sharing information, organisations and public bodies that need to have data-sharing agreements might unintentionally fall outside the scope of it as an unintended consequence. I do not think that is something anyone would want.

The Senator is seeking to align the definition of a "public body" in this Bill with the definition that is already set out in the Data Protection Acts. I understand the logic of the Senator's proposal and I do not disagree with it. However, I cannot accept it because of the language that is used in her amendments and the way in which they are constructed. The primary reason for the difference between the definition of "public body" in this Bill and the definition in the Data Protection Acts is the need for this Bill to specify a legal person or entity that can sign the data-sharing agreements. No similar requirement applies in the case of the Data Protection Acts, which means that a different approach to the definition can be used. The two definitions do not have to be identical. The differences between them reflect the different requirements of both pieces of legislation. The important point here is that we are talking about sharing between body A and body B. In any event, the Data Protection Acts and the GDPR will continue to apply to all public bodies that come within the scope of this legislation and, therefore, will capture the issues to which Senator Higgins has referred.

In addressing amendment No. 14, I should point out that amendment No. 79 came out of the discussions we had on Committee Stage. I intimated at the time that I was prepared to come back and do something. In that context, amendment No. 79 proposes to amend section 64 of the Bill to allow the Minister to issue rules, standards and procedures in respect of "the processing of personal data by a public body designated in an order made under section 9(4)". I believe this will have the effect the Senator is seeking here. I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendments on the basis of the context in which we had our previous discussions. Amendment No. 15 would have the perhaps unintended effect of excluding public bodies from data sharing in the furtherance of any commercial activities in which they may be involved. While I can see where the Senator is coming from with these amendments and I support the principle of what she is trying to achieve, there are a number of technical difficulties with the wording.For instance, commercial interests are not defined. I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment, and I will propose an amendment with the same effect on Committee Stage in the Dáil. My amendment proposes an change to section 64. It adds a requirement that a Minister can issue rules, standards and procedures in respect of the processing of personal data by a public body designated in an order made under section 9(4). This will have the effect that the Senator is trying to achieve, and I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendment and supporting mine instead.