Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 17, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 263 of Principal Act

27. Section 263 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3):"(3) A person shall produce his or her public service card or other appropriate form of identification at the request of a specified body for the purposes of a transaction. No specified body shall make possession of a public service card or presence on the single customer view dataset a mandatory requirement for the purposes of a transaction.”.”.

This amendment relates to another issue we debated previously, namely, the public services card. I tabled a number of amendments on the issue but I will not press all of them. We have heard the debate about the production of a card. It was rightly pointed out by the Minister that it might not be a case of possession of a card but it might be presence on the single customer view dataset.It may be that there is a number of ways in which persons can be identified as being on the single customer view dataset. That should not be made a requirement for any of the bodies specified under the social protection legislation, of which there is an extensive list. While they may be entitled to use the public services card, which I do not seek to block them from doing, they should not be able to make it mandatory for services due to a couple of issues: the data-sharing legislation, that is, the legal provision for the sharing of information, has not passed through the Dáil and there is an ongoing debate on the data-sharing commitment. The data-sharing legislation is clear that information that relates to special categories of personal information cannot be held.

On the debate about whether the new photographic database and the photographs which are now attached to the single customer view dataset are personal, I strongly believe they are personal data and a special category thereof. The Minister will be aware that this issue has been the source of some controversy and concern within the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, and it is a controversy which has deepened due to questions such as how "bio-metric" is defined or not defined. The issue of the independence of the data protection officer has also been raised as a concern in that regard.

I withdrew a number of amendments and I have not retabled all of them. I am suggesting that we should be clear that, notwithstanding the internal dynamics of the Department and its processes, while specified bodies may choose to accept a public services card as something that would qualify somebody to access a transaction or service, they should make it mandatory at a time when there serious question marks over how data are shared, which categories of data are shared or how the data are defined. We should not leave the State vulnerable to legal action on this matter. I welcome that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has recognised the legal concerns and indicated that a public services card will no longer be mandatory and that it will accept other forms of identification for those wishing to take the driver theory test, which was the correct decision.

I hope the Minister will be open to taking on board the amendment. It is the minimum to ensure we keep track of the specified bodies. It does not address the concerns I have with the internal dynamics of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, but I know the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection is considering the issue of public services cards on an ongoing basis. I am confident, therefore, that we will have other opportunities to address the matter as it relates to the internal affairs of the Department, but the amendment addresses the relationship between specified bodies and the Department.