Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to highlight, with regard to this suite of sections, that there are concerns around what becomes an obligation and what becomes optional. The Minister will be aware of the concerns I had previously expressed about the issue of "may" and "shall" as it relates to the provision of important and relevant information. I intended my amendment to this section to highlight the need to ensure suitable and specific measures around the protection of the fundamental right of persons. I am going to engage further on that issue and I know the Minister has indicated to me that he is looking at certain areas of the Bill where I have highlighted there may be concerns with regard to the rights of persons under the Data Protection Act. There are sections of the Bill where there could be a perceived or actual incapability with certain of the rights that persons may be able to exercise under the Act. It is not constructive for anybody who has rights they can use under the Act and other measures are prescribed in other legislation. As the Minister will be aware, we particularly indicated one example relating to the question of those who may have visited.

There are a number of amendments on which we will return to these issues.This relates to the general concern around persons not being put in a position where they have to rely on direct powers under data protection legislation as regards seeking appropriate information. I also note, since section 67 references the general data protection regulation, it is important to clarify such specified measures as the Minister may put in place. It is very important the Minister is extremely clear on the issue of immunity, in particular. I tabled a number of amendments that were unfortunately ruled out of order, which is a disappointing decision but so be it, on the question of the protection of persons from vulnerability to prosecution and immunity. It is very important we do not have a situation under this Bill whereby somebody is protected, and I am speaking specifically about those who have intentionally withheld information, and who we know in the past have a record of intentionally withholding, obscuring and, in some cases, falsifying information, in respect of those who have sought the kinds of information provided for in this Act that relates to their families, their personal health services, for example, and so on. This is a section around a relevant body and, in particular, certain religious orders and adoption agencies that have been found, in the past, to have intentionally misled or provided false information to any persons. It is important there is not a presumption of good faith on their part. That relates to section 65 on immunity. I will reserve the right to come back to that on Report Stage.

On the regulations for the purpose of data protection under section 67, which we are discussing, the Minister needs to be very clear that where there is a record of the failure to disclose information, or a proven record of the falsification, or intentional misleading or provision of false information on the part of a body, regulations for the purpose of data protection should specify limitations to immunity for those bodies. My amendments in respect of immunity have been ruled out of order, but I urge the Minister to think very carefully about this area and to ensure the Bill does not provide immunity for bodies that have, potentially, a previous record of intentional false action in respect of information.

As I said, I signalled my amendments to section 65 on this matter, but if it is not possible to deal with those issues through that section, there may be potential to do so through the regulations made under section 67.