Select Committee on Justice and Equality debate -
Wednesday, 2 May 2018

Business of Select Committee

Chairman

As we are in public session, I appeal to all members and guests to ensure their mobile phones are switched off as they cause interference with the recording equipment. Apologies have been received from Deputy Jack Chambers.

This meeting has been convened to consider the Committee Stage of the Data Protection Bill 2018. I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, and his officials. I extend a welcome to our guests in the Gallery.

Before we begin, I advise members that in respect of the Chair's opinion of the result of the question being put, I intend from today onward to declare the result based on my opinion of the likely outcome of any division subsequently demanded rather than adherence to the position that has applied heretofore of the Chair having to declare in favour of one set of opinion. Do the members understand what I have just indicated? Do they accept the logic of it?

Deputy Clare Daly

Chairman, I am sorry but I do not understand the point.

Chairman

Does the Deputy recall when we were dealing with the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017? We had an inordinate number of votes. on one occasion, we had 52 votes in one day. Having reviewed the votes afterwards, the Chair was obliged to make a declaration and then a vote would be called and we were into an unnecessary and elongated voting procedure.

Deputy Clare Daly

Is the Chairman's suggestion a means of avoiding the votes?

Chairman

To avoid all of that time-wasting, I intend to indicate as I see it. If Deputies wish to challenge my decision, they will have the opportunity to call a vote. That applies to members or to the Minister, as appropriate. Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.

I appreciate that this is a departure from the past practice of declaring the result in favour of the Government side but, as I have already explained, it is likely to expedite proceedings and reduce the possibility of a division producing a result different from that declared by the Chair. It is also relieves the Minister of what he had to do throughout all of that elongated consideration of a request to be noted on each occasion. Before we commence consideration of the Bill and the amendments, does the Minister have any opening remarks he would like to make?

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Charles Flanagan)

I am looking forward to our engagement on the Bill. There was a very constructive debate on it in the Seanad over a number of days. We teased out some of the detailed issues. May I make a general point that I will be returning to repeatedly during our discussions? For the most part, the general data protection regulation, GDPR, is a directly applicable legal instrument. That presents a challenge for member states insofar as they are not allowed to alter its scope, whether by means of interpretation, elaboration or adjustment.

The Court of Justice has made this very clear in case law. Any such action on the part of a member state, by placing obstacles in the way of free movement of personal data between member states would, in essence, be a breach of EU law. That would have the immediate consequence of triggering infringement proceedings against the state by the European Commission in the Commission's role as custodian of the treaties. Neither this nor any future Government would wish to find itself in that position, having to defend national law measures that are in conflict with the GDPR. I ask that the committee be mindful of this in the context of our deliberations and debate.

Chairman

There are 248 amendments, which we will not get through today as we have to vacate the room by 1.15 p.m. We are scheduled to resume consideration at 2 p.m. tomorrow. We will sit as long as is required tomorrow in the hope that we will get this concluded. If we do not get this legislation through, in line with the request from the Minister and the Department, as there is a timeframe already set, we will have to sit again on Friday. That should be enough of a carrot for the members to ensure that we get through the business expeditiously. I would like us to get through the business without any unnecessary prevarication.

Deputy Mick Wallace

If we do not finish on Thursday, we will come back on Friday. Is there a deadline at any time on Thursday evening?

Deputy Clare Daly

We should discuss a break. We are not going to sit from 2 p.m. until midnight. I have a public meeting on the referendum that I have to go to. I can go and come back but will have to be absent for at least part of the committee meeting tomorrow. It would be good to have a break coincide with that. Can we relax the rules? We are a small group. It is more difficult for us to get someone to stand in for me for a vote than for others. Can I get someone from outside our group? How does that work?

Chairman

That is not provided for. I think we have come across this before.

Deputy Clare Daly

Maybe we can consult afterwards about when we might take the break in tomorrow's session. We will probably know where we are more clearly after today's meeting.

Chairman

We can have a degree of fluidity in that regard. Members are also in a position to leave for a toilet break if they please but the Minister may be in a more difficult position. If he chooses to seek a five or ten minute break during the course of the proceedings, he will have to indicate to the Chair. The phrase to use is: "An bhfuil cead agam dul amach?"

Deputy Charles Flanagan

As always, the Minister is a servant of this committee and is in its hands. The Minister will abide by the rulings of the Chair at all times.

Deputy Mick Wallace

Even at times of distress. I would not have pegged the Minister as a servant.

Chairman

I would like that noted and put up in lights.