Councillors rage against new data protection rules
THE PROSPECT of losing access to the housing list had councillors up in arms at the recent County Council meeting as they pointed out that they could not do their job effectively without information.
County Secretary Pat Collins explained that the council had examined directions from the Data Protection Commissioner and found that the disclosing of the full housing list to councillors could be problematic in terms of data protection and would have to stop. Mr Collins suggested that councillors receive training in relation to how to use information such as housing list details.
But councillors were quick to have their say. Cllr Michael Whelan pointed out that he’d had 14 calls about housing the previous week and he needed to know what was going on in his area.
Cllr Ger Carthy pointed out that the council had an internal system for officials and wondered councillors should have access to it too. He said the role of the councillor had been diluted and the lack of information for councillors was ‘gone beyond a joke’. He added that the council’s notification system never returned an answer.
Cllr George Lawlor described the scenario as ‘ludicrous’ saying the council should contest the interpretation.
Cllr Michael Sheehan pointed out that local knowledge was key in housing matters, stating that ‘Removing councillors will cripple the housing policy,’ adding that a councillor’s role had already been ‘hollowed out’ over the years. He said the policy would be unworkable without the councillor’s input and recommended sending an emergency motion to the Data Protection Commissioner.
Cllr Malcolm Byrne acknowledged the importance of data protection but pointed out that when councillors had a list they knew where they, and people they made representations for, stood. He added that no one knew how houses allocation worked and said there was a lack of clarity and transparency in the process.
Cllr Larry O’Brien remarked that he would send the letter back where it came from ‘with bells on it’. He pointed out that the council was effectively a board of directors and should be able to overcome this directive. He remarked: ‘We know more than the housing officer. He have to get the right people in the right place.’ They would not, he said, be the only council to contest it.
Cllr Paddy Kavanagh said it was ludicrous that elected representatives weren’t informed on housing in their area saying that the councillor could be made to look ‘a right eejit altogether’ when they’re the last to know about a house being given.
Cllr Tony Dempsey said it would be ‘disastrous’ to underestimate the role of the public representative. However, he said that if he did not make a representation for a person, he did not need to know if said person got a house, suggesting that numerous councillors would claim credit for it.
Cllr Lawlor added that in the past officials had been hoodwinked by people but the councillors had known their backgrounds. Cllr Willie Fitzharris wondered if the directive prevented officials from contacting councillors for background information. Cllr Pip Breen wondered if this applied to more than housing and recommended copying all other county councils into its response.
Cllr Sheehan said the motion should call for a solution that would not inhibit the councillor’s role.
Mr Collins pointed out that the directive was for the whole country and had come from Europe, adding that there were fines for companies that did not abide by it as well as the possibility that people could claim compensation if their data was used in an improper fashion.
Director of Services Eddie Taaffe said that the commissioner’s job was to interpret the Data Protection Act and this interpretation would applie to all staff and local authorities. He said it was part of a much wider issue and if the council was found to have let information out in public, compensation could be claimed. He added that even defending such an issue would be of significant cost.
Cllr Carthy asked if he could seek compensation for his council expenses being released. Cllr Dempsey asked if the council could put forward its own interpretation of the law.
Cllr Jim Moore pointed out that the legislation would have a big impact everywhere. He believed all departments, along with the AILG and LAMA needed to be involved.
Cllr Lisa McDonald pointed out that information in the Land Registry and relating to property sales etc was all available publicly and she could not see why the housing list would not be available to members, saying they required the information in order to provide oversight. She felt they had been given a very narrow interpretation of the law, pointing out that the information will be public once a person moves into a house.
Council CEO Tom Enright pointed out that this was the law and it had been enacted by the Oireachtas. He agreed that the council was like a board of directors but that did not mean that information could be shared. He suggested that councillors look at passing a motion by resolution to send their concerns back. He said a lot of the directive was coming from Europe.
Mr Collins pointed out that a councillor making representations for a client could write to the council and get their information once consent was given.
A motion was passed calling for the interpreation to be reconsidered, particularly in relation to making it workable for councillors.