The House of Representatives this evening debated an Opposition motion for the repeal of a legal notice which provides that the education minister may request data about students of whatever age and that such data, including personal details, has to be given to given to him by the institutions concerned.

Dr Joe Cassar, PN spokesman on education.

The motion was moved by the shadow minister for education, Joe Cassar, who said that the education authorities already had the tools to seek information for research purposes and to advise students on employment, without the need for personal details being given to the minister.

He noted that the legal notice did not define what 'research' the minister may himself carry out, and why the students' personal data, including ID numbers, were required.

This legal notice, he said, would enable the creation of student profiles including sensitive information, without the necessary safeguards for data protection. As a result, there could be abuse in the processing of such information.

Dr Cassar said the powers being given to the minister to get data were absolute and without limit. Why was the information to be given to the minister to be handled by persons authorised by him? And why did the minister require even ID numbers to identify and home in on persons?

Privacy was essential, not least for students with disabilities or learning problems, but now information about them could be given to the minister without requiring the parents' consent.

Research was made on categories of persons, not individuals, Dr Cassar said. If the minister wanted to give advice on employment opportunities, parents' consent for the acquisition of data should be required. And he did not see how that was relevant for say, kindergarten pupils.

Why did the minister want to know who was registering for work, and for what? Shouldn't such information be held by the ETC only?

This was big brother legislation, Dr Cassar said.

BARTOLO: I AM VICTIM OF MISINFORMATION

Education Minister Evarist Bartolo said he he had a track record of fighting for civil rights, and yet he was being demonised in a campaign of misinformation.

Education Minister Evarist Bartolo

The legal notice had been issued so that information could be collected in away which could be of personalised assistance to students and young workers.

Much of the information that would be collected in terms of this legal notice was in fact already being collected such as for learning support assistance and assistance to church and private schools.

Amid Opposition comments that such information was given with parents' consent, Mr Bartolo said there were cases where parents did not cooperate or practically abandon their children, including absenteeism.

"I have no problem in being my brothers' keeper, but this is certainly not a case of big brother," Mr Bartolo said. 

This legal notice was aimed at ensuring that those who were vulnerable were known and could be helped. For example, 44 per cent of young people did not further their education and did not register for work. They needed to be tracked down so that they could be counselled, guided and assisted through the various schemes for young people. The information was also needed for say, graduate under-employment and unemployment.

Mr Bartolo tabled exchanges between his ministry and the Data Protection Commissioner to show, he said, that every part of this legal notice was cleared by the commissioner.

Had the government had malicious intentions, it would not have issued a legal notice after seeking the approval of the commissioner - who was appointed by the former government, Mr Bartolo said.

The commissioner would continue to monitor the situation, and if he had suggestions on ways to address concerns in certain quarters, they could be taken on board. There was nothing to hide, Mr Bartolo said.

Mario de Marco said one did not judge solely on the basis of intentions but the means to achieve that end, and the Opposition felt that this method of scrutiny undermined very person's right to privacy and dignity.

Anthony Agius Decelis (PL) said planning and provision of programmes could only be achieved with the availability of proper data. Even the Mosta archpriest had sent a questionnaire to families requesting information on families and households. 

Claudette Buttigieg said the Mosta archpriest was not collecting information behind the people's back, as the government was doing. She insisted that data of students should be collected with the parents' consent in terms of the Data Protection Direction of the European Union, which this legal notice breached.

"The children are ours' not the state's" Ms Buttigieg said. 

Social Policy Minister Michael Farrugia also insisted on the need for data to focus assistance where it was needed.

Paula Mifsud Bonnici (PN) said she was concerned about the government's real intentions. The government either did not know what it was doing, or it was trying to deceive people, he said.

Minister Helena Dalli stressed that this legal notice observed the law and had been approved by the Data Protection Commissioner.

Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said the education minister had offered talks with the opposition, but then never sent for the opposition. So much for consultation. Had the government wanted data for research, it did not need to collect so much information on students, he said. This legal notice was not proportional and would collect an excessive amount of information without consent.

The motion was rejected with 37 government votes against and 30 opposition votes in favour. Foreign Minister George Vella was abroad on government business.