I welcome members to what is probably the last meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights of the 29th Dáil. I am delighted the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, is present on this auspicious occasion. I welcome him and his officials to the meeting, the purpose of which is to consider a motion for a European Council decision on the Schengen information system, which was referred yesterday to the committee by the Houses.
Draft Council Decision on Schengen Information System: Motion.
The Chairman makes me feel nostalgic. If this is the last meeting of the committee — I am not so sure about that — I wish members the best of luck. I hope they all return because, as we say in the west, the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know. I assure members that is a compliment.
That is what Fine Gael Deputies are saying on the doorsteps.
I thank the committee for providing the opportunity to deal with this draft European Council decision on the establishment, operation and use of the second generation of the Schengen information system, known as SIS II. The approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas is required before Ireland can agree to the adoption of the measure at EU level. In that context, we understand that the German EU Presidency will seek to have the decision formally adopted at a Council later this month. As the committee will be aware, the Schengen information system, which is the subject of the instrument, is an important tool for the exchange of information used to combat serious international crime. While the proposed Council decision contains some new elements, it is very much in line with the provisions of the 1990 Schengen Convention which cover the current Schengen information system. Ireland's participation in these provisions was approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas in 2002.
I will outline what Schengen is and details of Ireland's participation in the Schengen Convention, which originated outside the framework of the European Union. The Schengen arrangements, which are incorporated in the Schengen Convention, involve the abolition of passport checks on persons crossing EU internal borders. As compensatory measures, increased police and judicial co-operation and immigration control arrangements are provided for. All EU member states, other than the UK and Ireland, are full participants in Schengen, as are Norway and Iceland, and Switzerland is due to join shortly.
The second protocol to the Amsterdam treaty provided for the integration of the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union. Article 4 of this protocol provided for Ireland and the UK to request to take part in some or all of the provisions of the acquis at any time. Thus, this protocol allowed us to decide which aspects of Schengen we wished to become involved in. The UK applied to participate in the elements of the Schengen acquis that related solely to law enforcement and criminal judicial co-operation. It did not apply to participate in the aspects of Schengen which concern the abolition of border controls.
Ireland made an application in June 2000, broadly similar to that of the UK, which included participation in the Schengen information system. Our decision not to adopt the aspects of the Schengen acquis relating to the abolition of border controls was based on the desire to maintain the common travel area between the UK and Ireland.
The European Council made a favourable decision on Ireland's application for participation in certain elements of the Schengen acquis in February 2002. The 2002 decision is subject to the condition that Ireland achieve a positive outcome in an evaluation procedure. This means that, before we will be permitted to operate the relevant measures, we will have to undergo detailed scrutiny which will be undertaken by experts from the other Schengen state parties. However, the evaluation will not take place until we have implemented the necessary administrative and legal procedures to allow us to fulfil our Schengen obligations.
As I mentioned, one of the elements which we sought to participate in is the Schengen information system. This consists of a database allowing the designated authorities in the Schengen states to have access to information on persons and property for specific purposes. It operates on the basis of a central system located in Strasbourg, with communications links between it and the national systems in each participating state. Data exchanges take place using the most secure forms of encryption and under the strictest security.
This original SIS is in the process of being upgraded to a new system, SIS II. The main purpose of the new version of the SIS is to accommodate the inclusion of the new EU member states. The upgraded system also provides additional technical features, in particular the inclusion of biometric data, which directly concerns the physical characteristics of individuals, such as photographs and fingerprints.
The proposed Council decision before the committee is part of a set of three instruments to provide a legal basis for the second generation of the Schengen information system. The instruments specify the objective of SIS II, its technical architecture and financing and lay down detailed rules concerning operation and use, including data protection.
The definitions outline the categories of data to be entered into the system, the purpose for which the data are to be entered, the criteria for their entry and the authorities authorised to access the data. The text has been agreed in principle by the Council and it was endorsed by the European Parliament in October 2006. For information, I should mention that the other two legal measures necessary for SIS II, which are Council regulations, fall to be adopted under Community rules.
The main regulation is concerned with aspects of Schengen in which Ireland has decided not to participate, such as migration matters. Ireland will not be bound by it. The second regulation permits vehicle registration authorities to have limited access to the SIS II for the purpose of checking entries relating to stolen vehicles. It will apply in the case of Ireland and as it is a Community instrument, Oireachtas approval is not required.
Before the Minister of State outlines the features to the committee he should know that members have already received a briefing note. Perhaps he could proceed to outlining the operational timetable, if that is agreeable all around.
We have studied the documentation.
The initial intention was to implement SIS II during 2007 in parallel with the extension of the Schengen area to the new member states. However, there have been considerable delays in the development of SIS II for a number of technical and other reasons. The latest available timetable for development indicates SIS II will be launched in December 2008 and will be ready for a link-up with Ireland in early 2009.
With regard to domestic arrangements to prepare for SIS II, the Garda authorities are currently involved in an EU restricted procurement process for the provision of the national systems for SIS II. We are currently working to ensure the process will be completed at an early stage. In this regard, the revised global project timetable maps very well on to our projected schedule. The Garda authorities have reported that the national SIS II development project is expected to be completed in good time to allow integration with SIS II in accordance with the new global timetable.
New legislation will also be required in connection with SIS II, and this is currently in preparation. With regard to the financial implications of SIS II, it is estimated the cost of the project to the Garda board will be in the region of €18 million. Some additional costs will arise for other parties but they are not expected to be very significant. For example, our customs authorities will have to access certain SIS II data, as they are law enforcement bodies covered by the Schengen convention.
I thank members of the committee for their co-operation in making time available for this measure. When the new SIS is in place it will strengthen the capacity of EU member states to exchange information required in the fight against serious international crime, including terrorism tracking. As I indicated, the instrument is expected to be submitted for formal adoption shortly and the Government would wish to be in a position to signify full agreement to the text at that stage. In these circumstances I am happy to ask the committee to approve the motion before it.
I am very glad to indicate strong support for the draft EU Council decision on the establishment and operation of this next generation of the Schengen information system. This is one of the pets of the German Presidency. We should do anything we can do to support the German Presidency in view of the very wise position adopted by the German Chancellor on this and other issues.
Why am I starting not to like this?
We should not be reticent about this. The German Chancellor deserves our full support and I hope everybody in the country will take full notice of all the causes she has espoused, not least that of the Fine Gael Party.
At another level, I will speak on Schengen. Schengen is a centrepiece of the development of the European Union. It involves the abolition of passport checks on persons crossing EU internal borders and at the same time provides the security of increased policing, judicial co-operation and immigration control arrangements.
It seems to be the kind of concept I always thought would be a natural part of the development of the European Union. However, we are restricted and cannot fully adopt the Schengen arrangement because of the common travel area with the UK. Some years ago I dealt with EU matters at a Council level and the official word was anything impinging on the common travel area had to be moved away from, and we had to protect that area. It is time for us to review the whole approach.
What will Schengen be but effectively a European-wide common travel area? I appreciate that while the UK has its own peculiar approach to developments in the European Union, we cannot unilaterally change the operation of the common travel area. This is somewhat akin to the stance we took on the euro. It is time we had bilateral discussions with the United Kingdom and discussed the future of the common travel area. We should encourage that country to take the view that the common travel area should be subsumed into what will essentially be the common travel area of the European Union.
Depending on the outcome of such bilateral discussions we should take a fresh look at whether there is a case for linking our future to what are essentially the common travel arrangements of the European Union as opposed to the restrictive common travel area with the UK. It is time we opened that subject.
In the meantime we should do anything we can to develop our co-operation with the Schengen arrangement. That is the reason I enthusiastically endorse the proposal to involve ourselves with the updated second generation of the Schengen information system. If we are involved we must be fully up to speed on all matters relating to exchange of information. I can see this having a significant role in tackling transnational crime, such as people and drug trafficking. It is absolutely essential for us to be up to date on that.
I am happy to fully support the measure. I have a couple of questions. The Government's record on technological matters has not been startlingly good. Arrangements need to be put in place to ensure we have the technology to latch on to the second generation of the Schengen information system. Given that the Garda Síochána is still operating with 20 year-old walkie-talkies, I do not have the fullest confidence that this Administration will be up to speed quickly on these technological aspects. I would like some more information on where we stand on such technological matters.
As I understand his remarks, the Minister of State suggested that primary legislation will be necessary but why is that so? What is the purpose of such legislation and when will it be published? Can the Minister of State assure us that a draft law will be available so that we can implement the legislation after the change of Government?
Wishful thinking.
The Schengen agreement says one thing and does another. We are not opposing this provision because it introduces a second generation of technology, which clearly must be done, as it concerns updating what we have. What worries me, however, is that we are discussing in detail the immediate transfer of information in real time between member states, yet we constantly hear stories about this. For example, 12 months ago the Garda Síochána got a tip off about child pornography on the Internet but did not act on it. I can only imagine the amount of information that comes into Garda headquarters every day, so I can understand that, but, on the other hand, what is the point of having an immediate transfer of information if someone is not there to pick it up and act on it? That aspect of the matter worries me slightly.
Sharing a common border with the UK, we must be tied to that jurisdiction for travel documentation and other operational matters. However, I would much rather have border controls, including passports, which offer a form of security to states and individuals within those states. I prefer that system to a presumption that Big Brother is watching us, whereas Big Brother is not watching at all because he did not even bother to pick up on the information. If we are to be enthusiastic about this directive, and we should be, we must put in place a security system that will be acted upon in the public interest, rather than having a false perception of security. I am not into this European super-state idea. I do not think we should relinquish our individual nationhoods in favour of a greater European state. I support greater European economic co-operation and social cohesion, but member states have individual responsibilities towards their citizens. In updating these provisions, we must ensure they are availed of as well as being properly monitored and implemented. I am not overly enthusiastic about the abolition of all border controls for a variety of reasons. Our citizens need to be assured that with this equipment in place to effect the transfer of information, the system is used efficiently and acted upon by the Garda Síochána or whatever arm of the State is concerned.
I agree with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. I find it strange that 84 years after we broke with England, we are following some aspects of that country's policies, rather than taking an independent line. It was thought that, having joined the EU, much of the bureaucracy including border controls would disappear. I wonder why there is such a strong attachment to maintaining the common travel area. I see some difficulties but what are the perceived practical implications of not implementing that? Broadly, I support the proposals before us but I would like to see us going further and signing up fully to the Schengen accord.
I thank Deputies and Senator for their contributions. I take the point raised by Deputy Lynch, but the SIS II will considerably improve and increase the ability of the authorities here to deal with the issues she has rightly raised. A specific office will be set up in the Garda Síochána called the Sirene bureau, which will liaise with its counterparts in other states. It will also have a significant role in ensuring that information which is passed on to this country is acted upon in the most efficient way. That is not to say that is not happening — it is. However, I take the Deputy's point that there are perhaps some gaps. A sizeable budget of €18 million is available to the Garda Síochána for the project. The project board will be chaired by an assistant commissioner of the Garda Síochána, so the new structure will considerably improve the current situation.
I am somewhat surprised by the comments of two good republicans from west Cork and Wexford regarding the common travel area with Great Britain. If we were to consider their suggestions it would involve border controls with Northern Ireland.
I do not want to get rid of all border controls.
If the Deputy wants to change the common travel area, that is one of the implications of doing so. That is not the intention, however. We want to keep the common travel area with Britain and reduce, as far as possible, any kind of border controls in place. Notwithstanding Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's new found love of Germany, we would like to keep our existing relationship with Britain as well.
I thank the Minister of State. That concludes our discussion.
I wish to emphasise, Chairman, that my anxiety is not to have any extra border controls. My anxiety is, in fact, to reduce border controls across Europe.
We will not hold it against the Deputy. He need not worry.
I want to see a bigger emphasis on tracking transnational criminals, who are not picked up at normal border passport checks anyhow.
That is understood. That is consistent with what the Deputy has been saying over the years.
Is it agreed that there should be no further debate on the matter by Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann? Agreed.
Is the draft report agreed, subject to the insertion of details regarding attendance and contributors to the discussion? Agreed.
A formal message will be sent by the clerk to both Houses confirming that the joint committee has completed its consideration of the motion. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending.