The purpose of the meeting is to consider a motion on a proposal for a Council framework decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between member states. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Power, and his officials to assist with our consideration of the motion. Before I ask the Minister of State to begin, I advise members that there will be a short presentation followed by a question and answer session.
Council Framework Decision: Motion.
I commented earlier to the effect that the timing of this meeting had discommoded members. I had hoped that on an important occasion such as this we would be in a position to do our business by agreement and in accordance with committee schedules. When I was coming into the meeting, I received three lengthy and detailed volumes of the Morris report which I understand was delivered to the Taoiseach last night. I question the timing of this and had hoped the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, would be present to explain the reason these important documents were published this morning. Of all the days and places and given all the available opportunities, it is highly questionable why the sixth annual report has been published today when the entire country and the system of public administration have their eyes on matters of State. I express my dissatisfaction that the report of a tribunal of inquiry should be published in this manner and on this day. I ask that the Minister of State, Deputy Power, convey my feelings on the matter to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and that he give Members of the House an explanation as to the reason today was chosen for publication, rather than any other day in the past few weeks.
The matter is not strictly on the agenda but I accept the Deputy's point.
I wonder if Deputy Flanagan is criticising the tribunal.
I am not.
It was the tribunal which published the document.
I am criticising the Minister who published the document.
I have allowed brief comments to be made on the matter but it is not on the agenda.
If the Deputy was criticising the tribunal, that would be another issue.
Let there be no confusion — my criticism lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of State, Deputy Power, and his superior, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Lenihan. I do not criticise the tribunal. I criticise the Minister and the political leaders for issuing this report today.
Your point is made. It has been noted and accepted. We are dealing with a separate matter. I invite the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power, to brief the committee on the relevant framework decision.
I would have thought all members would welcome the publication of the Morris report. I have no doubt there will be ample opportunity to debate it. It is in ink that will last for some time. It will be as well debated next week as it could be today.
I thank the committee for dealing with this draft EU Council framework decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between member states. The approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas is required before Ireland can agree to the adoption of the instrument at EU level.
The history of criminal record collection in Ireland stems from 19th century legislation to the establishment of the Garda Criminal Records Office. Until 1972, two major criminal records offices existed in Ireland, the Dublin Criminal Registry and the Criminal Records Office, Dublin Castle. These offices were then merged to form the Garda Criminal Records Office. Criminal records are now entered within the PULSE system and the progress of an individual's criminal offence can be tracked from arrest stage through the court system and any subsequent conviction.
The main objective of criminal record information is to provide a full history of all individual criminal backgrounds which can be used for a number of purposes, including identification of suspects, aiding criminal investigations under way, determining how strictly to apply a sentence in a criminal trial and clarifying and evaluating a person's suitability for particular employments. Within the European Union, it is more and more common for people to receive criminal convictions outside their member state of nationality. There is, therefore, a need for each member state to have complete criminal record information, including information on convictions in other member states handed down against its nationals.
Information on convictions has been exchanged between member states of the EU through systems set up by the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. In November 2005, the Council adopted a decision on the exchange of information extracted from criminal records. It is designed to improve the systems established by the 1959 Council of Europe convention, chiefly by speeding up transmission times. In 2007, the designated central authority for the exchange of information from criminal records within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform dealt with more than 100 requests made in accordance with the 2005 Council decision.
The proposal for a Council framework decision on criminal records was put forward by the Commission in December 2005. It arises from expectations expressed within the Council for the need to improve the quality of information exchanged on criminal convictions within the European Union. The Hague Programme also called upon the European Commission to put forward proposals with a view to stepping up exchanges of information on the contents of national registers of convictions and disqualifications.
Since its presentation, the proposal has been under discussion within the Council. On 12 and 13 June 2007, the Council of Ministers reached an agreement on a general approach on the draft framework decision. The European Parliament had been invited to give its opinion on the proposal. Its opinion was delivered on 26 June 2007. A second opinion on the proposal from the Parliament is expected. However, this opinion is unlikely to be delivered before June 2008. At this stage, it is expected that there will be no changes of substance to the text.
The aim of the proposal for a Council framework decision is to further improve the exchange of information on criminal convictions within the EU. Its purpose is as follows: to provide for the transmission of information on a conviction handed down against the national of another member state by the member state of conviction to the member state of the person's nationality; to provide for transmission by the member state of nationality to other member states, on request, of information on national convictions registered in the national criminal record, information on convictions handed down in other member states against its nationals, information on convictions handed down in third countries, subsequently transmitted to the member state of nationality and entered in the national criminal record; and to lay down the framework for a computerised conviction information exchange system between member states to be built and developed on the basis of this framework decision and a subsequent Council decision.
The framework decision obliges each member state to ensure that all convictions handed down within its territory are accompanied, when transmitted to the national criminal record, by information on the nationality or nationalities of the convicted person if he or she is a national of another member state. Each member state will inform other member states of convictions handed down against its nationals within its territory. The member state of nationality will be obliged to store this information which will enable it to provide a comprehensive response to requests for information extracted from the criminal record.
When the member state of conviction is transmitting information on convictions to the member state of nationality, a comprehensive range of data should be provided. The provision of this comprehensive information will assist the member state of nationality in identifying the person concerned as a criminal convicted in that member state. It also takes account of the different methods used by member states to store criminal record information.
Requests for information extracted from criminal records must be made using the form annexed to the framework decision. Replies to requests must also be made using this form and should be accompanied by the list of convictions, if any, of the person concerned. Personal data provided in response to requests for information may be used for the purposes of criminal proceedings and for other purposes. Conditions in respect of the use of personal data are set out in Article 9 of the framework decision.
The framework decision also provides for electronic transmission between member states of information extracted from criminal records. The format for transmitting such information electronically and other related matters will be established by a separate Council decision.
Article 1 sets out the purpose of the framework decision as already outlined. Article 2 defines "conviction", "criminal proceedings" and "criminal record" for the purposes of the framework decision. Article 3 provides for the designation of a central authority for the exchange of information from criminal records. Article 4 obliges the member state of conviction to inform the member state of nationality of convictions handed down against its nationals. Each member state will have to transmit to its national criminal records information on the nationality of the convicted person if that person is a national of another member state. Information and any subsequent alteration or deletion of information contained in criminal records will be transmitted by the member state of conviction to the member state of the person's nationality.
Article 5 sets out the storage obligations on the member state of nationality when information is being transmitted by the member state of conviction. It includes a provision that any subsequent alteration or deletion of information by the member state of conviction will entail an identical alteration or deletion by the member state of the person's nationality for the purpose of transmission of the information to requesting member states.
Article 6 relates to requests for information on criminal convictions. The central authority of a member state may submit a request to the central authority of another member state for information and related data to be extracted from the criminal record. When a person asks for information on his or her criminal record, the criminal authority of the member state in which the request is made may submit the requests to the central authority of another member state provided the person concerned is, or has been, a resident or national of the requesting member state.
Article 7 sets out the obligation on a member state when replying to a request for information on convictions to transmit information on national convictions, convictions in other member states and convictions in third states when the information has been requested for the purposes of criminal proceedings. When information has been requested for other purposes, the requesting member state will, for national and third state convictions, respond in accordance with national law. In respect of information on convictions handed down in another member state, its response will depend on whether the member state of conviction has imposed a bar on the retransmission of information.
Article 8 sets out the deadlines for replies to requests for information on convictions. Article 9 sets out the conditions in regard to the use of personal data. Unless there is a need to prevent an immediate and serious threat to public security, personal data provided for the purpose of criminal proceedings may be used only for the purpose of the criminal proceedings for which they were requested. Personal data provided for any other purposes may be used in accordance with the national law of the requesting member state for the purposes for which they have been requested and within the limits specified by the requesting member state. Similar conditions apply in respect of data transmitted to third states.
Article 10 relates to the languages that may be used in transmitting information. Article 11 sets out in detail the information to be transmitted by the member state of conviction to the member state of nationality. It provides for the transmission of obligatory and optional information. It is intended that, in time, information will be transmitted electronically. The format to be used in regard to the electronic exchange of information will be the subject of a separate proposal for a Council decision. Articles 12 and 13 have been deleted from the proposal.
Article 14 outlines the relationship between the Council framework decision and other legal instruments. In particular, the framework decision supplements the provisions of Article 13 of the 1959 Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its 1978 and 2001 additional protocols. It also replaces, in relations between member states, the provisions of Article 22 of that convention, supplemented by Article 4 of the 1978 additional protocol. Articles 15 and 16 contain the implementation and entry into force provisions, respectively.
The implementation of the Council framework decision will provide Ireland with information on the criminal convictions of Irish nationals convicted in the other member states as a matter of course. It also provides us with a quick mechanism for receiving comprehensive information extracted from criminal records on request.
When the framework decision takes effect, Ireland will be obliged to transmit, as a matter of course, to other member states information on convictions handed down against their nationals here. In order for Ireland to fulfil this obligation we will have to record the nationality of persons from other member states convicted here. We will also be obliged to store information on convictions handed down against Irish nationals in other member states. This will facilitate us in providing information on convictions handed down in other member states to requesting member states.
Given the implications of the implementation of the framework decision, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform believes that it is best to give effect to it through new legislation. He intends to bring the necessary legislative proposal before the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for their co-operation in making time available for the presentation of this measure. This draft Council framework decision sets out to establish a more efficient and comprehensive system for the exchange of information extracted from criminal records within the EU. Its implementation will provide the relevant national authorities with comprehensive information on a person subject to legal proceedings. This information may also be used for purposes other than criminal proceedings in accordance with national law.
The Government would wish to be in a position to signify full agreement to the text when it is submitted to the EU Council of Ministers for formal adoption. In that regard we would like to be in a position to inform, as soon as possible, the secretariat of the Council of the EU that Ireland's parliamentary reservation has been lifted.
In the circumstances, I am happy to ask the committee to approve the motion before it.
I thank the Minister of State for his contribution, arising from which I wish to raise two issues. First, can the Minister of State clarify who or what is the central authority? Is it the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Courts Service or the Garda Síochána? I did not have the privilege of membership of the House when the matter was previously discussed and I require clarification on the status of the central authority, which is central to the framework decision.
Second, how will we address the shortcomings in our own system of data protection and collation? What is the status of our database of national criminal records and our record keeping, which commence with gardaí? Once again, this week we saw the shortcomings in the PULSE system, which is the most important computerised system available to the Garda Síochána. How will it cope with multiple record generation?
Many of the people who will be the subject matter of these exchanges will have numerous addresses, nationalities and dates of birth and will be "also known as". If we do not have our own national criminal record base how can we suddenly engage in this type of EU-wide exchange of information? How can we improve our own information gathering system, which will not be in a position to cope? Will our computerised data recording system be able to sort records and differentiate alleged duplications?
Reference was made to the exemption of some convictions. Which convictions will be exempted and which will not be logged? Can the Minister of State clarify the question of appeals? The document refers to "convictions that may be subjected to a protracted or delayed appeal in another EU member state". How will we know and how will the information be logged? Will a full history of convictions be provided? We were all horrified recently by the Fritzl case in Austria. It was reported that Josef Fritzl had previous convictions for sex offences but his records were deleted from the Austrian register after a period of ten years. How will that practice tally with our system?
I am concerned that the records will be kept on the Garda PULSE system which, despite costing €60 million, is not on a par with the best systems in Europe. Perhaps the Minister of State will let us know when we will see the roll-out of the advanced computer system that will enable us to take our place in the system of information extraction and exchange.
At the very end of his presentation the Minister of State referred to the fact that Ireland's parliamentary reservations had been lifted. I presume this is just technical jargon and that there were no reservations previously. Some member states do not maintain sex offenders lists. How does this fit into the scheme of things? I am aware that information on convictions can be provided but what is the position on sex offenders lists?
Realistically, how far away is a common European database containing all criminal records which would be automatically available to all member states? This is a very important development because we are all aware of a number of people who have come to this country in recent times, particularly since the enlargement of the European Union, who have criminal records and reoffended here. Perhaps they would not have done so if local gardaí had been aware of their criminal records. A number of Romanians living in Kenmare identified for the police an individual there who had a serious criminal record in Romania. This is a very important issue in terms of convictions and protecting our own communities and individuals from people with previous convictions who are not repentant and are prepared to reoffend, if given the opportunity.
I welcome the Minister of State. Article 4 obliges member states to inform other member states of any convictions handed down against its nationals. Does this also apply if people in the European Union have concerns about a state being involved in criminal activity? Will information on cases involving members of the police force or agents of the state such as the Pat Finucane case or the case of the young Brazilian man shot in a tube station by police officers also be passed on to member states? Some within the European Union have major human rights concerns about the activities of some police forces. Will such information be exchanged under Article 4?
Will the Minister of State clarify the information on convictions that is exchanged between member states of the European Union through systems established by the 1959 Council of Europe convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters and that we have been co-operating in this matter since? Many members of the public are under the impression that this co-operation, even though it has been ongoing since 1959, has only become part of the European agenda since the beginning of the debate on the Lisbon treaty.
I agree strongly with the sentiments of Article 9 which contains the conditions governing the use of personal data. Unless there is a need to prevent an immediate and serious threat to public security, personal data may be used only for the purposes of the criminal proceedings for which they were requested. Will the Minister of State clarify what is meant by "serious threat to public security"? The Minister of State said, "This information may also be used for purposes other than criminal proceedings in accordance with national law". For what other purposes will it be used?
I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. The committee is dealing with the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. When will we see an integrated and centralised European Union database on criminal convictions? Specifically, the issue which has come into focus recently is that of sex offenders; it is the most urgent. I presume that from now on offences of the type in the Niall McElwee case will be reported to the Irish authorities. I understand there is a proposal on the table at Council of Ministers level from the Belgian authorities and the Finish Government to establish such a database on sex offenders. What is the Irish position on this proposal? Why has it not progressed? It is a gaping hole in the co-operation between member states which needs to be closed urgently. It leaves not only Irish children but children throughout the European Union in an extremely vulnerable position. Will information be available on previous convictions or only on convictions from this point in time to the member state which is home to a convicted citizen? Will it apply retrospectively to ensure we will not end up in a situation where people convicted of a sex crime in another member state will be able to work with children in this jurisdiction, as happened in the past?
Basic biometric information along the lines provided for in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill is not provided for under Article 11. Why is provision not being made for this, considering that passports of most member states contain a certain amount of such information? Why is that not included? That is an anomaly in the system currently.
I refer to third country nationals. Between 2001 and February 2008, the Department of Justice, Equality and Reform deported 130 people who were convicted of an offence and served sentences in this jurisdiction. Is there a central database with information on third country nationals deported from member states? For example, what is to prevent someone convicted in Ireland who has served his or her time being deported by the Minister to his or her country origin trying to re-enter via the United Kingdom, Italy or Spain? Is a database available or is the Band-Aid approach still adopted in member states?
I welcome the Minister of State. The framework decision is welcome because it is an extremely important development and it will be vital going forward in tackling the increase in international criminality, including drug smuggling, human trafficking, cross-border crime and international terrorism. How compatible is the PULSE system with similar systems in other member states? If it is not compatible, what is required to ensure compatibility? Is a plan in place to address shortcomings in the system? What is the likely timeframe for the decision to be enforced throughout Europe? Deputy Finian McGrath referred to the statement, "used for purposes other than criminal proceedings in accordance with national law". Will the Minister of State clarify whether each member state will adopt its own stance on the decision?
I welcome the framework decision, especially where it provides for an obligation to inform the receiving country about convictions overturned on appeal in order that we do not end up in the scenario we had between Ireland and the US when Frank McBrearty Jnr was refused entry into the US because the Garda had failed to inform the US authorities that his conviction had been overturned. Article 5.2 addresses that issue.
The Minister of State might clarify one of my concerns. Currently, in criminal proceedings taken in the State, previous convictions are raised at the end of the trial in order that the case is not prejudiced. Does this practice apply in other jurisdictions? The framework decision will permit previous convictions to be used in criminal proceedings in other jurisdictions. Will criminal proceedings be harmonised in member states in order that previous convictions cannot prejudice a case in another jurisdiction because of the different nature of court systems in the EU?
It is good that the information can only be used for criminal proceedings. Different data protection regimes apply in member states but I could not find out who is obliged to ensure data protection laws are not transgressed. Is it the relevant authority or the data protection commissioner in the different countries?
There are many questions for the Minister of State to answer.
I thank all the members for their questions. Some members who had to leave asked several questions and we will try to cover as many of them as possible.
Deputy Flanagan raised the issue of the Morris report, which is not particularly relevant, but I would make the point that when the Morris tribunal was set up the Minister was obliged to publish that report within 14 days of receiving it. He received the report on 24 April and I understand the 14 days are up today. Under the legislation it had to be done by today and we are doing that. As I mentioned earlier, we will have ample opportunity to discuss it.
Deputy Flanagan asked about the Irish central authority and who would have responsibility in that regard. Under the provisions of the 2005 Council decision on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record, the central authority for the exchange of information from criminal records is located in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Department has commenced consideration of the designation of a central authority in light of the implementation of the framework decision.
The Deputy also asked whether data protection provisions contained in the framework decision were sufficient. We take the view that there are significant data protection provisions in the Council framework decision. The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner was consulted during the negotiations on the proposal. That office has made some suggestions with regard to the transposition of the Council framework decision into national law. Those will be taken into consideration during the drafting of the necessary implementing legislation and we have a period of three years in which to implement that.
Is there any indication when we will see that legislation?
We expect the European Parliament will deal with it in a matter of a few weeks and that the Council of Ministers will give it their approval shortly thereafter. It may be the middle of the summer and we will have three years from then to implement the legislation.
When the clock starts ticking in the Department will it be front-loaded on the first third of that three years or implemented at the very last minute?
It would be unwise of me to even venture a guess. Circumstances can change in any Department. Emergencies can arise where priority is given to legislation but we have agreed that the legislation will be implemented within a three year period. I cannot say whether that will be in the first, second or third year but the three year period will not be long passing. We have given a commitment to implement the legislation within that period and that is what we will do.
A question was asked about convictions and appeals. What we are talking about are final convictions in a member state, and that would be after an appeal if one were made. We will not be obliged to delete any information received from the member state of conviction. If they delete it we do not necessarily have to do so. That information can be retained. Once the person is convicted that information will be provided immediately to the other member state. That would include sex offenders. There will be sharing of information, therefore, with which very few people would disagree. It will provide a full history of all individual criminal backgrounds, which has to be useful in the European Union context.
Several member states are using this as a pilot project in an informal way and are working successfully in providing that information to one another. We are giving a commitment that we will do something similar but on a wider level. In that way the 27 countries in the European Union will provide this information to one another. There is no common EU database of convictions. Once a person is convicted, the information is sent to the member state of nationality.
Deputy McGrath raised a particular issue. The conviction is against a national rather than a body or company. It will refer only to persons. Once there is a conviction against a national, the information will be transmitted immediately.
A question was asked about the position under the 1959 Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Article 13 provides that a requested party shall communicate extracts from and information on judicial records requested by the judicial authorities of a contracting party and needed in dealing with a criminal matter. In any other case the request shall be complied with in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, regulations or practice of the requested party. Ireland is a party to both the convention and the 1978 protocol, as I mentioned. It has a reservation about Article 22 insofar as it will not notify criminal convictions or subsequent measures except insofar as the organisation of judicial records allows us to so do.
On the 2005 Council decision on the exchange of information extracted from criminal records, the question was asked as to how long it took Ireland to reply to requests for information and how many requests had been processed to date. On average, a reply is issued within a period of two to three weeks. Last year 103 requests were processed by the central authority for the exchange of information from criminal records within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This is in accordance with the 2005 Council decision. There was a total of 84 incoming requests, while 19 were outgoing. This year there have been nine outgoing requests and 49 incoming requests received by the central authority, the majority of which have been dealt with and the remainder are being processed. Therefore, members can see that they are given significant priority within the Department. Once a request is made, it is dealt with expeditiously and the information is provided.
Will the Department be able to adhere to the timeframe outlined in this decision, that is, ten working days?
The Deputy can see that we are working close to it. It will necessitate a number of changes in a few areas to meet the deadline. In signing the framework we were happy that we could meet the deadline and are confident that we will.
A question was asked about the conviction of third country nationals. Article 7.1 of the framework decision provides that in replying to a request for information for the purposes of criminal proceedings, the member state of nationality shall transmit information on any convictions handed down in third countries and subsequently transmitted to it and entered in the criminal records. The European Commission is working on the feasibility of providing an index of third country nationals convicted in the European Union. Such an index would facilitate a member state in establishing whether a person has been convicted in another member state.
Therefore, the Minister of State is saying there is nothing in place?
Exactly.
Does that cover a case involving a French person living in Ireland who goes to Great Britain and commits a sexual offence? Under the framework decision, the authorities in Great Britain will be obliged to notify the authorities in France of this fact but if the person concerned has been living in Ireland for, say, 20 years, there will be no such obligation to notify the authorities in Ireland. Is that what the Minister of State is referring to?
We seek the information if an issue arises here, if we believe it might be helpful and a request is made.
Is this not where there is a fundamental weakness in what we are dealing with? This is a precursor to a European database and, at least, we will have a common body of information which can be uploaded onto a database. However, there is a fundamental weakness in that, unless someone who is convicted in, say, the United Kingdom and is a resident and national of France, he or she must come to the attention of the Garda Síochána because gardaí do not seek such information. Should we not have a system in place throughout Europe, particularly for sexual offences, whereby Garda authorities could learn of a conviction by reference to a centralised database to which all member states would have access?
There is no fundamental weakness. What we are proposing is a very positive step involving co-operation between all member states of the European Union. The main objective of providing criminal record information is to provide a full history of all individuals with a criminal background. This can then be used for a number of purposes, including the identification of suspects and aiding criminal investigations under way. We can determine whether a person before a court has any previous convictions and it will be helpful in evaluating whether a person is suitable for particular types of employment. It represents major progress. We will all benefit from the co-operation between all member states in tackling crime at European level.
Perhaps the Minister of State will deal with two of my questions. The first relates to biometric information which is not provided for in the proposal. Basic information is provided for in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008, although genetic information is excluded, which is important from the point of view of protecting the human rights of individuals.
The second question concerns the Government's position on proposals made by the Belgian and Finnish authorities for a common sexual offences database throughout the European Union. Such a database has been in preparation for a number of years but nothing seems to be happening, although the matter is of genuine concern to the public. The Minister of State brought up hypothetical cases but there have been such cases and it is important that the authorities have access to such information.
On the Deputy's question on the use of biometric information, it is planned to provide for the use of fingerprints. Some countries have national ID cards, which can be very useful.
Other physical information is not being provided and that seems to contradict what we are trying to achieve in the committee in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008. We have provided in our passport legislation for the storage of information on our own citizens but other member states are not obliged to furnish information on their citizens with convictions for very serious crimes.
The information which has to be transmitted, if available to the central authorities concerned, includes fingerprints taken from a person.
Other biometric information is not required to be transmitted. The proposal seems to be two steps behind us and every other member state. Perhaps it is because it has taken so long to bring it this far, but it seems to be superseded by the current standard procedures.
The Deputy makes a good point but this is something to be considered at a later date. It is not included here.
Is it too late to include it now, given that no final decision has been taken on it.
No final decision has been taken on it. We do not expect any major change when the European Parliament deals with it in a few weeks' time and, subsequently, the Council of Ministers.
The Deputy mentioned the Belgian proposal. It is incorporated in this proposal for a framework decision.
I am talking about the Belgian proposal——
When one tries to get agreement on something like this between all member states, there is no such thing as perfection. There will always be areas where we would like improvements and what we see as an improvement, others have reservations about. Overall, it is a positive development in tackling crime. It is wonderful to see all member states of the European Union co-operating in this battle.
I agree with the Minister of State, but how far are we from having a database of sexual offenders? I am aware that proposals have been brought forward by the Belgian and Finnish authorities. The Belgian authorities brought forward proposals because of a specific case in Belgium. However, we have had the Ian Huntley case in the United Kingdom. How many more such cases must there be before the European Union as a whole gets its act together? I understand the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is but one cog of the wheel. Will the Minister of State indicate a timeframe? Is this imminent or will it drag on and on? It is of fundamental importance to every citizen. It is probably one of the biggest concerns people have in terms of European co-operation, that there should be closer co-operation and sharing of information on specific offences, and that the Garda Síochána should have access to information on its own citizens who commit offences in other member states, as well as on others resident here who are not citizens but who have committed offences in other member states.
From the point of view of co-operation, this framework decision will be very beneficial in terms of agreement and co-operation between member states. On the setting up of a database of sexual offenders, I cannot tell the committee with any certainty how far advanced discussions are. I agree that it is a very important issue and one on which we want greater co-operation between member states. We have a framework decision before us. It is important to give it the green light and allow it to proceed, and to work with other member states in trying to secure co-operation on a database as outlined by the Deputy.
I suggest the Minister of State furnish a note to the committee on the current position on that issue?
I would be happy to do so.
I thank the Deputy and the Minister of State.