I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, together with his officials. Before I invite the Minister to commence, I wish to advise members that we will receive a short presentation which will be followed by a question and answer service. I request that all mobile telephones be switched off.
Justice and Home Affairs Council: Discussion Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I will attend the Council meeting next Friday. I propose to focus on the Council agenda and go through the main items giving our perspective on each relevant dossier. By way of an overview, I wish to mention that although the agenda covers a wide range of topics I do not expect that the items to be dealt with will pose any major difficulties for Ireland.
The Council will begin with the mixed committee which is a formation in which the EU member states are joined by the non-EU Schengen states. Within that framework, the main topic to be discussed will be the development of the second generation of the Schengen information system which is usually known as SIS II.
The Schengen information system is a major database which is used for the exchange of material under the Schengen Convention. Ireland has confirmed that it will participate in certain aspects of that convention on the basis of SIS. The overall position is that, due to technical difficulties, SIS II has been delayed. At the Council, the Commission, which is managing the development project, will report on the current state of play concerning the system and is expected to indicate when it will be ready.
The mixed committee will also be briefed by the Commission on the arrangements being made to ensure that, pending the introduction of SIS II, SISNET, the data network on which the SIS currently runs, will continue in operation.
On the conclusion of the mixed committee, the Council will meet in EU formation only and the first substantive task will be to agree a set of Council conclusions on setting up national alert platforms and a European platform for reporting offences noted on the Internet. In the proposals, member states are encouraged to set up national platforms to process alerts on Internet offences and to task Europol with creating a European on-line reporting system. Ireland is happy to support the proposed approach.
The next item for substantive discussion will be a set of proposed Council conclusions on making progress towards a more satisfactory structure for internal security broadly based on the principle of convergence. In this context what is meant by convergence is essentially a commitment to take all steps necessary to maximise practical law enforcement co-operation between the EU member states.
The proposals are divided into two parts. In the first place member states are invited to develop tools to facilitate operational co-operation among their law enforcement authorities. The second portion is concerned with strengthening co-operation in the area of security by such means as improving the framework for evaluating action taken and exchanging information.
Ireland has consistently supported EU efforts to strengthen operational police co-operation and we can endorse what is being proposed. The Council will also hear, as an information item, a report from the EU Presidency on the Salzburg forum. This is a body which constitutes a platform for close regional law enforcement co-operation in the field of security. It is composed of Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Croatia also takes part as an observer.
The next item on the agenda will be a policy debate concerned with stepping up law enforcement action against drug trafficking in west Africa. All member states, including Ireland, are concerned about the level of drug trafficking linked to west Africa and this discussion will provide an opportunity to assess the extent of the problem. In addition, it will give member states the chance to bring forward proposals that could be introduced to meet the serious threats involved.
A further item on the Council agenda will be a report from the EU Presidency on the status of a proposed EU instrument on passenger name records, PNR. The overall objective of the instrument would be to introduce an EU PNR system. The EU Presidency has arranged for consultation to take place with all stakeholders, including air carriers. PNR is both a sensitive and complex topic which raises important law enforcement and human rights issues. It will be necessary to find the correct balance between the relevant interests before any EU measure might be adopted.
The next item on the Council agenda will be a draft Council conclusion on the establishment of a European criminal records information system, ECRIS. A decentralised information system based on the criminal databases in each member state is proposed. Ireland recognises the value of the electronic exchange of criminal records. We favour the proposal on the basis that it would be of benefit to the judicial process and law enforcement in member states.
The remaining part of the Council will be concerned with civil law maters, the first of which is a proposed Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and co-operation in matters relating to maintenance obligations. This is a very complex instrument and I do not propose to go into it in any detail. Negotiations on the proposed regulation are still taking place and it is not clear what, if anything, will be agreed at the Council. Ireland's position is that the current text is acceptable.
A set of proposed Council conclusions on the situation of vulnerable adults and their cross-border legal protection is another item that will arise in the civil law area. This is a specific priority for the French EU Presidency. The Presidency's efforts are concerned with encouraging support for the Hague convention on the international protection of vulnerable adults. Ireland has signed the convention and legislation is being prepared to enable the country to ratify the instrument. In the circumstances, we can support the EU Presidency.
The final item of substance on the agenda for the Council is a draft resolution on the training of judges and other legal staff within the European Union. A major objective involved is to promote a knowledge of EU law among judges and legal practitioners. Moreover, there is also a focus on fostering knowledge of the legal systems of other member states. For Ireland, perhaps the most important aspect of the proposals which are non-binding has been to ensure judicial independence would be recognised. This is a point which will be expressly catered for. Ireland can support the proposal.
I thank the Minister for this initiative and briefing the committee prior to the meeting, which is important. However, the committee is presented with some difficulties. While the Minister's comments are laudable, interesting and praiseworthy and I do not have a difficulty with them, they are general and do not give the committee an idea of at what stage is the process. I received a briefing document approximately one hour ago containing an information note on the three sections which is somewhat general. If members are to receive an information note, I would prefer if it was not left until the last minute.
I do not understand the relationship between this committee and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. It appears that committee stamps documentation which is then sent to us for further scrutiny and elaboration. I have written to the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny on this matter and I am still less than informed about the process.
I note that the proposal for a Council decision on the establishment of the European criminal records information system, ECRIS, is subject to parliamentary scrutiny reservations entered by Ireland, among others. Who entered these reservations? I do not believe it was this committee and I am not sure if it was the Dáil. If it was the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, it underlines my assertion that there seems to be a communication deficit. If they were submitted by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, what are the role and functions of the Department, as the documentation specifically mentions parliamentary scrutiny? I do not know if or when the Dáil entered the reservations, their extent or subject matter.
Will the Minister enlighten me on the process for the Council decision on ECRIS? I support the concept of data protection supervision, which is very important, especially as regards criminal records. If we have a criminal records database as envisaged under the decision, it must be accompanied by guarantees of confidentiality. How will such guarantees be upheld in Ireland? Does the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner have any involvement in the process? Has it made a submission or was it asked to do so? Is it in the loop?
The Minister has said the proposed information system will be based on decentralised information technology, which presumably means each state will control its own database and further assistance will be given with interconnection software. Since the acquisition of hardware will be a matter for the Government, what are the budgetary implications for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
Does the Garda have the capability to work with the proposed system? I previously referred to the shortcomings of the Garda PULSE system. Do the shortcomings, difficulties and deficiencies have implications for the new decentralised information technology system consisting of the criminal records database of member states, the common communications infrastructure and the interconnection software? What burden will be imposed on the State and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
The training of judges and other legal staff in matters concerning the European Union has been an aspiration we have had for some time. Notwithstanding the sizable volume of work the Courts Service carries out and its transformation since its inception as an agency outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, we still have a long way to go. What is the position on this matter?
That brings me be back to my initial question regarding the update from the Minister which is all very well and laudable but lacks a specific targeted direction.
As I realise members are anxious to attend the Chambers for the Order of Business, I call Deputy Pat Rabbitte.
I will provide an answer——
The Minister might answer my queries in the same intervention to save time. I will not cover the points raised by Deputy Flanagan.
Much of the agenda requires specialist backup available to the Minister but not the committee. However, the general note is helpful for the committee to understand a complex area requiring specialist knowledge. I merely wanted to question the note on Schengen. Is what is being referred to here a technological or systems problem? What problem is being examined?
On the European Criminal Records Information System, ECRIS, I wanted to underline the question raised by Deputy Charles Flanagan about the reservation that was entered. I noticed that the European Parliament was supposed to give its opinion on the matter on 8 and 9 October. The note we have today does not say whether this occurred; if it did, what was the outcome? We need information on the origins of the reservations entered at the time and how things have progressed since. Has the European Parliament now given this the nod?
I have two questions for the Minister. Provisions for vulnerable adults have been discussed and I know Ireland does not object to them. However, are there implications for the Immigration Bill that is before the committee at the moment?
Regarding the European Criminal Records Information System, what is the timetable for it to be up and running? Members of this committee and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, have raised the issue of access to a European database to track people with criminal records who enter this country. They may be wanted in other jurisdictions for serious crimes and we have seen in the past that people convicted of sexual offences in other jurisdictions do not register as sexual offenders here. These offenders, who may be wanted in other jurisdictions, tend to be detected here subsequently. It is critically important that we get this mechanism up and running as quickly as possible. Can the Minister give an idea of the time scale for the implementation of this system and when it will be available to the Garda Síochána?
I thank the Deputy and call on Deputy Ó Snodaigh, if his question is on the same line as the others.
It is a more specific question that relates to the principle of convergence.
Maybe we will come back to that later.
Regarding the proposal for a Council decision on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System, this meeting is about political agreement. Deputy Rabbitte raised the issue of the European Parliament and regarding parliamentary scrutiny we were advised by the Attorney General that we will need a motion, ultimately, in the Houses of the Oireachtas to approve this. A reservation is added saying that the matter must go through our Parliament.
It is a non-specific notice.
What we are giving is political agreement subject to the matter passing through the Oireachtas.
I appreciate that this is both a complex and general agenda and I know there was an issue relating to notification for this meeting. If any difficulties were caused I apologise, but I was only informed of this meeting yesterday. I have had little or no time to prepare, though I am reasonably up to speed with some of the issues.
This is about political agreement and we are not sure whether the European Parliament has yet had the opportunity to look at the matter. It has not yet been formally adopted so the European Parliament will be able to give its view at some stage.
Regarding data protection, I am not sure whether the Data Protection Commissioner has made a submission on our position but his office was obliged to be involved in the consideration and implementation of the previous instrument, which had data protection issues. This will replace that instrument.
I emphasise to Deputy Naughten that the proposal on criminal records relates only to information and does not relate to a database. It will allow sharing of information but there are no proposals to have a Europe-wide database of criminal records; we would have difficulties if there were. Ultimately, that is an issue for sovereign member states.
Will the information go back to the offender's country of origin? Is that the only sharing that will take place?
Yes.
If, as an Irish citizen, I committed a serious offence in Germany the information would be communicated to the Irish authorities.
Yes.
If an Austrian citizen, who resides in Ireland, commits an offence in Germany the information will be communicated to the Austrian authorities.
That is right.
That is what is before us at the moment and we are still some way from having a Europe-wide database.
What would happen if the same person went to work in Poland?
Correct me if I am wrong, but unless the Polish authorities contact the Irish authorities the information will not be shared with the Polish authorities. This is where the weakness lies in the proposal. It is a positive step forward but it is some way short of where we need to be to deal with transnational criminals.
We do not anticipate that the cost of the requirement will be high. We believe the Garda criminal records office is the most appropriate authority to deal with this; we must designate a central authority that other nations can contact and we will designate that office.
Judicial training is mainly an aspirational issue. Our situation is dictated by the Judicial Studies Institute, which is funded by the Courts Service and chaired by the Chief Justice.
The difficulty with the Schengen issue is that it is a technical problem that is being handled by the Commission as we speak.
Regarding vulnerable adults, I am told there are no implications for the proposed immigration legislation, but national legislation will be required to give effect to the provisions of the convention. The mental capacity Bill, which is being drafted, will contain provisions that will enable the convention to be ratified.
Regarding the new sharing procedure, I know we are only at the political stage, but is there any idea of the type of timetable that is in question?
Is the Deputy speaking of criminal records?
I am speaking of criminal records.
It depends how fast or slow member states are to get this up and running.
Will this have an impact on the provision of Garda clearance? If one applied for a job in Poland the Polish authorities may want to contact the Garda Síochána.
It could have an impact on vetting.
In theory the process could be delayed if resources are not provided to the Garda Síochána to help manage the additional demand.
I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
One of the issues on the agenda is the principle of convergence and one of the draft conclusions in the briefing note is that Ireland can support the proposals. The problem is that this is a continuation of the Tampere programme and the Hague programme and we have never had a full debate on the Hague programme but only on certain parts of it. Before considering whether to support proposals in terms of convergence which is not just about access to data, but extends to law enforcement agencies, training and so on, we as a parliament should have a discussion as to where all of this is going. I am aware there are time constraints and I cannot have the discussion here on what is contained in the draft conclusion. Will the Minister say why we support the proposal at this stage without a debate on its implications and without a debate on the effectiveness to date of either the Tampere programme or the Hague programme? There has never been a debate on the reasons behind them or their effectiveness to date, yet we are moving on to the next issue.
The Deputy specifically referred to the issue of the Hague programme. We are coming towards the end of the Hague programme at the end of this year. The discussions at EU level will lead to a new programme which we think will culminate during the Swedish Presidency in 2010. I am open to going into the House or coming back to the joint committee for a longer discussion on where we are going in all of that. The time was short. Basically, we are looking to these draft conclusions to better define how to progress the issue of internal security. I can come back at a later stage and discuss it in more detail.
That would be my suggestion. There were promises during the last Dáil, time out of number, by the Minister at the time that we would have a discussion on the Haigue programme as a whole and it never happened.
Maybe it could be raised at the Whips meeting. I will indicate that I would agree.
It is important because of the implications for the future of law making here and of what sharing will be entailed under the new programme that everybody understands exactly what we would potentially sign up to.
I thank the Minister for his attendance at the joint committee.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.23 p.m. sine die.