This meeting is being convened to consider the Europol (Amendment) Bill 2006. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Frank Fahey, and his officials.
SECTION 1.
Europol (Amendment Bill) 2006: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to make a procedural point in respect of this Bill. I am very supportive of the Bill and have no difficulty with its provisions. We must be careful in future from the perspective of setting timings for Committee Stage of a Bill where it is possible that contentious amendments will be moved. There are new rules from the point of view of the length of time necessary for moving amendments. I do not wish a precedent to be created where there was serious intent, as can very often happen in respect of contentious Bills, whereby we would be excluded from moving Committee Stage amendments. I make no further point other than that this might be examined to ensure that what happaned, apparently, in regard to this Bill in the context of timing will not happen in the future. I received notice regarding the time limit for tabling amendments to the Bill before I was aware that it was being taken today. Care should be taken lest it cause problems in the future. There is no problem in regard to the Bill, of which I am fully supportive.
There has been a change in Standing Orders in regard to the date by which amendments to Bills must be tabled. This has not worked fully through yet but will work itself out. I will certainly take on board the Deputy's comments in regard to it.
If there is a case for expediting Committee Stage of a Bill for some reason, with which we would co-operate, there is also a case for providing bridging time in which to table amendments if they are necessary.
I support what has been said by Deputy O'Keeffe. The restructuring aims to give adequate time to the House administration to deal with amendments. It should not be used to disadvantage the Opposition in tabling amendments. Many justice Bills have now gone through Second Stage. While it does not apply to this Bill as we did not want to table amendments, it would be useful to have an indication well in advance of the sequencing of Committee Stage debates in order that those of us who do not have Departments or staff to support the drafting of amendments will have a chance to reflect and hear external views. The Chairman might formally ask the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to indicate the sequencing of Committee Stage debates.
This Bill is non-contentious. It is not to be taken as a precedent for what might happen in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I have one or two proposals. I am aware this is a Bill that cannot be substantially amended because it is a Schedule but there are a number of issues in regard to sections 2 and 3. The short deadline did not allow me to submit amendments but I will submit them on Report Stage. One seeks to insert a clause in section 2 to determine that the provisions of this Bill would not have effect until such time as there were adequate mechanisms to hold the members of Europol to account for their actions in the State. Section 3 deals with data protection but, in terms of judicial and civilian oversight, we need to ensure proper mechanisms will be in place before this legislation comes into force rather than afterwards. I will return to this issue on Report Stage.
There might be a need to revisit this section on Report Stage. The same might apply to the other sections. If I need to raise an issue on Report Stage, I ask that it be considered to have been raised here.
Is that accepted by the Minister of State?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
In regard to the phrase "with any necessary modifications", the Data Protection Act applies or it does not. Who decides what modifications are? A number of EU member states operate different data protection legislation. Legislation has not been harmonised upwards; it is more likely to be harmonised downwards. Who decides what happens? This House should have a say in what modifications are made and accepted. The Bill should be amended to that effect.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This section contains the new Schedules, which are the protocols themselves. Obviously, we cannot amend this section.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Chairman: I thank the Minister of State for his attendance at the committee.
Mr. Howlin: It was hard work.
Mr. J. O'Keeffe: He earned his pay today.