Council Framework Decision: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the member states of the European Union,

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 15 May 2006.

I will begin by explaining something of the background to and context of the draft EU framework decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the member states of the European Union. The declaration on combating terrorism adopted by the European Council on 25 March 2004 after the Madrid bombings instructs the Council to examine measures aimed at simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between the law enforcement authorities of the member states. Subsequently, on 4 June 2004, the Kingdom of Sweden sent a proposal for a framework decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between the law enforcement authorities of the member states of the European Union, in particular as regards serious offences, including terrorist acts, to the Secretary General of the Council. The proposal has been under discussion within the Council structures since then and the Council of Ministers hopes to adopt the measure before the Austrian Presidency ends on 30 June. Thus, it will be seen that this proposal has a long history.

The Swedish initiative predates the Hague programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, which is the European Union's general policy framework in the area of justice and home affairs. This multi-annual programme was approved by the European Council at its meeting on 5 November 2004. However, the draft framework decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the member states has the potential to advance the Union's objectives in the Hague programme with regard to the exchange of information. Having said that, the Minister wishes to emphasise that this is a relatively light measure. A much more complex proposal for a framework decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability is at the early stages of negotiation in Brussels.

The Hague programme urges member states to pursue an innovative approach to the cross-border exchange of information. Specifically, it provides that, with effect from 1 January 2008, the exchange of information should be governed by what is referred to as the principle of availability. This means that, throughout the Union, a law enforcement officer in one member state who needs information to perform his duties can obtain this from another member state, and the law enforcement agency in the other member state which holds this information will make it available for the stated purpose, taking into account the requirement of ongoing investigations in that state. However, the Hague programme also sets important conditions with regard to proposals to implement the principle of availability. It provides that exchanges of information may only take place in order that legal tasks may be performed and that the integrity of data to be exchanged must be guaranteed. The Hague programme also emphasises the need to secure the confidentiality of data and respect the principles of data protection.

As I indicated earlier, the draft EU framework decision on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between the law enforcement authorities of the member states is a first step in implementing the principle of availability. The purpose and objective of the draft framework decision is to establish the rules under which member states' law enforcement authorities can exchange existing information effectively and expeditiously for the purpose of conducting crime investigations or crime intelligence operations. The Minister stresses that it is concerned with facilitating investigative co-operation.

Information and intelligence provided may be used by the competent law enforcement authorities solely for the purposes for which it has been supplied. It cannot be used for other purposes without the consent of the member state which provided the information. The reference to existing information is also important. The draft framework decision does not impose any obligation on the part of the member states to gather and store information and intelligence for the purpose of providing it to the competent law enforcement authorities of other member states, nor does it impose any obligation to obtain any information or intelligence by means of coercive measures. It establishes a legal obligation to exchange existing information and intelligence for the purposes of criminal investigations and criminal intelligence operations and imposes deadlines for the transmission of such information and intelligence. There are a variety of such deadlines ranging between eight hours and 14 days depending, inter alia, on the urgency or otherwise of the request.

Consistent with the conditions specified in the Hague programme relating to proposals to advance the principle of availability, there are also a number of important safeguards, including grounds for refusal of information and intelligence, in the draft framework decision. For example, a request for information may be refused where the provision of information would be harmful to national security interests, or the success of a current investigation or operation, or where it is clearly disproportionate or irrelevant with regard to the purposes for which it has been requested. A request may also be refused where it pertains to a minor offence, specifically an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or less under the law of the requested member state. Ireland insisted on this provision to protect the individual's constitutional right to privacy. Other safeguards include the requirement to guarantee the confidentiality of information and intelligence and the application of established data protection norms and standards.

The common interest of the member states in fighting cross-border crime must strike the appropriate balance between law enforcement co-operation on the one hand and agreed principles and rules on data protection, fundamental freedoms, human rights and individual liberties on the other. The Minister believes the text of the draft framework decision achieves this objective. The Office of the Attorney General has been consulted during the course of the negotiations and is satisfied the draft framework decision contains all necessary safeguards.

Regarding scope, the draft framework decision does not impinge on instruments of the European Union on mutual legal assistance or mutual recognition of decisions regarding criminal matters. Where a member state wishes to use information or intelligence received in accordance with the framework decision for evidential purposes, it must obtain the consent of the member state that provided the information or intelligence and, where necessary, through the use of instruments governing judicial co-operation between the member states. The draft framework decision is also without prejudice to bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements between member states and third countries.

Article 8 provides for the spontaneous exchange of information and intelligence, without it being requested, where there are factual reasons to believe that the information and intelligence could assist in the detection, prevention or investigation of European arrest warrant offences. The modalities of such information exchange shall be regulated by the national law of the member state providing the information, and the provision of information and intelligence shall be limited to what is deemed relevant and necessary for the successful detection, prevention or investigation of the crime or criminal activity in question.

Besides providing for obligatory exchange of information and intelligence between the law enforcement authorities of the member states, subject to the various safeguards I have outlined, the draft framework decision provides for a number of practical matters. For example, it provides that exchanges of information may take place via existing channels for international law enforcement co-operation and states that the language used for the request and the exchange of information shall be the one applicable for the channel used. The draft framework decision also prescribes the forms to be used by law enforcement agencies, for example, when requesting, transmitting and refusing information.

As I stated, the draft framework decision provides for obligatory exchange of information and intelligence between EU law enforcement authorities. This formalisation of the arrangements for exchange of information and intelligence will require domestic legislation. However, informal police-to-police co-operation has always been an implied function of the Garda Síochána and it is not expected that the formalisation of the existing arrangements will create any administrative difficulties for the Garda Síochána.

I hope I have been of assistance in outlining the background to and content of the draft framework decision. I will endeavour to answer any questions that arise.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

In the main I support this proposal, with one reservation which I will outline. It is clearly in the interest of a civilised state to support the objective of the proposed framework decision to establish rules which will enable and require member states' law enforcement authorities effectively and expeditiously to exchange information and intelligence. The purpose of this proposal is to assist in conducting crime investigations or crime intelligence operations. Anyone interested in the rule of law and the establishment and maintenance of law and order will support the framework decision as being a worthy proposal.

The proposal goes back to the declaration by the European Council in 2004 which instructed the Council to examine measures aimed at simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence in the law enforcement authorities of the member states. There is also the Hague programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union. I can support these approaches in principle. The proposed framework decision is intended to subject the exchange of information between EU law enforcement authorities to uniform conditions. It makes sense that there would be established procedures for the exchange of information.

During committee discussions, I was not fully satisfied with the Minister's response which dealt with the effectiveness of the proposal and the question of what would happen if there were not an expeditious response to the request for information. I questioned the Minister on the situation in other countries, which is different from our situation. In Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain, which are common law jurisdictions, there is an exchange of information and, thankfully, great co-operation between the Garda Síochána, PSNI and the police forces in Britain. There is also co-operation between the Garda Síochána, Europol and Interpol. Effectively, what we are discussing is already in practice as far as this country is concerned.

The difficulty is that the continental system is different. In many cases, the conduct of investigations on the Continent is in the hands of an investigating magistrate rather than the police. I am not sure what is the continental culture with regard to exchange of information but my understanding is that it may be against the exchange of information. My further understanding, arising from the debate, is that there may be different situations, cultures and attitudes in various continental member states of the EU. From that perspective, the culture of exchange of information which applies here and in the UK does not apply on the Continent. In that context, it is an advance to have a framework. There are safeguards, including the right to refuse where the provision of information would be harmful to national security or the success of a current investigation. That is subjective. National security can always be pleaded if a country does not want to provide information. Who decides what constitutes national security? It is an escape hatch in some ways.

Another safeguard is one that includes the requirement to guarantee the confidentiality of information and intelligence and the application of established data protection norms and standards. We are dealing here with member states not being prepared to provide information or intelligence unless they receive guarantees of confidentiality in respect of such information or intelligence. This gives rise to a serious issue. What will happen if a Justice Minister is a serial leaker of information? What will happen if he or she, virtually automatically, on receipt of information that he or she considers that he or she can use for political or other purposes, leaks it to somebody in the media? That is the situation in Ireland as far as I can see. It happened in the Frank Connolly case when an official document from an official file was leaked by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of Frank Connolly and questions he must answer — and there are questions to which he must provide answers — I wish to focus on the actions of Justice Ministers who, under this framework document, are supposed to guarantee the confidentiality of information and intelligence. However, our Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform appears to be incapable of so doing. What will happen when a Minister displays an incapacity in this regard? What will happen when he or she is prepared to breach trust or confidence? What will happen when a Minister who, for the sake of publicity and favourable mention in the media, is prepared to breach parliamentary privilege?

I wish to refer to the example mentioned by the Leader of Fine Gael, namely, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill 2006, which I prepared last week. There was a brief mention of the Bill on First Stage here last Thursday. It was not circulated because I did not proceed on the basis of allowing the Government time to produce its own legislative proposals. As part of the process, I sent a copy of the Bill to the Bills Office, which, as a matter of courtesy, sent it to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There was only one copy available outside of the House. I did not circulate it to anybody else. On the following day, that copy of the Bill had been released to a favoured media gentleman, if I may refer to him as such, who works for Independent Newspapers. It is my opinion that the Bill was leaked to the newspapers by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am sorry that he is not present to deal with the motion. If he did leak it, he owes an explanation, not to me but to this House because, apart from the breach of trust and confidence, an Opposition party had guaranteed to try to assist in closing the gap in our legislation. It was a breach of privilege of the House to leak the Bill, particularly as the House had not given approval for its circulation. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should come before the House and make a personal statement in respect of that breach of parliamentary privilege.

The motion before us is predicated on the basis that there are Justice Ministers who will respect confidentiality of information and intelligence. Unfortunately, in light of the record and reputation of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, other member states might have difficulty in accepting that Ireland can be trusted in this regard.

This is not the end of the process as far as this House is concerned. The proposal will require legislation to underpin what is referred to in the briefing note as an obligatory exchange of information and intelligence between Ireland and the competent law enforcement authorities of other EU member states. Perhaps the Minister of State will provide an indication as to whether any work has been done on the preparation of such legislation and when it might come before the House so that we can comply with our obligations.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen. The draft framework decision of the Council of Ministers must be processed and completed before the Austrian Presidency ends on 30 June. It is an unusual directive and one I had not expected to come before the Council of Ministers, particularly as it imposes an obligation on member states to comply with the exchange of information and intelligence that they may possess.

The position in terms of cross-border activity and the Schengen arrangements has been one of co-operation. We have all agreed and promoted the idea that maximum co-operation should take place between member states in the pursuit of crime. Crime knows no boundaries or borders, certainly in terms of money laundering and trafficking of women and children, which featured recently in a fine "Prime Time" programme. This fact has also been highlighted in the context of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union in 2007 and outstanding issues relating to corruption, particularly in terms of the trafficking of human beings. The latter takes place across borders between member states. There is concern in regard to what will happen during the World Cup in Germany. Various women's organisations are urging that action be taken against the trafficking of women and young girls to Germany where they will be exploited. Naturally, member states and members of parliaments are anxious that measures be in place to prevent any exploitation in that manner and any trans-border criminal activity.

Heretofore, the safeguards in place covered the exchange of information and legal tasks and ensured the integrity and confidentiality of material provided. However, member states do not now know whether data can be effectively protected. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe raised a pertinent point in respect of Departments or Ministers that might not protect information that comes to their attention in a manner that is watertight and outlined circumstances where confidential information may, in one form or another, be placed in the public domain to promote a particular purpose or to score political points. That is something we witnessed in recent months on the part of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There are concerns in that regard, even though there is a safeguard in the proposed directive to the effect that any matter that is harmful to national security interests or the success of an investigation or operation need not be divulged. Nevertheless, there is an obligation for the exchange of information and intelligence between the law enforcement authorities of the member states.

The exchange of information takes place between the law enforcement authorities. We have a law enforcement authority that has come under some scrutiny at the Morris tribunal and that has been found wanting in respect of the manner in which it conducted investigations. In other member states, particularly in the new accession countries and in the two states that are about to join, some questions remain regarding the reliability of structures and personnel in place in some of their law enforcement authorities. They come from a tradition in which secrecy, bureaucracy and special activities were part and parcel of the mechanisms used. What if, for example, we were obliged to provide information to a law enforcement authority of another country about which we know little in terms of its credibility and its ability to retain that information without it being employed by people who might use it for a nefarious purpose? What guarantees are there that the law enforcement agencies of all 25 countries in the European Union are in a position to ensure that confidential material and data — which all member states must exchange once this directive is passed — will be used only for the purpose for which it is intended and that it will be preserved in a confidential fashion? While Deputy Jim O'Keeffe inquired about a Minister who may be prone to leaking documentation, what will be the position regarding a law enforcement agency that may not be fully able to protect the information supplied to it and that may use if for purposes for which it was never intended?

Having said that, it behoves us to ensure that maximum co-operation occurs. I understand that such co-operation on investigations currently takes place between the Garda and the PSNI in Northern Ireland, and with the British authorities and Europol. From where is the pressure coming to have this extra dimension of obligatory co-operation? Did the Government or the Swedish Government, which initiated this directive, find other authorities wanting in terms of co-operation or sharing of information? I have not heard the Minister of State indicate — neither did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform do so when the matter was discussed before the Oireachtas committee — that any government has been critical of other governments regarding their failure to provide information. I know that different law enforcement systems are in place. Are we saying, however, that there are jurisdictions where people have relevant information, on which they are sitting and which they are refusing to share, and that a statute is required to compel them to share it? Surely the relevant Justice Minister would be in a position to inform an enforcement agency in a member state that co-operation should occur in respect of any criminal investigation that might include a cross-border element.

We are moving in a new direction. This is a new dispensation that does not have the safeguards which seem to have been in the Hague programme. In that respect, is the new direction necessary and are the dangers associated with the information that would be exchanged real? Is it possible to operate within the current dispensation. There has been no serious criticism regarding co-operation under the latter and enforcement agencies — for example, Europol — operate across borders under it. In addition, many countries have sought our advice on issues relating to the Criminal Assets Bureau and the proceeds of crime legislation, how we have dealt with that and how we have amended our legislation to ensure that the cross-border aspect has been maximised.

I support every measure that will assist in the pursuit of crime, wherever it may be found, but we are nevertheless citizens of this country as well as of Europe and we must ensure that confidentiality is protected. We must also ensure that we operate under the principle of subsidiarity and beyond it in terms of mutual co-operation. I look forward to the response of the Minister of State as to why this proposal is deemed necessary to encourage law enforcement agencies to co-operate.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Cuffe agus Finian McGrath.

This debate has been facilitated on foot of our objection to the passage of this motion, but a period of 45 minutes is not adequate for a debate. What passed for a debate at the committee meeting last week was hampered by the fact that the wrong document was circulated. The correct document was issued mere hours before the meeting and only after my office initiated a search for it. There was a fruitless attempt to obtain the proper document from the Minister's office and from agencies inside and outside the House. However, it was eventually discovered.

The Council framework decision is one of many measures from the EU's Hague programme. This vast programme was agreed by the Council of Ministers in 2004 but, despite its far-reaching effects on fundamental rights and Irish society and the fact that I raised the matter on numerous occasions in this House and at committee meetings as various decisions based on the fortress Europe agenda that is the Hague programme were passed, it was never debated in this House. The Minister and the committee have finally agreed with me on the need for a debate on the Hague programme but we are still proceeding with a vote and a discussion on this issue. That is an arse about face approach. Much of the Hague programme is tied to the failed EU constitution and our proceeding in this manner is an affront to democracy.

I have major concerns regarding the measure and the lack of safeguards included in it. As I said at a committee meeting, what is to stop wrong or out-of-date information being circulated, on an obligatory basis, on the foot of this measure? Not long ago, Frank McBrearty was denied entry into the US because his reputation was still blackened by the Garda, which had not corrected the record. In Britain, officials recently admitted that 1,500 innocent people were labelled criminals by its Criminal Records Bureau.

When I raised these issues at the committee meeting last week, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform dismissed them and basically stated that mistakes happen. He would not guarantee that if such mistakes happen or if wrong entries are made or inaccurate records circulated, a note to that effect would immediately be circulated when discovered to those who sought the information. The Minister has never allowed himself to be hampered by facts or by proof of guilt, as is shown in the case to which Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred, namely, that involving Frank Connolly.

The Council framework decision motion is a dream for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform — or the Minister for injustice — because he will be able to leak the privileged information to which he will have access to those nice little journalists who lick up to him. He will also be able, as he did in the case of Frank Connolly, to destroy the careers of other EU citizens without being obliged to take recourse to the Courts or provide any proof of guilt or innocence.

Mr. F. McGrath

All co-operation and exchange of information must be based on trust and respect for international law. Sadly, many countries have an appalling record in dealing with crimes committed by sections of their security forces. Our history on this island is littered with the issues of collusion, murders, bombings and dirty tricks. One only has to consider the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, the Seamus Ludlow and the Pat Finucane cases. While trust, honesty and quality policing are at the heart of the matter, there are moral and ethical questions for every Member to answer. Is it proper and appropriate to co-operate with states that have been directly involved in acts of violence against their citizens? Is it proper to assist states that have appalling records on human rights abuses?

I raise these questions so we can have an honest and informed debate and ensure the maximum safety and security for all our citizens. These are legitimate questions and all parties must be challenged on these matters. There is also the issue of the sharing of intelligence between Ireland, the EU and Colombia. Yesterday, Alvaro Uribe won the presidential election in Colombia. One must remember his human rights records. Colombia has a population of over 41 million. Some 7.3 million voted for Uribe while 4.6 million voted for the democratic alternative. However, 29 million of its citizens boycotted the election. In other words, 60% of the Colombian people did not vote in yesterday's elections. How can one trust Colombia as a democratic state? How can one trust a country with an appalling record on right-wing death squads? I have met many of the families of lawyers, trade unionists and the Coca Cola workers there who have been shot. How can the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform justify co-operation with people such as this?

One of the EU's core objectives is to provide its citizens with a high level of security within an area of freedom, security and justice while respecting the integrity of that jurisdiction. How will the EU member states guarantee the level of security, freedom and quality of services for their citizens? That objective can be achieved by preventing and combating crime through closer co-operation between law enforcement authorities in member states. I welcome co-operation with states that have an excellent record on equality, policing and human rights. The questions I have raised must be faced up to and answered by the Government.

Mr. Cuffe

I have a profound sense of unease about these types of motions that have come through the Dáil on a regular basis in the past few years. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, cannot keep information in Garda files to himself, what hope do we have when it comes to the EU? It is important that the individual is protected. When we see the kind of leaks emanating from the Minister's office and the Garda Síochána, we should all be concerned. I know more about the journalist Frank Connolly from the Minister's leaks than from anywhere else. I know more, from Garda leaks to the newspapers, of the intimate details of the families and the cases of the Afghans in St. Patrick's Cathedral last week than from the men and boys themselves. Information can be misused and abused by those in power, whether it be the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government, the Garda Síochána or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

When one considers the motion, it is important for stringent safeguards to be in place to ensure only information pertaining to a well-defined group of criminal acts will be made available. There is some need for data exchange in the fight against crime and terrorism. However, the range of offences covered by this framework decision goes far beyond the relative narrow range of offences covered by other EU instruments such as the Europol Convention. I am concerned about the principle of availability and sharing data between law enforcement agencies. It is important that the principle of data protection is in place. However, is the principle of availability taking precedence over the principle of data protection? Is this a case where the cart is being put before the horse? In the times we live in, data protection may become a meaningless concept.

There are also concerns about the Hague programme. Deputy Ó Snodaigh requested a debate in the House on the programme. The Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights endorsed the call for a debate. The programme sets out strict conditions to be observed when applying the availability principle, such as the need to protect sources and information, the confidentiality of data, the need to guarantee the integrity of the data to be exchanged, the supervision of respect for data protection and appropriate control prior to and after the exchange. The draft framework decision on the other hand does not match these strict conditions. It is important these conditions are developed in the framework decision.

I am concerned with the kind of discussion we continue to have about the war on terror. Would that the world were that easy to comprehend. The fundamental injustices and poverty that exist in many parts of the world demand far more resources and contributions from western governments than the war on terror. If a small fraction of what is being spent on the war in Iraq went into improving the quality of people's lives in Africa and elsewhere, the potential for terrorism would be dramatically reduced. The fight against terrorism is increasingly being used as the justification for new initiatives but many go far beyond the purpose of sharing data. It is important to recognise that a derogation from fundamental rights that might be justified to tackle terrorism will not necessarily be justified where other criminal activity is concerned. Crime must be fought but I am concerned that the scope of this framework decision goes far beyond the types of crime and terrorism that exist.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. Killeen)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe indicated his general support for the provisions to address the issue of international crime. He queried the effectiveness of the proposals, particularly what would happen if there were not an expeditious response from a member state. My understanding is that several timescales are provided for regarding various kinds of information. Normal procedures would apply on a failure to comply with EU provisions, such as recourse to the European Court of Justice. If the situation is different I will return to the Deputy. The Deputy also pointed out that in many continental countries the system of justice is quite different. Having a framework of this nature will be an advantage with regard to that issue. He is concerned that the plea of national security might be used as a reason for not co-operating in circumstances where it would not be justified. Ultimately that will have to decided upon if the matter were referred to, say, the European Court of Justice.

All Members who spoke on the motion raised the issue of the confidentiality of information and the capacity of the receiving member state to abide by the requirements. Several Members made a political point on this to which I am not in a position to respond. In my view, however, the authorities in the State have proved themselves capable of dealing with confidential information——

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Except for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Mr. Killeen

——notwithstanding some of the difficulties that have emerged in the Morris tribunal. There are specific provisions in the framework decision to deal with some of these issues.

Regarding data protection, Article 9 specifies the existing norms and standards which member states must observe. These include the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data of 28 January 1981.

Article 10 deals with confidentiality. It requires competent law enforcement authorities to take due account of the requirements of investigative secrecy and in accordance with their national law to guarantee the confidentiality of all provided information and intelligence determined as confidential.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe went on to make a number of points on his own legislation and the Frank Connolly case, but the important point to make about these particular provisions is that Ireland has a good record in this regard, has a long history of involvement with Europol and Interpol, and also has in place a range of bilaterals which have worked particularly well.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

We had up to a couple of years ago when the current Minister took over.

Mr. Killeen

He also asked about the level of work being done on the new legislation and I understand there may be other legislative requirements in the short term which would certainly postpone that for some time.

Deputy Costello also indicated that there has been long-standing agreement on the need for co-operation. He mentioned the important "Prime Time Investigates" programme on the trafficking of human beings and the concerns which have been raised about the exploitation of women and girls in the context of the World Cup and, indeed, in a range of contexts which really stand to be addressed, perhaps partly through some of the provisions of this and, indeed, through other provisions. Member states, he contended, will not know whether information can be protected and whether it might be used for political purposes. Notwithstanding the findings of the Morris tribunal, he said — I agree strongly — that the Garda Síochána has a good record in general terms. There are, he claims, some question marks about the reliability of law enforcement agencies in other countries and, in common with other Members, he raised the question of how confident we can be that confidentiality can be guaranteed, but it is fair to say the provisions to which I referred in Articles 9 and 10 address these concerns.

He also asked from where the pressure to bring forward these provisions might be coming. As I stated in my opening remarks, they came to some to extent from the Madrid bombings and the subsequent proposals by Sweden in that regard. Ultimately, there is agreement on all sides of the House that we are committed to ensuring the best possible provisions are in place to cover a range of circumstances, which we all know arise quite frequently in criminal justice matters. These include co-operation in combating drug-trafficking, money-laundering, organised crime, trafficking in persons, terrorism and a number of other serious offences. I think we have agreement in that regard.

I understand that Deputy Costello believes the current dispensations are sufficient, but that clearly is not the case in that in general quite a number of the current provisions involve bilateral or multilateral agreements and this provides agreement across all the EU states.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh made a number of points about the Hague programme of 2005, and has concerns about how far-reaching it might be and what he sees as a lack of safeguards. In the particular instance with which we are dealing here, however, the provisions are much more limited than are some of the other proposed provisions on available information which are at an early stage of consideration. He was also concerned about the lack of safeguards, particularly in the use of incorrect or out of date information. Clearly, it would be a matter for the individual police authorities, including our own, to ensure information is updated and corrected when that is required.

Deputy Finian McGrath was of the view that co-operation should be based on trust and that there are moral and ethical questions — of course there are. The European Union has been a strong force for advancing the human rights debate and right across the Union, including the western European states, the impact of initiatives at European level has in general been positive in advancing social provision and the rights of the individual. Clearly, it is a project which cannot be completed overnight but on which work is ongoing. He pointed out that some states have a good record and perhaps others have less so. I point out that Colombia is not one of the states involved in this particular instance.

Deputy Cuffe also has a sense of unease about the protection of the individual. He mentioned a number of cases and that in some instances information has arrived to him and to others through the media rather than through the relevant more appropriate channel. He mentioned a range of criminal justice issues including data protection which are also dealt with in Articles 9 and 10, and he made a general point about the war on terror. Nevertheless, as members of the European Union it is equally as much in our interests as citizens of Ireland as it is in our interests as citizens of Europe that there would be a high level of co-operation which would be under-pinned and guaranteed by the best possible provisions at European level. I commend the draft framework to the House.

Question put: "That the motion be agreed to."

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 May 2006