Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 9, subsection (1), lines 17 and 18, to delete all words from and including "crimes" in line 17 down to and including "combat" in line 18 and substitute "criminal offences or".

This is a drafting amendment which substitutes the phrase "criminal offences" for the word "crimes". This relates to offences which Europol is competent to prevent and combat. Criminal offences are already defined in section 1, which refers to the offences "for which Europol has competence". It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to Europol's competence in section 12(1).

I cannot accept amendment No. 18, which was tabled by Sinn Féin. This amendment would require the Minister to list "by way of guidelines" the crimes for which Europol has competence. Under section 1, a criminal offence is defined as "an offence for which Europol has competence in accordance with Article 4 of the Council Decision". As I stated in the context of an earlier amendment, crimes which fall within Europol's remit are organised crimes, terrorism and other forms of serious crimes affecting two or more member states. The other forms of serious crimes are listed in the annex to the Council decision. Europol also has competence in respect of related criminal offences as listed in Article 4.3 Given that the Council decision is scheduled to the Bill, that it lists the offences which come within the competence of Europol and that a reference to such offences is contained in section 1, I do not see what value would be added by requiring the further publication of information already contained in the Bill. I am of the view that any person who wants to know the nature of the offences involved will consult the legislation. When one reads the Bill, it is quite easy to discover what are the relevant offences. I accept that in view of the amount of legislation coming forward, it is often difficult for Deputies to read every Bill in detail. That which the Deputy is seeking to do is actually dealt with in the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 19 to 22, inclusive, introduce drafting corrections to section 12. Three of these corrections are minor in nature but that contained in amendment No. 21 is more significant. The latter relates to section 12(3). Amendment No. 19 clarifies that compliance, with restrictions, on the use of data is subject to the power to waive such restrictions under section 12(3). Amendment No. 20 corrects an oversight in section 12(2). It proposes that in addition to the reference to "a communicating third state", a reference to a third body, such as Europol or the European Anti-Fraud Office, should also have been included. This amendment makes the necessary correction. Amendment No. 22 makes a similar correction in section 12(4).

Amendment No. 21 relates to section 12(3), which itself relates to the waiving of restrictions on the use of data imposed by other states or bodies. The subsection permits the waiving of such restrictions in circumstances where a court, a legislative body or another body is acting in a supervisory role in respect of the competent authorities. However, such waiving of restrictions requires the prior consultation of the communicating state or body. By introducing this provision, we are bringing the Bill more into line with Article 19.2 of the Council decision. Where the Council's decision can be used to interpret provisions of the Bill, it was considered that the existing section 12(3) went beyond what was required and that the waiving of any restriction should be limited to circumstances relating to the supervision of the designated competent authority. If someone makes a complaint to a court, to the Data Protection Commissioner or to a governing authority within the State in respect of data, such data cannot be used or accessed where it has been provided by another state unless the agreement of said state is obtained in the first instance. This is a technical amendment which brings the legislation into line with the Council's decision. The existing provision contained in the Bill stands outside the framework and is too loose in nature.