Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. In the context of this matter, the term "JHA" refers to justice and home affairs.

I realise we use acronyms and letters and if one is not familiar with them it can sound a little odd. I thank the committee for making time available to discuss this motion today.

The motion relates to the exercise by the State of the option which Ireland has to take part in the adoption and application of the proposed regulation and the repeal of the decisions to which I just referred.

The legal basis for the Commission proposal is to be found in Articles 88 and 87(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Article 88 of the treaty provides that Europol shall be governed by a regulation to be adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure. Article 87(2)(b) provides that the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures concerning support for the training of staff, and co-operation on the exchange of staff, on equipment and on research into crime detection.

In consequence, the terms of Protocol No. 21, which we share with the United Kingdom, whereby we have three months to exercise our option to take part in the adoption and application of relevant measures, apply. I am advised that the three month period will expire by 30 July. Accordingly, if we are to exercise our option within the required timeframe in respect of this measure, it is necessary to obtain the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas before that date. Members will be familiar with the procedure in relation to protocol measures - we just dealt with one - since a number of proposals which attract the provisions of the protocol have come before this committee of the House in recent years.

The proposal - as presented by the Commission - concerns two existing EU agencies, Europol and CEPOL. Europol's role is to support national law enforcement bodies in their fight against serious crime and terrorism. Europol does this by exchanging information between national services and providing analysis of data to assist national services. The European Police College, CEPOL, facilitates co-operation between national police services by organising and conducting training with a specific European and international dimension. The draft regulation is, as regards Europol, the first substantial overhaul for the organisation since its inception: the Council Decision of 2009 was an institutional and legal update but did not present a change to the core business of Europol.

Following publication of the proposal at the end of March, during the course of the Irish Presidency, many member states expressed outright opposition to the proposed merger of Europol and CEPOL. In short, there is a real concern on the part of member states that the merger of CEPOL into Europol may adversely impact on police training given the primary intelligence focus of Europol. During the Irish Presidency, we facilitated discussion of the proposal at ministerial and senior official levels. These discussions focused, in particular, on the issues arising from the proposed merger. At the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg that I chaired in June, there was significant opposition to the merger and it was clear that no agreement would be forthcoming on this aspect of the proposal. Accordingly, the Irish Presidency asked the Commission to reflect on the outcome of the discussion and to reconsider the matter. In the meantime, the Irish Presidency decided that formal consideration of the matter at working group level would concentrate on the proposal as it relates to Europol and that the merger issue need not be considered given the clear majority of member states already opposed to it.

The first working group meeting was held in June under the Irish Presidency. The Lithuanian Presidency will continue the examination of the proposal. No consideration will be given to the merger issue. The member states expect the Commission to put forward alternative proposals in relation to CEPOL in due course.

The proposal aims to align Europol with the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon, increasing its accountability; enhance the supply of information by member states to Europol; provide that Europol will take over and build on the tasks currently carried out by CEPOL – clearly, that will not be happening; reinforce the data protection regime applicable to Europol; and improve the governance of Europol.

I wish to briefly comment on each of these aims. The first one is making Europol more accountable. The regulation aims to ensure that Europol's activities are subject to the scrutiny of both the European Parliament and the national parliaments. This objective will be achieved by providing that the European Parliament and the national parliaments receive information and reports and that the executive director and the chairperson of the management board can meet with the parliaments to discuss Europol issues. In addition, the European Parliament will have statutory functions in relation to the agency's budget and work programme.

The next aim relates to enhancing the supply of information. The regulation will strengthen the obligation of member states to provide data. It is also proposed to redesign how the agency processes data to ensure that Europol is better placed to link and analyse data in order to identify trends and patterns. All of this will be achieved with the highest data protection standards possible. I will give members an example of the type of data I am talking about. It may well be intelligence information relating to the activities of individuals engaged in international terrorism. There may be a need for information to be exchanged between Europol and police forces in Europe. That would be a classic example of information exchange that would contribute to law enforcement in individual member states.

In regard to training, as I already mentioned, the Commission has proposed that Europol will build on the work of CEPOL and assume new responsibilities in relation to police training. However, member states expect the Commission to put forward alternative proposals. Much of the discussion on this issue during the Irish Presidency was that member states were concerned that if CEPOL was subsumed into Europol the main focus would be on obtaining and exchanging information and that the training function of CEPOL would in some way receive less priority or be downgraded. I am not sure that would have occurred in reality but that was the concern expressed by member states.

The proposal reinforces Europol's data protection regime. Access by member states to personal data will be on a "hit/no-hit" basis. Accordingly, data will only be supplied in response to a separate follow-up request. Processing of data on victims and witnesses will be prohibited unless strictly necessary. Rights of access to data will be reinforced. Any person can seek compensation for unlawful data processing. The European Data Protection Supervisor will supervise the processing of data by Europol. National data protection authorities will continue to enforce the rules relating to the input and retrieval of data by member states.

In terms of improved governance, the board will be responsible for the budget and working procedures and, in order to streamline the decision-making process, the board will be empowered to establish a smaller executive board.

In the context of the text of the regulation, I do not propose to go through it in great detail but it is appropriate to present an overview. Chapter 1 contains the general provisions. Article 1 provides for the establishment of the agency, to be formally known as the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training -Europol. Article 2 provides for definitions of terms used elsewhere in the text. Article 3 sets out Europol's objectives, foremost of which is to support and strengthen action by competent authorities in the member states in preventing and combatting serious crime affecting two or more member states, terrorism and forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by a Union policy.

Chapter 2 which deals with tasks related to law enforcement co-operation contains five articles. Article 4 provides for the agency's tasks. These include collecting, storing, processing analysing and exchanging information and preparing threat assessments. The agency will also provide technical support to member states' cross-border operations and investigations. Article 5 provides that Europol may participate in joint investigation teams. Article 6 provides that Europol may request member states to initiate criminal investigations. However, the decision to initiate investigations will rest with the member states.

Article 7 provides for member states' co-operation with Europol. As is the case now, member states will establish national units to act as the liaison body between Europol and the competent authorities in the member state. Article 8 provides for liaison officers to be assigned to Europol. Currently, both An Garda Síochána and the Revenue Commissioners have liaison officers based in Europol headquarters in The Hague.

Chapter 3 concerns tasks related to training for law enforcement officers. Articles 9, 10 and 11 relate to training. Again, I have to make the point that this aspect of the proposal will not now be considered by member states.

Chapter 4 deals with the organisation of Europol. Articles 12, 13 and 14 deal with the composition and functions of the management board. Each member state shall nominate one member and the Commission will be able to nominate two. Article 15 provides that the board shall adopt an annual work programme and multi-annual work programme, both of which are to be forwarded to the European Parliament, the Council, Commission and national parliaments.

Articles 16 to 18 provide for a chairperson to be elected by the board, meetings of the board, which must be at least two per year, and voting rules, with decisions to be made by a majority of members. Article 19 provides for an executive director to be appointed by the management board. The executive director will be responsible for the day to day administration of the agency. Article 20 provides for a scientific committee for training, which will be an independent advisory body to guide the scientific quality of the agency's training work. As with other sections dealing with training, this aspect of the proposal will not be considered.

Articles 21 and 22 deal with the executive board which, if established, will prepare decisions for adoption by the management board. It will also have functions relating to the follow-up of findings and recommendations stemming from evaluation reports and assisting the executive director in the implementation of decisions of the management board. The executive board will be composed of the chairperson of the management board, one representative from the Commission, and three other members of the management board chosen by the members.
Chapter 5 deals with the processing of information. Article 23 provides that Europol can only process information that has been provided by member states, in accordance with their national law, by Union bodies, third countries and international organisations, where agreements have been entered into with them, and by private parties in accordance with Article 29, which I will come to.

Article 24 sets out what Europol can do with the information. It can process information for the purposes of cross-checking information to identify connections; analyses of a strategic or thematic nature; and operational analyses in specific cases.

Article 25 provides that a member state, EU body, a third country or international organisation providing information determines the purpose for which it shall be processed. Article 26 provides that member states shall have access to and be able to search all information which has been provided in accordance with Article 24 for the purposes of cross-checking and strategic and thematic analysis. Regarding information provided for operational analyses in specific cases, member states shall have indirect access on a hit/no hit basis. Article 27 provides that Eurojust and OLAF should have access to Europol information on the same basis.

Article 28 provides that Europol has a duty, in certain circumstances, to share information irrespective of any access restrictions. For instance, Europol will supply information in the interest of preventing an imminent terrorist attack. That is something I mentioned earlier.

Chapter 6 deals with relations with partners. Article 29 sets out the procedures whereby Europol may establish relations with other Union bodies, third countries and so on. Articles 30 to 33 provide for the transfer and exchange of data.

Chapter 7 deals with data protection safeguards. Articles 34 to 48 set out in some detail the data protection safeguards to be put in place. These are comprehensive and are designed to ensure the best possible regime of data protection consistent with Europol's mission. Provisions cover processing of data, time limits, security, rights of access and rights to rectification, etc.

Europol will have a data protection officer who, in the performance of his or her duties, is obliged to act independently. Each member state will designate a national supervisory authority with the task of independently monitoring the transmission and exchange of data between the member state and Europol. In addition, the European Data Protection Supervisor will monitor and ensure the application of the safeguards contained in the regulation. Article 46 sets out the duties and powers of the supervisor.

Chapter 8 deals with remedies and liabilities. Article 49 provides for a right to lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor. Article 50 provides for a right to bring an appeal against a decision of the supervisor to the Court of Justice. Articles 51 and 52 deal with liability.

Chapter 9 deals with parliamentary scrutiny. Articles 53 and 54 deal with parliamentary scrutiny. The chairperson of the management board and the executive director will appear before the European Parliament to discuss matters relating to Europol. It also provides that Europol will be obliged to provide the European and national parliaments information relating to threat assessments, strategic analyses and general situation reports.

Chapter 10 deals with staffing issues. Articles 55 to 58 deal with financial provisions. Articles 59 to 63 deal with implementation of the budget, presentation of accounts and so on.

Chapter 12 deals with various miscellaneous provisions. Articles 64 to 72 cover a number of miscellaneous matters: Europol's legal status, the location of Europol, which is in The Hague, privileges and immunity, evaluation of Europol every five years, and the conclusion of a headquarters agreement between Europol and the Netherlands, the country in which the agency is based.

Chapter 13 deals with transitional provisions. Articles 73 to 76 set out transitional arrangements concerning the board, senior office holders and the budget.

Chapter 14 deals with final provisions. Articles 77 and 78 replace and repeal various measures, and Article 79 provides for entry into force. Essentially, the proposal seeks to create a Europol that is fit to address the challenges of supporting and enhancing EU law enforcement co-operation for the next ten to 15 years, similar to the original Europol Convention that provided the functional framework for its first 15 years.

Ireland is broadly supportive of the proposal. Our participation in Europol is vital to our national interest, and we look forward to continuing to play an active role with the agency.

I hope the committee will support the motion to exercise Ireland's opt-in to the negotiation of this proposal. It is essential that we continue to actively participate in Europol. I need hardly add that any points raised by members of the committee on the European Commission proposal will be noted and will be taken into account during the negotiation process. I thank members of the committee for hanging in there for what was a very long presentation about an agency that does some interesting work in respect of whose structure is being updated and in respect of which I hope a very good regulation will be put in place when the deliberative phase of this process is complete at European Union level.