Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

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.

See this speech in context