Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

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.

See this speech in context