Dáil debates
Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Europol (Amendment) Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages
6:00 pm
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
I move amendment No 2:
In page 4, lines 25 and 26, to delete ", with any necessary modifications,".
On Committee Stage, I argued that we must ensure the Data Protection Acts we have passed in this House will have full effect over this Bill. Currently, the Bill contains the wording "with any necessary modifications" but it does not detail who decides the modifications or what might be necessary. This is the only time we will have a say in the Bill on the future conduct of Europol.
It is regrettable amendment No. 1 was ruled out of order, despite my arguing it on Committee Stage and raising the issue involved on Second Stage. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled that it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. I do not believe that because it simply stated that the Bill should not come into effect until such time as the safeguards as outlined are in place. We do not oppose the Bill. I stated on Second Stage that I was not opposed to it as a whole. We support proper and effective cross-border communications and co-operation between police forces where such action strikes the correct balance between the need and the right of individuals and communities to be safe from organised crime with the civil and human rights of an individual. It is bizarre that amendment No. 1 was ruled out of order. It did not go against the Bill, it allowed this House further opportunities to ensure that before the Bill comes into effect, the required safeguards to ensure Europol members would be held to account are in place. I have not seen where or whether the members of Europol will come under the Garda ombudsman commission despite the ability that Europol investigation teams can operate within this jurisdiction.
The key data protection principle is that there is an onus on data controllers to ensure the data are updated and accurate. We must ensure that when we pass such legislation we are satisfied that the standards and protections we would require are also implemented in Europe. I do not want to leave it to some anonymous person to decide the necessary modifications to the Data Protection Act without this House being informed.
Already there are problems with data protection standards in various police forces. The gardaí failed last year to update their files on Frank McBrearty Jnr., who was denied entry to the United States as a result of that failure. Standards are not being upheld. In England it was disclosed that British files wrongly listed thousands of people as criminals, resulting in many of them being refused employment. We must be careful if data are being recorded that they are recorded accurately and that proper regulations are in place for data controllers. That is why we passed Data Protection Acts, although we have not been proactive enough in doing so. Usually the revelation of data passing between State agencies occurred to prompt data protection measures, a point I have argued on other occasions where we have dealt with European legislation.
Given the Government's failure to ensure the data protection rights of individuals are fully protected by our police force, how can we guarantee the rights they should have will be protected by Europol if someone unknown can make the necessary modifications? The Bill will allow Europol members to participate in joint investigation teams and there is a push at European level to give Europol more powers, including the ability to attend the scene of crime to search and confiscate. What will the channels of redress be should members of Europol breach the rights of an Irish citizen? Will the Garda ombudsman have the power to hold members of Europol to account to the same degree it will be able to hold members of the Garda Síochána to account at some stage next year when it is operational, although not on 1 January as we had hoped?
There are questions to answer and the two amendments I tabled, one of which the Ceann Comhairle misguidedly ruled out of order, would serve to ensure our laws are to the fore when dealing with this and that we have the necessary protections. Other than that there are questions about the Bill as a whole, which I raised on Second and Committee Stages, but the main problem we have is to ensure our existing protocols are maintained and that if we pass future data protection Acts and regulations, they will have an effect. I am worried about this. If data protection standards are improved in the future, will that require amendment by all 25 EU member states of their data protection legislation to bring in new or minimum standards? It has been argued in the House that there is a requirement to increase data protection to ensure when material is shared by various agencies, such as police forces in this case, it is not abused. If the information is found to be incorrect, it must also be ensured that the Garda has a channel through which it can immediately pass information to another police force, such as Police Nationale in France.
It should be obligatory on the Garda or Europol to forward the new and updated information immediately. If Europol officers find that the information they receive is false, misleading or slightly inaccurate, a mechanism should be in place to flag this to make sure the data is corrected and updated for the officers who accessed it. This would prevent officers using incorrect information and courts being misled because the information is inaccurate and concerns somebody else. I hope the Minister of State will take this issue on board so that, at least, he will provide clarification about who will be responsible for the "necessary modifications". This phrase could have many meanings and a more specific reference should be included.
No comments