Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I will finish the point I was making. The chairman's summary of the high level conference on the future of Europol of February 2006 stated that "ways should be found to enable Europol to exchange information also with countries that do not have the same data protection standards as those applicable within the European Union". This legislation will not allow for this because it is specific to what is in place, which suggests the Government is already looking for ways around data protection issues.

This legislation is vital. Deputy Howlin is correct that we must do everything we can to stop drug barons in this state getting weapons and drugs onto the streets and having a devastating effect. In this globalised world there is a need for data exchange to ensure the Garda will be increasingly successful in the capture of such shipments. Luckily for many, it has been successful in this regard in recent days, weeks and months. This is only the beginning of the fight against drug barons because it is internationally accepted that police forces capture only 10% of drugs trafficked.

We must have the highest possible standards of data protection. I have requested, on a number of EU justice measures in this House, that we prioritise data protection and put in place data sharing mechanisms. There should be a standard of data protection across the European Union that is even higher than that in Ireland because this would negate the possibility of mistakes such as those I listed on an international scale. In such circumstances the public could be confident that mistakes would not be made and that the data shared would have built in protection. Measures would be necessary to ensure that if mistakes were spotted in shared data, they could be corrected throughout the European Union.

I will not labour my point, as there does not appear to be much support for my proposal. The first amendment I tabled was of key significance and it is regrettable that the Acting Chairman ruled it out of order, despite the fact that it was not contrary to the purpose of the Bill, that I mentioned it on Second Stage and that I had argued the point on Committee Stage. It would have given greater effect to the points I was making than the amendment which seeks to provide for "necessary modifications".

See this speech in context