Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Bill arises from EU measures known as the Prüm decisions and the State's obligation under them. Essentially, these decisions address the need for member states to share certain data in order to overcome, combat and investigate serious crime.

In 2014, the Oireachtas legislated for the sharing of DNA and fingerprint data. The legislation before us today is designed to allow for the sharing of vehicle registration data. Iceland and Norway will also be party to this data-sharing arrangement.

The Bill calls for national and State police and justice systems across the EU to improve co-operation. It also allows State authorities to search the national and State databases of vehicle registration in other states. The Prüm decisions came into being in 2008. Ten years on, this legislation is before the House. Ten years is an extraordinary delay. However, I understand that the main reason for the delay was the decision that the vehicle registration element of the Prüm decisions would be legislated for after the DNA and fingerprinting measures became law and that this legislation proved to be complex. In his Second Stage speech in the Seanad, the Minister said that legal difficulties led to further delay and this is why it took several years from the passing of the 2014 legislation for this Bill to come before the House. I am not sure why these issues could not have been resolved in anticipation of the legislation eventually coming before the House. I assume that the legislation is only before us now because the EU has begun an action against the State. However, as the Bill has passed through the Seanad, hopefully, this process will soon be concluded. It is our wish that this will happen.

It is important that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, understands his responsibilities under his brief. I read media reports last weekend to the effect that he has said that the Judicial Appointments Bill is his priority. I suggest to the Minister that he should prioritise legislation in his own brief. It not good enough that the EU must initiate legal action for him to pay attention to pressing matters in his own Department. Given the already extraordinary delay in regard to this Bill, will the Minister outline the projected timeline for the taking of the next Stages of it and the timeline for the sharing of vehicle registration data? I understand that there have been significant technical delays with the sharing of DNA and fingerprint data. It is also my understanding that the mechanisms and databases required for the sharing of vehicle registrations are, in the main, in place. I hope that further delays are not expected.

This Bill is designed to protect European citizens from criminals evading arrest in European jurisdictions and to protect us from international terrorism. In recent years, several European countries have been subjected to brutal attacks, of which we have seen too many examples. It is, therefore, important that we do all we can to co-operate with our European neighbours in an effort to pursue these criminal elements. One obvious issue raised by this legislation is the privacy and personal data of individuals and the protection of that data. The Prüm decisions emphasise the importance of respecting privacy and protecting personal data. Can the Minister confirm exactly what data will be shared under this legislation? For example, will only data already on the national vehicle and driver file be shared?

Under this Bill, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is the State's point of contact for sending and responding to requests for vehicle registrations and data. It provides that the Minister may choose to share data with An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and other "appropriate" persons”. I will come back to this point later. Data protection commissioners have the power to supervise the lawfulness of the treatment of the personal data under the proposed Act. The Data Protection Act 1988 is applied to the requests for access to personal information.

Can the Minister explain why the 1988 legislation will continue to govern the Prüm legislation, rather than updated laws expected this year? Data searches under this legislation will be limited to individual cases and records are to be deleted after two years. On this basis, Sinn Féin welcomes any sensible and considered measures designed to protect people from criminality. With a Bill of this nature we will always have concerns that people may not be given adequate protection as private citizens when dealing with data protection. Obviously the issue that must be reconciled is protecting people's personal data while getting the balance right in terms of protecting citizens from criminality and so forth. We have seen data breaches across the institutions of the State on numerous occasions, despite being reassured frequently about the protection of our personal data. Some of these breaches involved human error and others were of a malicious nature. We approach this Bill with the intention of supporting it while raising some of our concerns as the Bill progresses. We welcome and support the intent of the Bill but we will probably table amendments on further Stages.

In section 4(5), there is a reference to "other persons" with whom the State considers it "appropriate" to share the requested data. In his Second Stage speech in the Seanad the Minister indicated that these people are gardaí and civil servants. However, that is not explicitly defined in the legislation. That is what we seek. If the Garda and branches of the Civil Service are the agencies concerned in respect of that information, that must be tied down by including them by name in the Bill. Another issue on which I seek clarity is the data protection law that is expected to be replaced with new legislation this year. The EU has excluded Prüm from the new framework and the 1988 legislation will continue to apply to legislation arising from Prüm. Can the Minister explain this further? What is the rationale for the Prüm decisions remaining under the 1988 law?

We will support the Bill on Second Stage and we will consider amendments on Committee Stage to address the issues I have raised. I welcome this debate.

See this speech in context