Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate on this Bill and for their support for it in general. I would like to address just one or two items, the ones that were relevant.

As I stated at the outset, this Bill does not make for light reading. I believe, however, that the principles in it are clear. Through votes of the Oireachtas, Ireland is already committed to implementing the EU Prüm decisions. This Bill is necessary in order to fulfil that obligation. Member states are required to share vehicle registration data, VRD, in order to prevent and investigate crimes. We will not be compliant with our EU requirements until we begin sharing those data, and we will not be able to share them until we pass this legislation.

I thank those Members of the House who contributed and who showed fair recognition and realisation regarding the urgency of the legislation and the fact that it is important to Ireland's interests that the proceedings that have been started in the EU are not carried to a more precarious or threatening situation. I do not believe this will happen. It is now quite clear that we are not only taking this Bill very seriously but also that it is going to be passed very shortly.

Deputy Stanley asked a very serious question about why the 1988 Bill applies. I have a fairly good answer. Those familiar with EU data protection law will be aware that the current EU legislation on data protection reflected in Irish law in the Data Protection Act 1988 is due to be replaced in May of this year by a new legal framework. This new framework consists of the general data protection regulation and the policing directive. As Prüm is a law-enforcement measure, the policing directive is the part of the new legislative framework that would naturally apply to Prüm. However, the EU, in preparing new legislation, decided specifically to exclude Prüm from a new framework and required the continued application of existing data protection law. The policing directive explicitly states that it does not apply to Prüm and that existing legislation will continue to apply. The practical effect is that the Bill must and does state that the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1988 apply to data sharing under Prüm. That is not all. The decisions themselves impose specific obligations on the data protection authorities of member states. These relate to monitoring of data sharing under the decisions and the processing of complaints from individuals who may believe their data should not have been shared or that data shared might have been inaccurate. Additional measures include the requirement for the national contact point to maintain records of data sharing under the decisions for two years and then delete such records, to carry out random checks on those records and to produce the records of such checks on the request of the Data Protection Commissioner.

The other relevant point was raised by Deputy Broughan.

His point was perhaps somewhat tangential to the Bill but it is something we should bear in mind. He says that because of our history, some of the information may not be particularly accurate. That is being remedied and I am sure the situation will be addressed by the time the Bill is enacted.

Deputy Mattie McGrath was the final speaker. I would address those issues which are relevant, but I cannot find any that are.

See this speech in context