Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On my own amendments and the changes, there were concerns what we were proposing would in some way jeopardise the system that is already in place. As it currently stands, the sharing of information regarding sex offenders travelling into and out of the State is carried out by way of police-to-police information, that is, intelligence information exchange via Interpol. This allows the relevant police forces to manage the risk posed by such individuals while they are resident either temporarily or, indeed, permanently in a different jurisdiction.

A memorandum of understanding was signed in 2006 between the Irish and UK Governments to ensure the sharing of information between different organisations with regard to sex offenders. In 2008, an agreement relating to the sharing of personal data regarding the investigation of sexual offences and the monitoring of sex offenders was signed by the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. This agreement provides for the sharing of personal information through a single point of contact in both police services.

Since Brexit we have made sure that all of the memorandums of understanding or co-operation agreements continue and there is no lapse so that there is no challenge to the work of An Garda Síochána and the PSNI or on the UK side. I am confident, based on this and discussions with the Garda, that it is happy with how information is currently exchanged. We would not want to in any way jeopardise the work that is ongoing.

Regarding amendment No. 20, it is something we considered carefully. We sought advice from the Attorney General on fair procedure. Each individual, irrespective of who he or she is and what he or she has done, is entitled to fair procedure. This is an opportunity for a person to correct the record if information is incorrect. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying about giving someone a heads up that this is going to happen. The most important thing is that if information needs to be shared with the person that it is shared with that person. If a woman or man are a difficult situation and something comes to light, the most important thing is that the Garda shares that information with the person. The requirement to inform the person that the information is being shared is clear from a constitutional perspective, and has been outlined clearly to me from a constitutional perspective as something we need to do.

If there is an immediate danger or threat, the Garda can bypass that. If it feels that by telling the person it will make this information available to somebody else and that that would pose a risk to somebody in a similar household, be it a child anybody else, the Garda can bypass this. There is a provision to make sure there are safeguards to protect people. If it is the case that people do not live together and are not in the same town or engaged with each other and there is no immediate threat by the Garda notifying the person, that is the route it has to go. There is a clear provision in the Bill that if a woman, man or child is at immediate risk the Garda can tell the person directly without having to raise it with the other person first. It is an important provision.

The Deputy's second point is more technical. It relates to amendment No. 32, which seeks to expand the information the Commissioner can publish. Section 14A relates to interpretation. Section 14C provides for the Minister to make regulations, and I do not think it would be practical for the Commissioner to publish this information. Section 14B concerns the composition of the SORAM teams, which are already available on the Garda website. It is already public information. The Bill allows for the Commissioner to publish information on how disclosures to the public will operate and this still stands in what was section 14E. That is why I am not accepting the amendment. Some of the specific parts the Deputy referenced relate to the Minister, therefore it would be not be appropriate for the Commissioner to deal with that. Some of it is already available and one part of it is more about interpretation. What information the Commissioner needs to provide is set out and there is enough in the Bill to make sure that the Commissioner can provide as much information as possible where there is a risk, harm or threat to somebody.

See this speech in context