Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The first point I would make is that this was discussed and agreed by the European Parliament and Council. We are already part of Eurodac. The recast regulation, which is what we are discussing here today, allows consultation of Eurodac by law enforcement authorities. I want to put on the record that it is for the purpose of the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. It is aimed at enabling law enforcement authorities to request the comparison of fingerprint data with that stored in the Eurodac central database when they seek to establish the identity or to get further information on a person suspected of a serous crime or a victim of crime. It is worth making the point that it is also about the victim of crime.

Fingerprint data constitutes an important element of establishing the exact identity of a person. It is generally acknowledged and I think the Senator would agree that it is an important source of information for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences and other serious criminal offences. I understand that when the debate was held, many member states were adamant that they felt that law enforcement agencies should have access to Eurodac in the interests of the safety of populations. However, I want to make the point that access is not arbitrary because I recognise that when any database exists, the question of the balance between access to information and the preservation of human rights is one that must be considered. This was considered in the discussion of the various articles. There are a number of articles dealing with the protection of fundamental human rights in the provisions. Equally, a review is built in as to how the mechanism is working, which is an important safeguard as well. There is also a detailed approach about the steps that must be undertaken by authorities accessing Eurodac so they cannot just say they want access to Eurodac. In the first place, they must get permission and to have worked through any other database that is available.

I will give the Senators some details. Access to Eurodac can only occur if comparisons with other databases that are already available did not lead to the establishment of the identity of the data subject. That would include, for example, our own national database. The other databases are: national databases; databases of other member states under the Prüm decision, in respect of which we are not fully linked in; and the European Union visa information system.

It is permissible to access data from Eurodac following negative results from these other databases in comparison with Eurodac but it is only permissible where a number of cumulative conditions are met. I will go through them. The comparison is necessary for the purpose of the prevention, detection or investigation of a terrorist offence or other serious criminal offence. The comparison has to be necessary in a specific case. There are reasonable grounds to consider that the comparison will substantially contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of any of the criminal offences in question. In each member state, a verifying authority acting independently shall ensure that the conditions for requesting comparison of fingerprints with Eurodac are fulfilled.

I think that shows how the balance in the regulation is quite careful, has been considered at European Parliament and Council level and is built in to the access that law enforcement agencies have. There are quite a number of safeguards that are adequate and important. Equally, I believe in access to the Eurodac database by law enforcement agencies. Many member states made this point during the course of the debate. It is one that is essential and I would certainly recommend that this be agreed by the House.