Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 29, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"36. Data may not be transferred to another jurisdiction for the purposes of it being used against an individual who has already stood trial and been acquitted in this jurisdiction."

Tá mé ag cur an leasú seo chun cinn ar an mbunús céanna leis an mBille a chuaigh roimhe maidir le cúrsaí fáisnéise agus cúrsaí eolais agus mar sin de, go bhfuil amhras orainne i Sinn Féin go mb'fhéidir go mbainfí mí-úsáid as an eolas seo, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs duine atá tar éis dul os comhar na cúirteanna agus ar fuarthas neamhchiontach.
Again, it is a similar rationale as the amendment to the previous Bill and I wish to put it on the record again in the context of this Bill. Data collected under this legislation should have to comply with standards in the Twenty-six counties and not those in any other member state. We do not want to see a situation where data being shared in good faith leaves the hands of another member state when it is no longer under the same standard under which it left Ireland. We cannot afford to see an abuse of power by governments in this area. I cite the McBrearty case, in which he was refused entry to the US on the grounds that he had a conviction for an assault when, in fact, that conviction had been overturned and he was found to be innocent of the charges.
We have also seen problems with standards in various police forces. In England, it was disclosed that British files wrongly listed thousands of people as criminals, resulting in many of them being refused employment. It is the same rationale but the question is being put in a different way. What our amendment is actually highlighting here, and what it very specifically cites, is individuals who have already stood trial and been acquitted in this jurisdiction. Why would the Government not accept this amendment? What is the rationale of transferring the data on somebody who has already stood trial and been acquitted in this jurisdiction? We do not see the reason or the logic for that. Perhaps the Minister of State could come back to me on this point.