Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Oct 1997

Vol. 481 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Europol Bill, 1997: Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsections:

"(3) A word or expression that is used in this Act and is also used in the Convention, the 1996 Protocol or the 1997 Protocol has, unless the contrary intention appears, the meaning in this Act that it has in the Convention, the 1996 Protocol or the 1997 Protocol, as the case may be.

(4) In construing a provision of this Act, a court shall give it a construction that will give effect to the Convention, the 1996 Protocol or the 1997 Protocol.".

The amendment proposes the insertion of a standard interpretation clause. It seeks to repeat the exercise used in the Liability of Defective Products Act, 1991. Its purpose is to ensure there will be no ambiguity in the interpretation of the Bill and where there is any ambiguity that we refer back to the Convention and the Protocol as our points of reference. I ask the Minister to consider accepting this amendment.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I thank Deputy Shortall for her amendment which primarily concerns a drafting issue. The type of wording proposed is sometimes used in legislation where a large amount of a Convention has been restated in a Bill. I understand from the parliamentary draftsman's office that it is not considered necessary in this case because there is nothing in the Bill which would warrant it. The Convention and the two Protocols will be given the force of law as provided for in section 2. In the circumstances I am not prepared to accept an amendment of this nature and I trust the Deputy understands the position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, subsection (3), line 22, before "Garda Síochána" to insert "Criminal Assets Bureau and the".

I tabled this amendment because it is important to learn from our past mistakes in relation to the lack of co-ordination between different State agencies in tackling crime and from our good experience over the past few months since the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau. I am sure we would all accept that it was not until that agency was established with all its powers, including its capacity to draw expertise from other relevant agencies, that we started to get to grips with our crime problem. Unless the Bill is amended as I suggest, a difficulty will arise at some future point when we will need to provide for the inclusion of members of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the national unit. For that reason I suggest the Criminal Assets Bureau should be specifically mentioned as the pool of important and relevant people from whom members should be drawn for the national unit. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I agree with the thrust of Deputy Shortall's argument. The establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau has been one of our success stories in tackling crime. From the point of view of interaction, co-operation and co-ordination, the blending together in one office of all the agencies that deal with various elements of crime and possible areas of crime management highlights that there should be as much co-ordination as possible between them.

We have for the first time ever, a mass exodus of criminals from this jurisdiction. Criminals are on the run as never before. They have gone to ground overseas and elsewhere because their assets are being seized and their ill gotten gains, their motivation for committing crime, are being taken from them. There is a crying need for maximum co-ordination to avoid possible conflicts, duplication or triplication of work and to ensure there is maximum cohesion that is relevant and evident from the point of view of tackling crime. There is a good deal of merit in this amendment and I ask the Minister to give it serious consideration.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The objective of Europol is to improve the effectiveness and co-operation of the competent authorities in member states, which are responsible for preventing and combating crime. Europol's initial remit will cover unlawful drug trafficking, trafficking in nuclear and radioactive substances, illegal immigrant smuggling, trade in human beings, motor vehicle crime and cases where there are factual indications that an organised criminal structure is involved and two or more member states are affected by the forms of crime in question in such a way as to require a common approach to the scale and consequence of the offences.

The national units will be involved in transmitting and receiving information from Europol. The increased flow of information which will result from the establishment of Europol will assist in the detection of crime and in the identification of major criminals and should be of assistance to the Criminal Assets Bureau of the members states. The position is that while Europol will do very worthwhile work in tackling major crime it will not deal with the seizure of assets.

The expertise which will be required in respect of members of the national unit will not be the same as that required in respect of members of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Also, the expertise required in the national unit may change over time as Europol's remit is extended. The wording in subsection (3) and the proposed section 3(6) as set out in amendment No. 4 provides the flexibility to allow for the assignment of personnel to the national unit most suited to the task.

In these circumstances I ask Deputy Shortall to withdraw her amendment. I take her point about the importance of co-ordination between the various agencies, such as the Garda and the Customs. Amendment No. 4 is intended to cover the concern expressed by Deputy Shortall. I again commend the Criminal Assets Bureau, which undoubtedly has done outstanding work since its establishment and continues to do so. While I fully understood the points made by Deputies Shortall and Higgins, I trust it is accepted that the amendment cannot be taken for the reasons outlined.

Mr. Deasy

I concur with the comments of other Deputies and support the Minister's work. However, Deputy Shortall's point about the co-ordination of the various services is a good one. We all know the Criminal Assets Bureau has done a magnificent job. Its creation was probably the single most successful anti-criminal measure taken in this House in many years and it has scared the wits out of the criminal element which we want to eliminate. Al Capone was not charged with murder or racketeering — he was caught by the US Internal Revenue, the equivalent of our Revenue Commissioners, and sent to prison for tax offences. There is much to be said for co-ordination between the Revenue and the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The Minister mentioned co-operation between various states. In my Second Stage contribution I mentioned extradition, although the Minister did not refer to it in his reply. His initial Second Stage contribution referred to extradition between Ireland, Canada and South Africa, but why can the infamous drug barons now living in London, Amsterdam and the Costa del Sol not be extradited back to Ireland? It is incredible that they can still mastermind the activities of their Irish gangs from those locations.

Ms Shortall

I cannot accept the Minister's arguments. He has given no reason for not accepting this amendment. In the past, the gardaí had great difficulty bringing prosecutions against known criminals because of their cleverness in conducting their affairs and the difficulty in proving their involvement in serious crime. Now, with the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau, an individual's tax or social welfare record can be checked because of the involvement of the relevant agencies. It is on those grounds that criminals can be brought to book or sufficient pressure put on them to force them to leave the country. A number of points have been well made in this respect, in particular about the capture of Al Capone, as this was the principle on which the Criminal Assets Bureau was established.

The work of the bureau is much more than the seizure of assets. If a person leaves the country as a result of pressure brought to bear on him through the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau, there may not be enough evidence against that individual to request his or her extradition. Nonetheless, given the information which the Criminal Assets Bureau may have against that person, it should be possible to pursue him or her. Rather than allowing cases to develop where it is difficult to acquire or exchange information on the business activity or family circumstances of criminals and it becomes necessary to draw up new legislation, we should include the Criminal Assets Bureau at this point to give the Minister sufficient flexibility to include those persons so that background information on them can be made available. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to including the amendment.

Mr. O'Donoghue

In answer to Deputy Deasy's question about extradition, I understand that a new treaty dealing with this matter was signed during Ireland's recent Presidency of the EU and I have no doubt this will assist this matter. In response to Deputy Shortall, I emphasise that while Europol will do useful work in tackling major crime, it will not deal with the seizure of assets because that is not within its remit. I, therefore, cannot accept the amendment because it would provide a specific reference to the Criminal Assets Bureau when Europol will not be dealing with the work done by the bureau. I appreciate the point made by Deputies Shortall and Deasy but Europol will not be dealing with the seizure of assets and therefore it would be quite inappropriate, to say the least, to involve the bureau in the way suggested by the Deputy. I assure her that, in so far as any amendments are introduced which will assist in the co-operation between authorities in tackling crime, I will be only too happy to accept them if they can be put into effect. In this instance, I regret I cannot accept the amendment for the reasons outlined and I trust she understands that.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I still find it difficult to accept the Minister's rationale. In setting out the purposes of the Bill, the explanatory memorandum states that the crimes within Europol's initial remit will include unlawful drug trafficking, trafficking in nuclear and radioactive substances, illegal immigrant smuggling, trade and traffic in human beings, motor vehicle crime, and related money laundering activities. One of the successes of the Criminal Assets Bureau has been its tackling of money laundering, so the Bill specifically deals with an area which comes directly within the remit of the bureau and is one of the platforms of its success. I ask the Minister to again consider this amendment.

I note the Minister's remarks about amendment No. 4 and I thank him for it. I said on Second Stage that this Bill, like many others, uses broad discretionary language — that is, it frequently uses the phrase "the Minister may". However, from the viewpoint of co-ordination it is important to include the Customs and Excise authorities, because they are specifically trained in the detection of many of the goods brought within the context of this Bill. Even before the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau, the most successful operations were joint operations, either surveillance or direct action, involving members of the Garda drugs unit and the Customs and Excise authorities. Those authorities have a nose for detecting wrongdoings in particular goods or substances, they should be included within the terms of the Bill and I thank the Minister for doing that.

In amendments Nos. 4 and 6 he is providing for the possibility of membership of the Customs and Excise authorities by a Europol liaison officer. If the Minister accepts the amendment on the Criminal Assets Bureau he would be including the Customs and Excuse authorities because they are within the structure of the Criminal Assets Bureau. He should accept the thrust of the proposed amendment because it makes sense and underpins the principle of cohesion, co-operation and co-ordination.

Ms Shortall

I draw the Minister's attention to the experience of the recent past where two major criminal figures, namely, Mr. Gilligan and the person known as The Boxer, are before the courts for crimes they are alleged to have committed in other jurisdictions. Were it not for the fact that they committed crimes in another jurisdiction it would not have been possible to extradite them back to this country. It should be possible to extradite people who leave this jurisdiction because they are under investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau and go to live in the Costa del Sol and elsewhere. The extradition application would be presumably based on information compiled by the Criminal Assets Bureau. I see no reason for the Minister not accepting this amendment. It would not tie anybody's hands and would not restrict the operation of the legislation. I intend to press the amendment.

Mr. O'Donoghue

On Deputy Higgins's point, the appointment of a Customs and Excise officer to the national unit will be one of the first matters I will address on passing this legislation. I appreciate the Deputy's comments in that respect and take them seriously because involvement by the Customs and Excise is of fundamental importance.

I fully understand Deputy Shortall's intention is to strengthen the legislation, but Europol is not involved in the seizure of assets. The exchange of information which will result from the strengthening of Europol can, and no doubt will be utilised by the Criminal Assets Bureau in hunting illicit assets of criminals. In this respect the principal vehicle used by the Criminal Assets Bureau is the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, which I introduced on behalf of my party in Opposition. That Act provides for the freezing and subsequent disposal of illicit assets without the need for a charge, let alone a conviction. I suspect information gathered by the Garda in the normal course of its work is utilised by the Criminal Assets Bureau in making applications to the courts. Similarly, I anticipate information made available to the Criminal Assets Bureau through Europol will be utilised to hunt down illicit assets of criminals in this country. The entire philosophy behind Europol is to ensure there will be as high a degree as possible of exchange of information.

I ask the Deputy to accept that the Criminal Assets Bureau will unquestionably have the opportunity to utilise the information made available to it with a view to ensuring illicit assets are frozen and, if possible, subsequently disposed of to the Exchequer or in accordance with the other provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996. I regret I cannot accept the amendment because Europol will not be involved, in the foreseeable future, in the seizure of assets. For that reason it would not be appropriate for me to involve the Criminal Assets Bureau in the manner suggested by the Deputy.

Mr. Deasy

I have great time for the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue. His appointment is a breath of fresh air and he is very good at his job, but I often wonder about the likelihood of Ministers being led by civil servants. Deputy Shortall's proposal is highly reasonable. The Garda Síochána and the Revenue Commissioners should work together. Six, seven or eight years ago there were many problems with the importation of drugs because the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners were pulling against one another. It was publicly known there was rivalry as to who should be in control of surveillance off the coast. That rivalry apparently allowed criminals to escape and shipments of drugs to come into the country undetected, which was abominable. It is reasonable to expect the two bodies should work together in harmony.

The Minister should bear in mind the recent report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in which he severely criticises the lack of activity on the part of the Revenue Commissioners. They need the expertise of the Garda Síochána to work effectively in detecting and prosecuting people who have so-called invisible assets and are clearly living beyond their means, such as drug barons and people involved with them in laundering money, people with houses worth £1 million, cars, racehorses and all the trappings that go with that, whose income seems to be negligible or who are virtually on social welfare income. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out a deficiency in that area. There needs to be a tightening up in that regard, and the Garda working with the Revenue Commissioners could plug that loophole. The Minister should agree to a far more pertinent and constructive attack on crime.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): By way of clarification — perhaps the Minister is not in a position to give this information — in terms of the composition of Europol, what is the experience in other countries where this convention has been transposed into domestic law? Has the equivalent of the Criminal Assets Bureau been included in its membership?

Mr. O'Donoghue

The Criminal Assets Bureau, which is consequential on the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, is relatively new. As far as I can recall, only one other country, the United Kingdom, has ratified the Europol Convention and, therefore, I cannot assist Deputy Higgins in terms of precedent on the international stage.

I thank Deputy Deasy for his kind comments, particularly from a person as experienced and enlightened as him — I am not involving myself in a back-scratching exercise. Section 3 deals with the designation of a national unit within the Garda Síochána. The designation of a national unit will not involve the creation of an entirely new unit. A unit already exists in Garda Headquarters to liaise with the Europol drugs unit. Under the legislation the Minister is empowered, following consultation with the Commissioner, to designate a unit to be known as the national unit which will subsequently operate under the control of Garda superintendents. Deputy Deasy and others should note that it is within the remit of the Garda Commissioner to assign as many members of the Garda Síochána to the national unit as he sees fit. Likewise, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, following consultation with the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Finance, may appoint as many officers of the Customs and Excise and others who are not members of the Garda Síochána to the unit as he sees fit. It should be clear to Members that the commissioner, in so far as the Garda is concerned, and the Minister, in so far as Customs and Excise is concerned, have the power to appoint to the national unit members of the Criminal Assets Bureau or people who may subsequently be appointed to it. The legislation is open ended and gives the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister for Finance the power to appoint to the national unit people who are or may in future be members of the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The legislation provides for the concerns of Deputies Deasy, Shortall and Higgins. It would not be appropriate to specifically include the Criminal Assets Bureau in the legislation when, under the terms of the convention or the legislation ratifying it, Europol will not be involved in freezing or seizing of assets. I hope my comments have allayed Deputies' fears about the possible exclusion of the bureau.

The question of co-ordination in so far as the enforcement authorities are concerned has been referred to frequently by Deputies since I became a Member of the House more than a decade ago. I have a deep understanding of this matter and respect the points of view expressed. In the light of my comments, I ask Deputy Shortall to accept the current proposal as being the best way forward.

Ms Shortall

The Minister persists in making great play of the Proceeds of Crime Act. While I am sure all Members accept the importance of that legislation and acknowledge the Minister's role in putting it on the Statute Book, his emphasis on it implies a lack of understanding about the reason we have been successful in tackling crime in recent months. This success is based on the new approach to crime adopted by the Criminal Assets Bureau, appropriate inter-agency co-operation. The Garda did not have information on revenue or social welfare matters and Revenue and Department of Social Welfare officials did not have the Garda protection to pursue the individuals concerned. It was the co-ordinated approach adopted by those agencies to criminals that resulted in our recent success in tackling crime. The Minister said Europol information can be relayed to the Criminal Assets Bureau, but if we are to pursue criminals in other jurisdictions there must also be a mechanism by which information held by the Criminal Assets Bureau can be relayed to Europol. In the past agencies were expected to work together but problems arose regarding data protection. To ensure these problems do not arise in the future the Criminal Assets Bureau should be specifically included in the legislation as an agency from which representatives can be drawn for the national unit.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are related and, therefore, can be discussed together.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, subsection (3), line 22, after "Garda Síochána" to insert "and so many officers of customs and excise".

I have already stated that officers of the Customs and Excise should be an integral part of the new national unit. As these amendments have been superseded by the Minister's amendment to No. 4, I will withdraw them. I thank him for acceding to our request to specifically include officers of the Customs and Excise in the terminology of the Bill. It is fundamental that they work side by side with the unit because they have been part of the success story in tackling crime, particularly during the past two and a half years.

What type of composition is envisaged in terms of numbers and component parts for the new unit? How many people from the Garda Síochána, Revenue, Customs and Excise or others will be appointed to the unit? Could we be given some idea of what we are talking about at this stage, first, in terms of the component parts and, second, the numbers involved?

Mr. O'Donoghue

Deputy Higgins asked a very relevant question. Initially, the Garda and customs and excise officers will be involved. We have not yet addressed the question of how many members should be in the national unit. The honest answer to Deputy Higgins's question is that we simply do not know at present, but it is obviously something to which we will give early attention. I will communicate to the Deputy the information which he requires in this respect as soon as a decision is reached.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 6 is related to amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 7 is an alternative to amendment No. 6. Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 7 may be discussed together by agreement.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, subsection (6), lines 30 to 34, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(6) (a) The Minister, after consultation with the Commissioner, the Minister for Finance and any other Minister of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances and, in relation to officers of customs and excise, with the Revenue Commissioners, may, from time to time, appoint such and so many persons who are not members of the Garda Síochána to be members of the national unit.".

I propose to deal with Government amendments Nos. 4 and 6 and the Opposition amendment No. 7, which is in the name of Deputy Shortall, together. These amendments relate to the appointment of non Garda members to the national unit and the sending of non Garda members of that unit as liaison officers with Europol.

Amendment No. 4 replaces section 3(6)(a). This proposed amendment differs from the existing wording, in that it includes provision for consultation with the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the appointment of customs and excise officers to the national unit and provision for similar consultation with any other Minister whose staff may be assigned to the national unit.

These consultation provisions are necessary for two reasons. They take account of the fact that the Revenue Commissioners are independent of the Minister for Finance in the exercise of their functions and in the disposition of their staff. They also cater for a situation where other expertise is required in the national unit arising, for example, from a possible extension of Europol's remit to include other crimes listed in the annex to the convention, such as illegal trafficking in body parts, hormonal substances and other growth promoters or in endangered plant and animal species.

Amendment No. 6 provides for the replacement of section 4 with a new section. Unlike the previous wording, it provides in subsection (2) that the nominating function in respect of members of the national unit, other than members of the Garda Síochána, who may be sent to Europol as liaison officers will be as follows — on nomination of the Revenue Commissioners, in the case of customs and excise officers, or on nomination of such other Minister, if any, as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day considers appropriate.

Similar to amendment No. 4, this amendment takes account of the fact that the Revenue Commissioners are independent of the Minister for Finance in the exercise of their functions and in the disposition of their staff, and caters for a situation where expertise, other than Garda or customs and excise, is required in the national unit.

The proposed amendment also includes at the beginning of subsection (1) the additional words "Subject to subsection (2) and the Convention". I have already explained the reference to subsection (2). The reference to the convention is included because article 5 of the convention provides that the number of liaison officers who may be sent by member states to Europol will be laid down by unanimous decision of the management board.

Amendment No. 7, which was tabled by Deputy Shortall, provides for the deletion of "or members" from section 4(1). Government amendment No. 6 already deletes these words and replaces them with the words "one or more than one member". While we have at present only one liaison officer, this number could be increased in future. As I have already mentioned, the number of liaison officers who may be sent by member states to Europol will be laid down by unanimous decision of the management board. Some member states already have more than one liaison officer.

I am only surmising this, but it is possible that Deputy Shortall may have in mind the provision in the Interpretation Act, 1937, which states that every word importing the singular shall, unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it also imported the plural. The parliamentary draftsman has advised that the wording proposed in amendment No. 6, that is, "one or more than one member", is necessary. In those circumstances, I respectfully request Deputy Shortall to withdraw her amendment.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I acknowledge the Minister's acceptance of the basic point we made on Second Stage and the thrust of the amendments tabled today. I have withdrawn amendments Nos. 3 and 5. On a technical point, will the personnel assigned to the unit, particularly the liaison officer, have a fixed term of office, or will it be at the discretion of the commissioner or the sponsoring Department or agency?

Mr. O'Donoghue

I was pleased to take note of the matter which Deputy Higgins raised on Second Stage and to draft an appropriate amendment. Initially, the liaison officer will have a fixed term of three years.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4. -(1) Subject to subsection (2) and the Convention, there shall be sent as a liaison officer with Europol one or more than one member of the national unit as the Commissioner may, for the purposes of this Act and the Convention, determine.

(2) A member of the national unit, other than a member of the Garda Síochána, shall be sent as a liaison officer with Europol only after consultation with the Minister, and—

(a) in the case where the member to be sent is an officer of customs and excise, on the nomination of the Revenue Commissioners, or

(b) in the case of any other member (not being a member of the Garda Síochána or an officer of customs and excise) on the nomination of such other Minister of the Government (if any) as the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances.".

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): We should record our appreciation of the manner in which members of the Garda Síochána have distinguished themselves in the United Nations. One of the singular badges of Irish success over the early years of our involvement in the United Nations was the fact that Irish military personnel, flying under UNIFIL, UNSO and so on, distinguished themselves and brought great honour to this country.

The development of the concept of using members of the Garda, whether in Bosnia or Cyprus, has also brought great honour and distinction to Ireland. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Defence for two and a half years I had the pleasure of seeing in Cyprus, Israel and other areas of operation of Irish forces overseas, the manner in which the Garda Síochána have distinguished themselves wearing the blue beret of the United Nations. The manner in which members of the Garda are sought by the United Nations for duties on the ground and supervisory officers and have gained promotion in the ranks has been a source of considerable satisfaction to all of us.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 4 deleted.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

SECTION 5.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, paragraph (b), line 30, to delete "Health" and substitute "Health and Children".

This is a straightforward amendment to correct the title of the Minister concerned.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I thank Deputy Shortall. I noticed this morning that this amendment is necessary. It is required due to the change of title from the Department of Health to the Department of Health and Children. In those circumstances I will, of course, accept the amendment and I thank the Deputy for proposing it.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): On Second Stage I laid emphasis on the need for maximum data protection. It is of the highest importance given that, on the one hand, the interchange and exchange of information is crucially important from the viewpoint of combating and coping with crime while, on the other hand, a balance must be struck between the effective use of information and the aspect of confidentiality and the need to ensure that the information in question does not get into the wrong hands or the wrong domain. This underlines the need for the maximum possible safeguards and guarantees. The Bill is to be commended. It takes considerable measures to ensure that the maximum confidentiality is maintained from the point of view of using information.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I appreciate the Deputy's remarks. It is important that the system not be abused and I assure him there are safeguards to ensure this. These relate to the standard of data protection restrictions on access to data by users of the system, rules regarding the use of data, time limits for storage and deletion of data files, security measures to prevent unauthorised access and an arrangement whereby each national supervisory body has an overseeing role. An independent joint supervisory body will have the task of ensuring that the rights of the individual are not violated. That is of considerable importance.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Ms Shortall

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, subsection (1), lines 39 and 40, to delete "paragraph 2(a)" and substitute "paragraph 2(b)".

The purpose of this amendment is to require the Government to make a new declaration to allow all courts in this country to refer issues to the European Court of Justice, as provided for under paragraph 2(b), rather than just allowing the Supreme Court and other courts where there is no appeal to do so. This will strengthen the legislation and I ask the Minister to give consideration to it.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The 1996 Protocol determines the conditions under which the Court of Justice of the European Communities may have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the convention. It allows member states to accept such jurisdiction by making a declaration which may specify that such jurisdiction will be in accordance with either paragraph 2(a) or paragraph 2(b) of the Protocol.

It is important in this context that I highlight the difference between paragraph 2(a) and paragraph 2(b). Paragraph 2(a) of the 1996 Protocol provides that only those courts or tribunals of the member states concerned against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, may request the Court of Justice of the European Communities to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the interpretation of the Europol Convention if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment. Paragraph 2(b) provides that any court or tribunal of the member states concerned may request the Court of Justice of the European Communities to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the interpretation of the Europol Convention if that court or tribunal considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment.

The difference, therefore, is that where a state opts for paragraph 2(a), only those of its courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may request such rulings, whereas if it opts for paragraph 2(b), any of its courts or tribunals may make such a request. Ireland made a declaration in 1996 when agreeing to this Protocol that paragraph 2(a) of the Protocol and not paragraph 2(b) would apply and the wording of section 10 of the Bill reflects this.

Ireland at that time opted for paragraph 2(a) in view of the serious difficulties which could arise under our legal system if criminal trials had to be suspended for lengthy periods while rulings were obtained from the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The difficulties would be particularly serious in the case of jury trials. In other words, we want to ensure, in so far as we can, that there will be as little disruption as possible to the progress of a criminal trial once it has commenced. All would agree that is a desirable objective.

For these reasons also, Ireland exercised a similar option regarding other conventions involving criminal matters, for example, the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities Interests. For the reasons I have I outlined I am, therefore, not in a position to accept an amendment of this nature. I trust Deputy Shortall will understand my position.

Ms Shortall

I accept the Minister's reasons for opting for paragraph 2(a) and I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): Section 13 states:

The expenses incurred in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Given that we are an island State, that we have hundreds of miles of coastline, that we have a limited amount of fishery protection vessels which are also supposed to do a certain amount of drugs surveillance and that there is a danger in such a situation that Ireland has been, is being or will be used as a depot for the distribution of drugs to the wider European market, is it proposed to make the argument at European level that it is in Europe's interest to give Ireland assistance in terms of protection of our coastline to try to intercept and abort the dropping of drugs in Ireland and the use of Ireland as an international distribution point or depot? Given also that it was the theme for our EU Presidency in 1996 and that we have been enormously successful in dealing with drugs and the interception of drugs within our jurisdiction it is in Europe's interest to try to see the argument for making funds available to assist us in even greater vigilance and greater protection of our coastline.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Deputy. There is no doubt Ireland's peripheral location as an island nation adjacent to mainland Europe means that it should receive special attention in so far as the fight against drug trafficking concerns our EU partners. It is something I will raise at EU level when the opportunity arises. Nevertheless, the information which will come into the country arising from the implementation of the legislation ratifying the convention, which will be replicated in other states, will be of considerable benefit to the authorities in hunting down perpetrators of the various crimes covered by it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

First to Sixth Schedule, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.