Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Vol. 804 No. 2

Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Bill 2013: Instruction to Committee

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 177, Standing Order 131 is modified to permit an instruction to the Committee to which the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Bill 2013 may be recommitted in respect of certain amendments, that it has power to make provision in the Bill in relation to: the cessation of mobile communication services where necessary to avert a serious threat of death of a person, serious bodily injury to a person, or substantial damage to property arising from the activation of an explosive or other lethal device by use of a mobile communication service; the Minister for Justice and Equality authorising the issuing of directions to undertakings to cease providing mobile communication services in circumstances where such a serious threat arises; various conditions and limitations on the powers to issue authorisations and directions; offences relating to non-compliance with directions; matters related to the foregoing; and to divide the Bill into Parts and change its title to take account of these provisions.

I am bringing this motion of instruction to enable some amendments, of considerable importance to the security of the State and the public, to be included in the Bill. As its Long Title states, the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Bill 2013, amends the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. The proposed amendments are beyond the scope of the current Title of the Bill and so it is proposed to amend the Title of the Bill.

The amendments which will be inserted as Part 3 of the Bill are to deal with serious imminent threats to life or property arising from an explosive or other lethal device. They address those circumstances where a mobile phone might be used to detonate a device remotely. The amendments provide for directions to be given to mobile phone companies to cease their services in particular geographic areas for a limited period of time where this is considered necessary to avert such a threat.

As Deputies may be aware, many other jurisdictions have similar powers already in operation. For instance, our closest neighbours, Britain and Northern Ireland, have provisions in law for the issuing of directions to mobile telephone operators to cease service in certain circumstances. An Garda Síochána has a good relationship with its counterparts in Northern Ireland which is essential when dealing with the safety and security of the whole of this island. Clearly it is also important that we are able to liaise and co­ordinate with the PSNI to deal with any incidents which may involve explosive devices which can be detonated using mobile phone technology. Further afield, countries such as Australia have a range of provisions in place to deal with such situations. In my view it is important that in this jurisdiction the Garda Síochána is equipped with the necessary legislative powers to deal with incidents which may cause death or serious injury. As I previously stated in the Dáil, it is my understanding that the law enforcement authorities in Boston recently invoked such a power in response to the outrage which occurred there. Such events make it clear to all of us the importance of having measures in place to deal with extremely serious threats which may potentially result in loss of life and injury. It is a regrettable fact that terrorist organisations and criminal gangs are prepared to exploit any means, including advances in technology, to kill and maim. It is necessary, in those circumstances, for the law enforcement authorities to be given the means to counter these threats. It would be remiss of me as Minister for Justice and Equality if I ignored this reality and left the Garda Síochána bereft of the necessary tools to meet that threat. I trust that all Deputies will be in agreement with me on this obvious fact.

I wish to assure the House, however, that the proposed legislation adopts a balanced and proportionate response to the threat. Accordingly, the powers contained within it are subject to a range of safeguards and conditions. The powers proposed in the amendments are only available where there is a serious threat that an explosive or lethal device is likely to cause loss of life, serious injury or serious damage to property. The powers cannot be used other than in such a situation and the procedures and checks are set out clearly in the proposed legislation, thereby ensuring that both an effective and safe system will be in place.

The system provides for a two-tier process involving decisions at ministerial level and at Garda level. An application must first be made to the Minister by a very senior Garda of Assistant Commissioner rank or higher, for authorisation to issue directions. The Minister may only give an authorisation if satisfied as follows: that there are reasonable grounds for believing a serious threat exists; there is a reasonable prospect that cessation of mobile phone services within a geographical area would be of material assistance in averting the threat; having regard to all the circumstances, including the importance of maintaining mobile phone services in the area concerned and the effect on users, that cessation of services is necessary and proportionate. There is a 24 hour limit on the time for which an authorisation may be acted upon.

A central element of the part is in the proposed section 24 which provides for a member of the Garda Síochána of chief superintendent rank or higher, having received a ministerial authorisation, to direct a mobile phone service provider to cease providing services in a particular area at a particular time. This power to issue a direction is subject to a range of checks and balances which are contained in Part 3. For instance, a Garda chief superintendent may only give a direction where he or she is satisfied that the serious threat continues to exist and where other means of averting the threat are less likely to succeed. A direction is limited in effect to six hours. Where a direction is no longer required it must be withdrawn. Mobile phone companies will be required to comply with a direction and failure to do so will be an offence. Mobile phone companies must endeavour to continue to provide 999 call services.

In our society today, it is inescapable that mobile communications are central to everyday life and business whether they are used as a social tool or communicator such as is the case with Facebook, or for more serious communications in relation to work or similar activities. I say this because it is important that the House recognises that the powers proposed in these provisions are not being introduced lightly. They are being introduced as there is now a need for such powers in our society if we are to be able to deal effectively with those who may be involved in posing a threat to life by the use of explosive devices that can be detonated by mobile phones and who have the ability and technical knowledge to achieve this. We must ensure that we have the capability to deal with such developments. This is about protecting and saving lives.

I reiterate that the powers are subject to the conditions I have mentioned which are consideration and application by an Assistant Commissioner, consideration and authorisation by the Minister, consideration and direction by a chief superintendent, 24-hour limitations on authorisations, six-hour limitations on directions and tests of necessity and proportionality. Above all, the powers are only available where there is a serious and imminent threat to life, limb or property from an explosive or lethal device activated by mobile communications services.

It is a regrettable reality that terrorists and others use explosives to threaten, maim and kill. We must provide for that reality. The Garda Síochána and PSNI advise that cell-activated devices are a real threat on the island, North and South.

I am very conscious that interference with mobile telephone services is an interference with the everyday lives of people and of businesses. The powers outlined in the amendments are necessary and proportionate. They are necessary because terrorists and criminals try to exploit mobile telephone services to remotely detonate bombs. They are proportionate because they are subject to a range of safeguards and conditions. I will, of course, expand on the content of the amendments as we discuss them in the debate. I hope these matters will have the general support of Members and I commend this motion of instruction to the House.

I note at the outset that Fianna Fáíl is, obviously, supporting the motion. The Minister has spoken to the motion in the context of the forthcoming G8 summit, which is one of the most important global political events and brings together the leaders of the world's foremost economies. It will attract immense public and media focus as well as protests from anti-globalisation groups and other organisations. The summit will also offer the Border region a platform to exhibit itself across the globe, attract greater levels of tourism and showcase the advancements made over the 15 years since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.

Inevitably, the concentration of political power in one spot makes it a real target for potential terrorist strikes. Extraordinary security measures must be put in place to secure the area and protect the reputation of the region when it is at the centre of global political attention. Having all eight global leaders on the island represents a great opportunity for the country, which, I hope, we can use to our advantage by welcoming these leaders. The proposal on Report Stage to empower the Minister to close mobile telephone networks is an extraordinary measure of the type that can only be used in the most extreme circumstances. It is not a power that can be used lightly by any Government. I am wary of the fact that the amendment has been put forward at such a late point in the progress of the Bill when it should have been debated and thrashed out at an earlier moment. Regardless of that issue, Fianna Fáil is supportive of it. While powers like this should not be haphazardly or belatedly handed to Government without proper scrutiny, the amendment merits support in the exceptional circumstances in which it has been moved.

These powers must be used with real discretion to ensure that ordinary citizens do not find themselves cut off from the world due to a closed mobile telephone network or by any improper misuse of the powers being vested in the Minister. We must look at the world to see how other jurisdictions have reacted to and planned for these events. We saw recently the situation in Boston and the awful events surrounding the marathon there. The authorities in Boston had the facility to close down the mobile telephone network to counter the detonation of any further devices that might have been planted in the Boston area. It is an example of the way to do things. The Minister has also spoken of our neighbouring jurisdictions, in which similar legislation exists. Given the proximity of Fermanagh, where the G8 summit will take place, it is obvious that we must go ahead and include the proposed section in the legislation.

On the matter of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) (Amendment) Bill, there has been widespread reporting in the last number of days on the volume of money being transferred out of the State through the money transfer agencies. It throws up a lot of questions. The reports came on foot of a World Bank report which was the subject of articles in The Irish Times and other publications. The World Bank reported that in 2011, Irish people sent home $750 million while foreign people living here remitted outward $2.4 billion. The latter figure was an increase on the 2003 figure of $788 million. According to a breakdown of the figures, the United Kingdom was the destination for the largest single volume of money remitted in 2011 at $680 million. The next largest volume of funds was transferred to Nigeria, to which $601 million was remitted. Third was Poland, to which $224 million was remitted. We have estimates for 2012 but the 2011 figures are published and reported by the World Bank. It throws up a number of questions given the number of people living in the State who come from those particular destinations. While the recent census showed that there are seven times as many Polish people living in the State as Nigerian people, 2.7 times as much money was remitted to Nigeria as to Poland.

A number of money transmitting agencies operate in the State, including Western Union and MoneyGram, and we must focus on their regulation. The Central Bank has a monitoring mechanism to look at trends in transfers of over €100 and one of the requirements is to know the client. We may need to lift the lid on this a bit more to look at the volume of transactions. On the face of it, a number of questions are raised given the number of Polish as opposed to Nigerian people living here and the disparity in the volume of money leaving the country to go to Poland versus Nigeria. I cite those destinations as they were the ones which were flagged in the World Bank report. I have submitted a number of parliamentary questions to the Taoiseach, Minister for Justice and Equality and Minister for Finance on the subject and take the opportunity to raise it here also. It is something we must look at given that €2.4 billion is being remitted out, a quarter of which is going to one destination at a high per capita rate. It throws up a lot of questions. To gain a greater understanding, we may have to look at the volume of transactions and the quantum of money being remitted in each individual transaction. It is a relevant matter to the legislation on money laundering and terrorist financing which is under discussion and I take the opportunity to flag it today.

Fianna Fáil has no issue supporting the motion.

I will not require 15 minutes. The Minister indicated on Second Stage and on Committee Stage that he intended to bring forward significant amendments and that he may have to change the name of the Bill to facilitate the amendments. I recall the debate on Second Stage took place soon after the bomb attacks in Boston that availed of mobile telephone communication. There is genuine concern and these matters evolve as time moves on. If the Minister is saying the security and intelligence services in the State, working in co-operation with the PSNI in the North, has solid intelligence of a real threat, then citizens will accept that, under strong conditions, it is necessary to shut down a mobile telephone network to prevent the threat. We will monitor this closely because we have concerns about how intelligence services conduct their business. If there is a real threat to people's lives and this is a means to prevent it, that is fine.

The intent is fine but our difficulty is that it is a haphazard way to deal with legislation. The debate on Second Stage took place weeks ago, following the attacks in Boston. I understand it is linked to the G8 event in Fermanagh and the need for an all-Ireland synchronisation of the intelligence and security response. The legislation we are dealing with deals with money laundering and criminality and the support measures to tackle criminal gangs, which I will deal with at length. The Minister has an acceptable intent to put in place measures to protect people's lives in the State from a real threat that has been proven in recent times. Why can the Government not do this in terms of other issues that impact on our international responsibilities, such as the revelation yesterday in the US Senate committee about Apple? Apple may not be the biggest avoiders but the issue is that it says it pays less than 2% tax-----

We are not discussing that at the moment.

It is not about taxation.

The Minister and the Government have chosen to change the name of the Bill and change the direction of what it is about for a specified purpose that complies with their international security responsibilities. We also have responsibilities to the international community in terms of business and attracting business. That is the link point I am making. Where is the radical intervention through an existing Bill to make something happen and to change our laws to comply with our international responsibilities? We have been criticised by the US Senate and the public accounts committee in Westminster. Why can we not do it in respect of these matters?

The other point linked to the specifics of the Bill we should be discussing today is the report from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists about white collar crime and tax avoidance. The Government has been aware of this for quite a while. Citizens in Ireland are avoiding their tax responsibilities with offshore accounts. This is a global approach where people in the professions, such as accountancy and law, assist this. It is estimated that between €16 trillion and €25 trillion is hidden in offshore accounts. Many Irish citizens are involved in the business. Where is the dramatic intervention in the process of legislation changing a Bill to make it happen and deal with the issue? I refer to the Ansbacher debacle. No one was prosecuted. We are discussing money laundering, criminality, criminal gangs and their impact on our economy, and white collar crime and its impact. Tax avoidance is stealing from our State. The Government is choosing to ask people to pay the family home tax to raise €500 million per annum. How many hundreds of millions of euro have been lost through legalised tax avoidance by major corporations and white collar crime? I do not see the Government coming in with emergency interventions in legislation to make it happen yet the Government is doing it here. That is our point. There seems to be a selective approach to haphazard legislation when it suits but in other cases it cannot happen because it will be delayed in the Office of the Attorney General and the process will go on until we have a solution.

With regard to the specifics of the Bill we were dealing with, the Exchequer is losing €861 million annually because of illegal black market activity and theft. Sinn Féin supports the original Bill, which brings Ireland into line with international norms on tackling these issues. Retail Excellence Ireland made an excellent presentation to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality on cigarette smuggling and the practical solutions proposed, such as scanning containers. Retail Excellence Ireland offered to resource some of the cost of handheld devices that can be used in markets to see if illegal cigarettes are being sold. The impact is profound because we know the cost of smoking to health services. We know the lost revenue from cigarette smuggling and the Government should do everything it can to co-operate to tackle criminal gangs in terms of diesel laundering and cigarette smuggling.

We must protect citizens but the issue I have is that when it comes to major corporations and white collar criminals in the State, there is not the same urgency to amend legislation. That is our fundamental objection to the motion. This seems to be a selective approach. Who could not agree with the need to shut down a mobile telephone network for a period of time to protect citizens?

That is all the Deputy is being asked about.

No, with respect, this is quite serious.

I know it is serious but I am obliged to remind Deputies there is a particular item of business before the House and that is what they should speak to. There are many other serious issues that could be addressed in a certain way but not under this particular heading.

Why did the Ceann Comhairle not interrupt Deputy Niall Collins?

He was not-----

Can we read the record to see if Deputy Niall Collins only spoke to the motion?

I have given Deputy Mac Lochlainn fair leeway.

The Ceann Comhairle interrupted me twice.

I am obliged to.

I may come to the point of asking for the record to be read to see why the Ceann Comhairle did not interrupt Deputy Niall Collins twice.

I ask Deputy Padraig Mac Lochlainn to resume his seat. The Deputy does not understand one thing. My job is to see that everyone gets fair play and that we stick to the topic being debated. A particular motion is before the House to allow an amendment to a Bill to be reintroduced on Committee Stage in respect of a particular issue. Deputy Mac Lochlainn is debating whether other issues-----

No. The Ceann Comhairle never interrupted Deputy Niall Collins, who raised a range of issues not pertinent to the motion.

The Deputy is missing the point. I am asking him to conform with Standing Orders and I ask him to proceed with his presentation while sticking to the issue.

On a point of order-----

It is not a point of order. Deputy Boyd Barrett will have a chance in a minute.

I want to make a point of order.

About this discussion.

Deputy Boyd Barrett will speak in a moment.

I want to make a point of order.

Okay, on your feet.

I understand the Ceann Comhairle must apply Standing Orders but, in the context of the Bill, issues about remittances to Poland and Nigeria were brought up and the Ceann Comhairle did not object to them. The reason these points are legitimate-----

Deputy Boyd Barrett has made his point.

That is not a point of order. That is questioning the Chair. Resume your seat, Deputy.

It is a point of order.

I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order.

You are being unfair to Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

You did not let me finish, a Cheann Comhairle.

I am not going to let you finish.

I am making a point of order.

You will resume your seat. That is not a point of order.

It is a point of order. You will not even let me finish.

Resume your seat. I am on my feet.

Will you explain why you will not let me make the point of order?

It is not a point of order and I have ruled on that.

It is a point of order.

Please proceed, Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

With respect, a Cheann Comhairle, you have been inconsistent in the application of Standing Orders here.

That is your opinion.

Any objective person examining the debate would see that Deputy Collins was not interrupted once.

I gave you some leeway.

Okay. In fairness, I have made my substantive point.

I gave you leeway.

I respectfully disagree, a Cheann Comhairle, but you allowed me to make my substantive point.

The record will show that you strayed into other areas.

So did Deputy Collins.

Perhaps so, but I was trying to be flexible. There comes a point when I have to bring the Deputy back to the basic issue.

The reason I have made these points is that this is significant. The amendments being introduced by the Minister required a motion so Members could speak on them. It is a very significant set of amendments that changes the name of the Bill and requires a motion. It does not happen every day. If it is possible for the Minister to take this approach, I would like him and the Government do the same with other matters that are important. That is my core point, and I do not wish to get into a dispute with you, a Cheann Comhairle, on that.

In conclusion, the issue the Minister has brought forward is one that I accept must be addressed by the Government. That is fair enough. My only objection is the process the Minister has chosen. If he is saying this is a necessary intervention he must make, and he did raise it on Second and Committee Stages, I ask him to also consider that approach and to accept representations from the Opposition for other matters of importance that require us to meet our international obligations. We have a difficulty with the approach the Minister has taken on this but if he says it is necessary, we would like the same approach to be taken on other issues too.

These amendments are really quite extraordinary. Clearly, the Minister is giving himself draconian powers in advance of the G8 summit. The British Government, the authorities in the North and now, sadly, this Government are party to whipping up a climate of hysteria and fear before the G8 summit, and these amendments are part of creating that climate of fear. It is a cynical strategy of tension in advance of that summit and is designed to discourage legitimate protests and demonstrations against the policies of the G8. That is the reason these amendments are being made at such short notice. That is the context for this Bill and it is why it is entirely legitimate for us to point out that what the Minister should be doing, instead of cynically whipping up a climate of fear to give himself power to discourage and scare people from engaging in legitimate protests against the G8, is facilitating a discussion about the policies of the G8 and how they represent a far more serious threat to human life, the environment and the welfare of citizens throughout the world than any so-called terrorist threat the Minister tries to conjure up to justify this legislation.

I will support that assertion. Incredibly, this set of amendments is being tabled at the same time as 3,500 police are being drafted into the North from Britain to create a ring of steel around the G8. Drone airplanes which have been used to wreak death and destruction on thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan are being deployed in the North of Ireland around the G8 summit. The Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, has announced that a former army base is to be opened to detain protesters and that there will be special sittings of the courts in the North on Sundays. That is absolutely unheard of. To put it in context, the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, which is supporting this, does not even allow children's playgrounds to open on Sundays. Now, it wants courts to open on Sundays in advance of the G8 summit.

Against that background, the Minister has brought forward these amendments at the last minute and without proper debate to deal with potential terrorist threats and is using that to justify him having the power to interfere with mobile telephone communications in advance of the summit. He knows that demonstrations will be organised by anti-poverty, environmental and anti-globalisation groups, trade unions and many other groups in civil society against the militarist policies of the G8 and against the policies the G8 use to protect and promote the interests of multinationals and financial speculators at the expense of hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens around the world. Rather than discussing a bogus terrorist threat, the Minister should be discussing the fact that there are 900 million people starving in the world as a result of the policies of the G8.

Let us put this in context. At the last G8 summit, a commitment was made to give €20 billion to deal with world poverty. It is a pathetic figure when one compares it, for example, with the €400 billion that are given in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry which is destroying our climate. However, the G8 did not even deliver on the €20 billion commitment. It is a tiny fraction of what the G8 countries spend on weapons and war. The United States, for example, accounts for 41% of all military spending. They are responsible for taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and tens of thousands in Afghanistan. They have a massive nuclear arsenal, paid for with trillions of dollars. The Minister talks about the terrorist threat. They are the terrorist threat, and the Minister is putting a ring of steel around them instead of having a serious discussion about who represents the real threat. This is clearly designed to discourage protests, demonstrations and serious debate about the policies of the G8.

It is absolutely right in this context to raise the issue of how these superpowers have been facilitating the financial and corporate interests that caused the economic crisis that now besets the globe. We have found more evidence yet again of how these interests are not even paying taxes in this country or any other country to contribute to the societies from which they generate their billions and sometimes trillions in profits, which should be going back into society but are being hoarded by a global, super-wealthy elite. Why is the Minister not discussing the damage that is doing to our economy and society, the damage their militarism is doing to millions of people around the world and how their policies contribute to global poverty and environmental destruction? It is cynical on his part and on the part of the authorities in the North.

It is somewhat disappointing that parties in the Northern Assembly, including those which are represented in the Dáil, are not speaking up very loudly against this and demanding that this climate of fear the Minister is trying to whip up be abandoned. The Minister should allow protests and not try to discourage, intimidate or interfere with them.

For example, will the Minister use these powers to try to prevent protesters from communicating with one another in advance of the G8 summit in County Fermanagh? We have absolutely no safeguards to suggest he will not abuse these powers in that way.

In 2002 I was in Genoa at the G8 summit when a young Italian was murdered by the Italian Carabinieri which ran amok against peaceful protesters protesting against the policies of the attendees at the summit. I hope the Minister will assure us that the authorities of the State and in the North will not abuse their powers and do the same to peaceful protestors in County Fermanagh.

We are actually debating a technical motion to allow amendments, to which Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has been referring. These amendments will be discussed on Report Stage if the motion is passed. Since they were not addressed on Committee Stage, there is a technicality involved in order to allow the amendments to be discussed on Report Stage. That is why I am at pains to point out that what we are dealing with is a technicality. I make this point just in case Members do not understand.

I will do my best to stay within the scope of the motion.

The Deputy is not being prevented from discussing the amendments.

I appreciate that.

While I may not be in favour of everything the G8 summit stands for, I am delighted it is to be held in this country. I am delighted it is to be held in County Fermanagh. I am delighted with the exposure County Fermanagh is getting. It is a fabulous county and I have travelled every inch of it during the years. Its lake district is beautiful from a tourist's perspective. It is a county of small farmers. However, havoc has been wreaked on it, including by the Enniskillen bomb and other incidents.

I am not making little of what my colleague said or is worried about. We are all worried about overzealous action by all police forces, certainly in times of heightened tension when so-called important people are attending an event. The summit will result in great exposure and it is only right that most modern countries have the powers covered in the legislation.

We have seen that the tracing of mobile telephone calls was responsible for the solving of a very serious murder case recently. We all expect that the powers will be used only as a last resort and for a limited time. The Minister states there is a 24 hour limit on the time for which an authorisation may be acted upon and that it must be withdrawn after six hours. Will he clarify whether an authorisation may be acted upon at any time within a 24 hour period and that it can last only for six hours?

The Minister has stated a Garda chief superintendent may give a direction only where he or she is satisfied that the serious threat continues and where other means of averting the threat are less likely to succeed. We live in very sophisticated times and must obviously take every threat seriously. Those of us with children can see that they can do anything with mobile phones. They can do a lot more than I can do. I can text, read messages and send e-mails; that is all. The circumstances are very serious.

The Minister may give authorisation only if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing there is a serious threat; if there is a reasonable prospect that cessation of mobile phone services within a geographical area would be of material assistance in averting the threat; and having regard to all the circumstances, including the importance of maintaining mobile phone services in the area concerned and the effect on users, that cessation of services is necessary and proportionate. I hope that will be the case.

With all the talk about An Garda Síochána in recent times, it is time for us to focus on the job it does. On 99.9% of occasions, the job of gardaí is very difficult. They provide a good service for the State and do their best. They use discretion every hour of every day. I am sure discretion is one of the first aspects of their duties. If they did not exercise discretion, the courts would be full and clogged up. There ought to be discretion and gardaí use it wisely.

The Minister stated:

A central element of the part is in the proposed section 24 which provides for a member of the Garda Síochána of chief superintendent rank or higher [this is very senior], having received a ministerial authorisation, to direct a mobile phone service provider to cease providing services in a particular area at a particular time. This power to issue a direction is subject to a range of checks and balances...

We have dealt with some of the checks and balances. It must be embarrassing for the Minister today. He was here last night to answer questions on this matter. He ought to enjoy the total belief and trust of the community. Organisations such as Muintir na Tíre and Community Alert, of which I have been a member since 1985 or 1986, are encouraging people all the time to support An Garda Síochána. The force cannot police without the support of the public; that is a recognised fact among police forces all over the world. What has happened this morning and the Minister's replies and non-replies about little chitchats with the Commissioner are undermining this. With regard to the G8 summit and everything else, we need the support of the public. Policemen cannot be in every field in County Fermanagh and every shed and haystack. The eyes and ears of the public are vital, including south of the Border. The trust has been shattered - pardon the pun. It is a very serious issue and I am not sure the Minister realises it, although he ought to. He was not invited to the GRA conference and other events. There are many complicating factors. He should come off his high horse and engage with gardaí and support them at rank and file level.

I ask that some attention be paid to the ongoing problem of smuggling, which is considerable. This morning we learned of a successful raid on a location by Customs officers and armed gardaí. Powers such as those included in the legislation and resources must be given to the Garda to tackle the problem.

RGData and other groups made presentations to Oireachtas Members. Ordinary businesses have been wiped out by the illegal trade in fuel and cigarettes. My good wife is from Monaghan. South of the Border, adjoining counties Fermanagh and Tyrone, the farming community is being cleaned out. Cattle, sheep and equipment are being stolen. There are marauding gangs that seem to operate with impunity. Why can we not introduce certain powers to put them away?

I received a letter from the Minister last week. He might consider the serious report he received from the Omagh bomb victims and deal with it appropriately. He might consider what he promised in opposition and what Deputy Flanagan has asked him to do, namely, reopen the Fr. Niall Molloy murder case. He should live up to the promises he made in opposition and, above all, do his duty as Minister for Justice and Equality to give confidence to the public, support the Garda and give it the tools of the trade.

This is serious legislation which I support, but the Minister might ask the Commissioner in his next chitchat or briefing to sign off on the text alert initiative being supported by Muintir na Tíre which was launched in my county last week. Tremendous work has been done to prevent crime and support the Garda. The system is to be run through the Garda, not by a private militia or anything else. For some reason, however, the Commissioner is reluctant to sign off on the initiative. The assistant commissioner has agreed to it and community groups are ready to proceed. Signs are up and research and work have been done, yet the go-ahead cannot be obtained from the Minister and the Commissioner. The Minister might overrule the Commissioner, if necessary, because the initiative is community supported. It has been cleared by An Garda Síochána at all levels, except at the top, where there is a blockage. The Minister has plenty of work to do with regard to the faith we all have in An Garda Síochána. He should support the force or else do the honourable thing, move to some other Ministry or return to his law practice.

We have strayed far and wide. I thank Deputies for supporting this important measure which, as I stated, is about saving lives. It is not simply relevant to the G8 summit. It is also relevant because we still have terrorists on this island who are prepared to maim and kill.

Unfortunately, this island is not immune from international terrorism. We saw the dreadful event that took place in Boston. There is now an easy capacity to detonate bombs by use of mobile phone technology. We cannot ignore that. We must provide the gardaí with the support and backup they require in this area. This is a power only to be used in exceptional circumstances in a balanced and proportionate way, but it is a power that is necessary.

It is important also, I say to Deputy Boyd Barrett, in regard to the G8. Deputy Boyd Barrett is addicted to conspiracy theories. We live in a democracy.

The Minister is the one who has a conspiracy theory about terrorist threats.

Individuals who wish to demonstrate peacefully are absolutely entitled to demonstrate peacefully. We also, though, have a duty to ensure on the whole island of Ireland that if some terrorist group or individuals with extreme political ideology decide they want to launch an attack on world leaders attending the G8 meeting that we have the capacity to deal with issues that could arise.

I know Deputy Mac Lochlainn recognises and welcomes the fact that there will be similar capacity available to An Garda Síochána in the Republic as is available to the PSNI in the North. We must protect the lives of everyone on this island as best we can, be they world leaders or ordinary citizens going about their day-to-day lives. In that context this is an important provision and I very much appreciate Deputies being supportive of it.

I heard what Deputy Mac Lochlainn said about other issues. I can only deal with issues that fall within my remit as Minister for Justice and Equality. There are other areas of policy which are dealt with by colleagues in government. Where there is a necessity to introduce emergency legislation they do so.

I urge Deputy Mac Lochlainn not necessarily to buy in to narratives that are now taking place in regard to the areas of tax and multinational companies. The initiative the Taoiseach and Tánaiste is taking in Europe in dealing with these matters is of importance, and indeed a global initiative is necessary. In these areas it is not an issue, as some people like simplistically to paint it and as some outside this island are painting it in other countries, for our tax laws. It is about the global tax environment and the particular regimes which exist in other states that facilitate multinational businesses entering into complex financial and legal arrangements that facilitate their reducing the overall level of tax they may have to pay in the context of profits they earn.

This is not something we as a State can address singly. In fact, no individual state on its own can address this issue in the multinational area. There is no emergency legislation that could be introduced to resolve this issue. There is a need for a global approach. The initiatives taken by the Tánaiste, Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, at European Union level in providing leadership in addressing these issues during the Irish Presidency is of particular importance, and they deserve praise for the work they have been doing in regard to these issues.

I am conscious that we have strayed far and wide and I do not want to get into trouble with the Chair. On the issue raised by Deputy Collins, there are different figures currently floating through the media. In fact, the origin of some of these figures is not clear with regard to funds transferred out of the country. It is not, of course, unusual. Deputy Collins gave his own illustration in the context of people who emigrated from Ireland transferring funds back to this country. Deputy Collins detailed some of the figures that apply.

There are, of course, people living in this State who are earning funds and transferring them out of Ireland. These are issues that are a matter for the Central Bank. The Department of Finance has discussed this issue with the Central Bank which is looking into the matter. All of the figures that have been published in the media, I would say to Deputy Collins, may not be accurate. These are issues, of course, that I looked at.

It is very important to say that the general money laundering rules regarding identification of customers and the reporting of suspicious transactions apply to money transactions in other financial institutions. This Bill further tightens these rules. Section 2 reduces the threshold at which the identification of a beneficial owner must be identified in the case of occasional transactions by wire transfers from €15,000 to €1,000. The actual legislation we are amending provides the overall money laundering criminal mechanisms to address this issue.

In addition, Council regulation 178 of 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfer of funds requires money transmitters to obtain basic information on the sender of any transmission of €1,000 or over. The financial institutions and those engaging in the transfer of financial funds must maintain certain records and continue with oversight. The Central Bank has a role in these areas and the overall legislation in this area is important.

Could I make a point on that?

To come back to the legislation, this is about facilitating this matter being dealt with and discussed to revert into formal Committee Stage in the House. This has been done on various occasions by different Governments dealing with legislation. It allows a more extended discussion of the proposed amendments which are, as I say, of importance.

I also want to thank Deputy Mattie McGrath for his support for what is being done. I know he finds it very difficult to be supportive of anything I do without giving me a hefty kick at the same time.

Only when the Minister deserves it.

There is a certain irony in Deputy McGrath criticising me when it is his perception that there is some dispute going on between me and the gardaí generally, as opposed to an issue between the Garda representative bodies and the Government. When I am supportive of the gardaí, there is a concerted attempt made to undermine public confidence in the gardaí by a very small group of Deputies in this House who are so intent on undermining public confidence in An Garda Síochána that they are willing to ignore the detailed investigations that take place.

On a point of order-----

Deputy McGrath is unwilling to acknowledge that I am supportive of the gardaí in circumstances that are of importance.

I ask the Minister to stick to the motion.

On a point of order-----

I was not including the Deputy in that.

I hope you were not.

I did not include the Deputy in that. The Deputy is mistaken.

Can we stick to the motion, please?

The Deputy is supportive of the gardaí. I fully accept that. I was not including the Deputy in that. I am saying he criticises me when there is a perception that I am not and criticises me when I am supportive of the gardaí. Whatever it is, I cannot solve that problem.

Can we stick to the motion, please?

On another point of order-----

There will be no points of order. The last point was not a point of order and this point is not a point of order. I ask Deputy McGrath to take his seat.

The Minister has a duty, as Minister for Justice and Equality, to be supportive of the gardaí at all times, on television and in the House.

I am supportive of the gardaí at all times.

I ask the Minister to stick to debating the motion.

I am supportive of the gardaí at all times, despite the Deputy's perception.

I thank Members for being supportive of our dealing with this matter today to facilitate very important additional provisions being put into our criminal law to protect life and limb against those who are intent on detonating explosive devices, who have no respect for human life and are willing to put others under threat. It is of great importance that if there is a substantial knowledge that such a threat exists - hopefully it never again occurs on this island - or if a bomb is detonated and there is concern that there could be other explosive devices detonated thereafter that the gardaí can take swift and appropriate action to ensure that mobile phones are not used for such purposes.

On a point of order, will the Acting Chairman confirm that we are being asked to accept the motion in order to allow these amendments to be introduced on Report Stage?

That is correct. It is a motion to instruct the committee.

Question put.

Deputies

Vótáil.

Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Stephen S. Donnelly, Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, Finian McGrath, Catherine Murphy, Thomas Pringle and Mick Wallace rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 70 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.
Top
Share