Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 2015

Vol. 884 No. 1

Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014 [Seanad]: Second Stage

Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to present the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014 on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. The primary purpose of the Bill is to amend the existing Criminal Justice Mutual Assistance Act 2008. That Act already gives effect to 12 international agreements which establish the existing legislative framework on the provision of mutual legal assistance. The Bill is necessary to give effect to a further six international agreements not yet provided for in the 2008 Act.

I will set out what mutual legal assistance means in practice. In simple terms it enables one state to provide in its own jurisdiction a service to another state related to the administration of justice in the latter. The type of assistance may concern such matters as the investigation of serious international crime, including the gathering of evidence for use abroad or the service of documents issued by a judicial authority. It may also involve freezing or confiscation of proceeds of crime which have been trafficked across international borders.

I will now go through the six international agreements to which the Bill gives effect. Council Framework Decision 2005 on mutual recognition of financial penalties establishes the rules under which a member state recognises and executes in its territory a financial penalty order issued by a court competent in criminal matters of another member state. This agreement will allow fines imposed by courts in one member state to be collected in another member state where the person concerned resides or is a citizen. The agreement applies to fines imposed which exceed €70 in respect of any criminal matters, including road traffic offences. It would apply to any fine imposed which is appealable to a criminal court. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of the Council framework decision in accordance with our constitutional requirements on 26 November 2003.

Council Framework Decision 2006 on mutual recognition of confiscation orders establishes the rules under which a member state recognises and executes in its territory a confiscation order issued by a court competent in criminal matters of another member state. These confiscation orders are used primarily to recover proceeds of crime which have been trafficked from one state to another. They can be used to recover stolen objects or to seize financial criminal assets. We already provide for this type of mutual assistance under a number of existing international instruments such as the 1959 Council of Europe Convention. Ireland receives approximately five or six such requests each year. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of the Council framework decision in accordance with our constitutional requirements on 2 June 2004.

Council Decision 2008 on enhancing the operation of special intervention units in crisis situations aims to improve co-operation between member states' special intervention units in man-made crisis situations that present a serious and direct physical threat, such as terrorist incidents. It should be noted that the framework decision would become relevant only in the event of a very serious terrorist or similar incident. The situation envisaged would involve a large-scale crisis with which a single member state may not have the means, resources or expertise to deal. Assistance could take the form of the provision of equipment or expertise or direct assistance on the territory of the requesting member state. Any visiting specialist units would operate under the responsibility, authority and direction of the requesting member state. In addition, they would be able to operate only within the limits of their own national powers. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council Decision on 4 June 2008.

Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 refers to the strengthening of Eurojust, an EU agency based in The Hague dealing with judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This Council decision amends the earlier Council Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust, and provides for increased co-operation of Eurojust with other agencies such as OLAF or Europol, and strengthens its operational capabilities. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council Decision on 26 November 2008.

Council Framework Decision 2009 of 26 February 2009 enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial seeks to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice in cases where judgments in absentia arise in regard to requests for mutual legal assistance. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council Framework Decision on 10 December 2008.

Council Decision 2010 on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters provides for mutual legal assistance between EU member states and Japan, based on the laws of the requested state. Implementation by Ireland will be based on existing provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council Decision on 25 November 2009.

These international agreements have all been approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas prior to signature by Ireland. For ease of reference, the text of each of these international agreements is being added to the Schedules to the 2008 Act by this Bill. In addition to making the necessary legal provision for these international agreements, the Bill makes a number of minor corrections to existing legislation. The legislation being amended includes the Criminal Justice Act 1994, the International War Crimes Tribunal Act 1998, the Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Act 2004, the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008.

I will now turn to the Bill and explain briefly the elements in it. Sections 1 to 6 of the Bill amend the 2008 Act to provide for the definition of additional EU instruments and related terms required in the Bill. Sections 7 to 23 amend the 2008 Act to give effect to Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA. These sections are probably the most technical part of the Bill and it will be helpful to Deputies if I elaborate a little on the need for these sections and the effect they will have on the legislation.

The instrument establishes new rules under which a member state recognises and executes in its territory a confiscation order issued by a court competent in criminal matters of another member state. Under the existing provisions of the 2008 Act, all external confiscation orders must be translated by an Irish court into a domestic confiscation co-operation order. However, under the provisions of this framework decision, courts will in future recognise confiscation orders from member states without the necessity to issue a domestic confiscation co-operation order. This means that effectively we are required to operate two different regimes for dealing with confiscation orders received from other states. Those received from EU states do not require a domestic confiscation co-operation order. Those received from non-EU states will continue to require a domestic co-operation order issued by an Irish court.

The next element of the Bill, in section 24, is a new element in mutual assistance legislation to give effect to the Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on mutual recognition of financial penalties. When this part of the Bill is enacted and commenced, the effect will be that fines greater than €70 which are imposed in the State can be collected by another member state if the person concerned is a resident or citizen of that other EU state. Furthermore, penalties imposed in other EU states on persons who are residents or citizens of this State will be collected in this State. The provisions of the Fines (Payment and Recoveries) Act 2014 will apply to such fines.

A number of sections make minor technical amendments to the wording of the 2008 Act. Sections 31 and 35 of the Bill give effect to the 2008 Council Decision on enhancing the operation of special intervention units in crisis situations. Deputies will see from the Council Decision text that the type of crisis situations envisaged are situations like major international terrorist incidents which are of a scale which might require a member state to seek assistance from other member states. It should be recognised at the outset that it is considered fairly unlikely that Ireland would experience a crisis situation of the scale that would require this type of assistance. Certainly, an incident of this type and scale has not happened to date in Ireland or in any other EU member state, but in the event that such a major international incident did occur here we would be able to request appropriate assistance from other member states. Deputies will note the express agreement of the Government will be required if as a result of the commission of a criminal offence a crisis situation exists and it is in the public interest to seek the assistance of a special intervention unit from another state.

The next element in the Bill I will mention is required to give effect to Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust. Section 32 of the Bill provides that the Minister may designate a Eurojust national member who may transmit and receive information in accordance with Council Decision 2009/426 JHA.

I thank the Deputies for their interest in this legislation. I am sure it will receive much support in this House. The legislation will assist in enhancing existing mutual assistance provisions and provide for wider and more efficient co-operation in fighting transnational crime. The increased mutual assistance powers provided here will be of use in detecting and prosecuting criminals. It is in my view essential legislation in a world where crime is international and does not respect borders. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the views of Deputies on it.

Deputy Niall Collins

The Fianna Fáil Party supports the Bill, which will implement six EU Council decisions during the period from 2005 to 2010. These Council decisions allow for mutual assistance and recognition of legal actions arising from other member states in the Irish courts system. Effective co-operation between member states of the European Union and between states worldwide is of increased importance in the area of criminal justice. Organised criminal groups exploit modern phenomena such as globalisation, an increasingly border-free world and rapid technological advances in computers and communications. Organised criminals have become increasingly sophisticated and regularly use international networks to carry out their activities. Faced with this reality, organised crime can no longer be effectively tackled on a national level, and we welcome the fact that this legislation seeks to address these matters.

It has been stated that the opening of borders across the EU, in particular, after the Cold War, led to a rise in transnational criminal activity across Europe. Human trafficking, illegal immigration, drug trafficking and terrorism are all crimes that now operate beyond national boundaries, and it is not in the gift of any single jurisdiction or police force to tackle successfully these crimes. The first EU-level response to the issue of transnational crime in a substantive way occurred in the Maastricht treaty, creating the justice and home affairs policy at an EU level. Recognising the sensitivities and differences across Europe's criminal justice systems across our many jurisdictions, this policy was placed under the remit of the European Council. This designated asylum policy and immigration, as well as judicial, customs and police co-operation, as "areas of common interest". As we are all aware, the Treaty of Amsterdam went further, giving EU institutions full control over some areas of justice and home affairs policy, such as asylum and immigration.

The Treaty of Amsterdam also brought the Schengen Convention into EU law, which has served as an impetus for further co-operation on justice and home affairs matters. The Tampere European Council of 1999 established supranational bodies such as the European Judicial Network, EJN, and Eurojust to help tackle cross-border crime. In December 2001, EU leaders agreed to create a European arrest warrant and in 2006, a European evidence warrant was also approved. The Lisbon treaty of 2007 extended the EU power on justice and home affairs issues further because it gave the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over the sector for the first time and renamed the policy area "justice, freedom and security". As a continent, we have come a long way from the early days of co-operation in the justice field. This must be welcomed, given the increasingly globalised world in which we live.

Current legislation surrounding mutual assistance at an EU level is to be found in the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. It was stated during the Second Stage debate of that legislation in the Dáil:

Mutual legal assistance, in simple terms, enables one state to provide, within its jurisdiction, a service to another state related to the administration of justice in the latter. The type of assistance may concern such matters as the investigation of serious international crime, including the gathering of evidence for use abroad or the service of documents issued by a judicial authority.

Due to the passing into law of that Bill at that time, any country may make a request to Ireland for legal assistance in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings. Part 7 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008 includes provisions that allow Ireland to take evidence in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings in another country; search for and seize material on behalf of another country; provide mutual assistance in relation to revenue offences; serve a summons or any other court process on a person in Ireland to appear as a defendant or as a witness in another country; serve a document recording a court decision on a person in Ireland; enforce, in Ireland, confiscation and forfeiture orders made in another country; and transfer a person imprisoned in Ireland to another country to give evidence in criminal proceedings there, to be identified there or to assist proceedings there. These are important provisions granted to our justice system and to the justice systems across the Union and beyond in order to combat transnational crime.

The European Union is a zone of free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Along with those freedoms come responsibilities. There is a responsibility on member states and the Union as a whole to ensure that with the opening of borders, transnational agreements can be put in place to allow for the increased opportunities that are gained through open borders but also to deal with the challenges that inevitably arise. I understand from previous information provided to this House that in 2013 Ireland made 200 requests for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Of these, 129 were transmitted to other member states of the EU and 71 were transmitted to other countries. In the same year, Ireland received 583 requests for assistance, of which 516 were received from within the EU and 67 were received from outside the EU. This is a significant number and demonstrates the importance of this legislation in certain cases.

We believe this legislation builds on the existing legislative framework for mutual legal assistance and seeks to address the challenges brought about by the EU's Internal Market. It provides for the effective co-operation between member states of the European Union and between states worldwide. We welcome the fact that the Bill will finally give effect to Council decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006, on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders; Council framework decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties; Council decision 2008/617/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the improvement of co-operation between special intervention units of the member states of the European Union in crisis situations; Council decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending decision 2002/187/JHA, setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime; Council decision 2010/616/EU of 7 October 2010 on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters; and a Council decision to enhance the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial.

By harmonising the recognition of decisions made by courts across the EU within a common legal framework, member states will be better equipped to tackle cross-border crime within the Union. We believe that domestic legislation creating this mutual recognition is preferable to EU-level laws with direct effect. This is particularly important due to the significant variants through member states' criminal justice systems, yet this framework recognises that EU criminals do not have regard for member states borders and see them as a means to escape or delay detection.

As organised crime and terrorism become more sophisticated, it is essential that every technique and support is given to police across the Union to enable them to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible. In the modern world, our justice systems are dealing with extraordinarily sophisticated communications, financial networks and ease of transport from one jurisdiction to another. If crime is becoming globalised, our systems must also globalise the means of fighting it. However, it is important the resources are provided to the courts and the Garda to implement this Bill. The Fianna Fáil Party's first priority in justice is to ensure that An Garda Síochána has the necessary membership and technology to provide a first-class police service. As such, Fianna Fáil is committed to increasing the Garda numbers to 14,000 and maintaining them at this level, as this is the optimum level of gardaí required to ensure our communities can live in safety and security across Ireland.

If we consider the Government's record in this area, we realise there is a lot left to be desired. Garda numbers are down by approximately 1,500 in four years; 139 Garda stations have been closed by Fine Gael and Labour in government; and our main prisons are overcrowded, with the Fine Gael revolving door having returned. On 15 June 2015, there were 489 prisoners, or 11% of the total, on temporary release across the prison system. Thousands of court summons and bench warrants remain outstanding, undermining our criminal justice system, and we have had a record number of inquiries to investigate malpractice in justice, with one resulting in the resignation of the former Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter.

While we accept that the current Minister is seeking to clean up the mess left by the previous one, we are still waiting for the independent review mechanism to give details of its conclusions and we are still awaiting the establishment of a fully functioning independent Garda authority. We also have yet to see a Secretary General appointed to the Department of Justice and Equality. I am sure the Minister will agree with me when I say that these areas need to find a conclusion sooner rather than later. In any case, my party and I are happy to support this Bill. It is our hope that this legislation will go some way towards enabling the State to globalise our fight against crime through co-operation with other EU member states and beyond.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. First, like Deputies on all sides of the House, I understand the growing international aspect of crime. It is obvious that crime does not confine itself behind borders. As legislators, it is our job to be aware of such dynamics and play our part in making sure that such crime is combatted so that our communities are safe. Sinn Féin will support this Bill's passage to Committee Stage.

International mutual assistance is an important part of tackling the growth in cross-border crime. We must be able to rely on other states to help us ensure that criminals are brought to justice. The same is true in reverse. Other member states must be able to seek our help, where possible, to achieve justice. However, we must be mindful of how such information is passed on and how the practical application of mutual assistance in such matters is balanced with the human rights of citizens.

This Bill seeks to amend the Act of 2008 to provide for the enactment of outstanding instruments that the Oireachtas has previously ratified. This amending Bill, as the Minister has already pointed out, has many technical aspects. There is no need for a debate on these technical aspects; rather, it is important to focus on the broader principles of law that the Bill seeks to amend and the implications of such amendments for citizens. In this regard, it is appropriate to outline Sinn Féin's view on international justice co-operation. Sinn Féin supports, in principle, inter-jurisdictional police co-operation on investigation of serious crimes with a cross-border dimension. We want to see a scenario in which such co-operation is authorised on a case-by-case basis, limited to the necessary, and with appropriate safeguards and accountability mechanisms in place. Sinn Féin strongly supports effective action against cross-border organised criminal activity, such as the trafficking of human beings and drugs, evasion of the Revenue Commissioners in respect of fuel and tobacco, and offences involving the trafficking of children. However, we believe it is equally essential to safeguard against the creation of further victims through human rights violations. Judicial and legal harmonisation, such as the mutual assistance aspects of this Bill, must only be to the extent that it advances human rights standards.

It is important to point out that Sinn Féin believes that the people of Ireland should have full sovereignty over justice matters. The Irish people alone have the right to determine policy questions and set the law regarding the administration of justice in Ireland. Although we recognise the merit of this particular Bill, Sinn Féin does not support the development of an EU super-state architecture in respect of justice matters. We do not support the creation of a so-called European legal area with a European criminal code and a European public prosecutor. Sovereignty over justice matters must remain firmly in the hands of the people of the EU member states.

Sinn Féin rejects the federalist trend towards incremental integration and the centralisation of policing and judicial powers, ending in the eventual establishment of an EU border guard, EU police and an EU public prosecutor. We believe these are matters for sovereign states. We also reject the accelerating impetus to harmonise criminal law between EU member states, because it is being done without first ensuring the harmonisation of rights protections, which currently vary widely from state to state. These are issues that must be debated seriously on Committee Stage. Although the implications of this Bill may be small in the grand scheme of things, it is the grand scheme of things that we need to focus on. We cannot lose sight of where instruments such as those contained in this Bill are leading us.

In turning to the specific provisions contained in this Bill, I note the Minister's comments during the debate in the Seanad. In explaining the term "mutual assistance", the Minister stated that this enabled "a state to provide, within its own jurisdiction, a service to another state related to the administration of justice in the latter". There is no doubt that co-operation of this kind is necessary, but there are a few observations that I would appreciate clarification on. Perhaps this could be done on Committee Stage.

First, the new procedures relating to confiscation orders under section 7 to section 23 would mean the creation of a third way by which confiscation orders could be dealt with. We already have a system whereby a domestic confiscation can be granted or an international confiscation order can be transposed and a domestic co-operation order issued. Under this new Bill, the way in which an international confiscation order is dealt with will now be split in two. Provision will be made to deal with EU member state confiscation orders, and there will be a separate way of dealing with non-member-state confiscation orders. It does not appear that this Bill makes the system any more efficient or any clearer. In fact, it appears to create more bureaucracy. Why is this third method of dealing with confiscation orders necessary? What does this measure achieve that cannot be achieved through the processes currently in place?

I also have a number of queries on the recovery of fines from other member states on which I would like the Minister to comment. I understand the need for fines to be collected on a cross-border basis, and indeed I support this. However, this is one of the areas of the Bill that may have human rights implications. How does the Minister envisage the appeal process working for an Irish citizen who has been fined abroad and wishes to challenge the fine?

I will briefly mention another concern regarding data protection issues. Any data collected under the legislation should have to comply with our standards in this State and not those of any other member state. It goes back to the principle that sovereignty on justice issues must lie with the Irish people themselves. We do not want to see a situation whereby data shared in good faith, when it leaves the hands of another member state, is no longer under the standard under which it left Ireland. We simply cannot afford to see an abuse of power by governments in this area. As a party, we call not only for international co-operation on matters such as this, but also for a strong all-Ireland and all-island policing policy for these matters.

The amendments being put forward in this Bill raise the same issues that were raised in 2008, particularly regarding human rights. The Irish Commission on Human Rights raised the issue of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in its submissions on the scheme of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill, and I believe the same issues apply to this Bill. In respect of the passing of data between member states relating to a person's alleged involvement in crime, we must always be mindful of how a balance is struck with a person's human rights under Article 8. We know from European case law that the storing of data relating to the private life of an individual in a register and the release of such information falls within the application of Article 8(1) of the ECHR. Therefore, in order for disclosure through mutual assistance to be considered necessary in a democratic society, the disclosure of such data must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In most criminal cases, I accept that this will be the case. However, there have been a number of cases in the past in which this was not the case, and a person's good name has been tarnished where that person was not guilty in the first instance. This is something of which we must be mindful.

Sinn Féin supports the need to tackle cross-border crime, and for that reason we will support this Bill on Second Stage. I have outlined the concerns we have. We must always ensure that the provisions we adopt are fully compliant with human rights, and for that reason I look forward to the Minister's response to the issues I have raised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The next speaking slot will be shared by Deputies Clare Daly, Mick Wallace and Finian McGrath.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I suspect the third Member from the Minister of State's constituency might not make it here. I do not see him. We will use up the time anyway.

I do not have anything against the Minister of State, but I miss the Minister. Having said to some journalists recently that I would love to be the Minister, I hope the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, is not too worried. In case the programme does not add the proviso I included, I did say that under no circumstances would I be part of any neoliberal grouping. That rules out the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil parties and, judging by the past four and a half years, the Labour Party. It is probably unlikely that I will ever be the Minister for Justice and Equality.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I thought Deputy Wallace stated on television that he would be.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I said I would love to be. I would add that I would just love to be the manager of the Italian national football team but it is also probably unlikely to happen.

On the issue of the Bill and terrorism, I will start with an interesting statistic. The US State Department reported that only 17 US citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theatres of war. In contrast, in 2013 there were 33,636 gun-related deaths in America. We should try to keep matters in perspective.

The Act we seek to amend today, the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, was introduced in a pre-Snowden environment, well before the revelations of the true extent of state surveillance on citizens and the chilling effect this is having on individual rights and freedoms. Instead of further militarising our response to the perceived threat of crime through increasing the powers of State security forces and deepening our police co-operation with other highly securitised states in the EU, the focus should be on restoring the right to privacy of citizens.

Today's Bill allows for the creation of special intervention units for the purpose of providing assistance in the control of a crisis situation. The idea of pumping resources into the creation of these special intervention units does not make sense when there are members of An Garda Síochána currently on incomes just above the minimum wage. On top of that, many new recruits are living in poverty due to high rents, low wages and cuts to their rent allowance. Instead of creating some unnecessary Navy Seal-type terror-busting force, we should be trying to restore pay and morale in the existing force.

This legislation is another example of states capitalising on an atmosphere of fear in order to introduce anti-terror initiatives which will give security agencies greater access to personal data and greater powers of retention. Tragic events around the world are being used as an excuse for legally extending the powers and remit of many states' security apparatuses, badly prioritising a type of dystopian national security over the individual's rights to freedom and privacy. The horrific attack on the Charlie Hebdo office was used as justification for a new draconian surveillance Bill in France whereby the authorities can legally spy on the digital and mobile phone communications of anyone linked to a terrorist inquiry without prior authorisation from a judge.

In the case of Ireland, in December last year ministerial order SI 541 of 2014 was quietly passed, commencing Part 4 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, which is the Act today's Bill seeks to amend. This section of the legislation allows for the interception of Irish communications by the authorities of other EU member states for the prevention or investigation of a criminal offence. Under the legislation, companies that object to an intercept order could be brought before a secret court. Interestingly, the commencement of Part 3 coincided with the revelations of underwater tapping of Irish telecommunications cables by United Kingdom's GCHQ, an action which, according to the Minister for Justice and Equality, if it even happened at all, was a matter for the United Kingdom jurisdiction, in other words, out of our hands.

In response to my recent parliamentary questions on the tapping of underwater cables, the Minister for Justice and Equality stated, "The majority of citizens would accept that there should be a balance between personal privacy and public safety once the mechanisms by which such data is accessed is both legal and proportionate." I agree that there needs to be a balance between personal privacy and public safety, but it is essential that all legislation we bring in upholds the best interests of the citizen. The danger is that the terms "public interest" or "national security" will be trotted out as a mark of it being proportionate. Although it may be legal, is it proportionate that gardaí can break in to one's home, install a recording device and leave it there for three months, or that Revenue can bug one's vehicle and track one's movements for four months? Undoubtedly, terrorists spread fear. It is their stated intention. However, it is the State that allows this fear to fester and the State which takes advantage of it. This fear is what allows section 13 of the 2008 Act to place an individual's personal data entirely in the hands of the State to keep or share, as it pleases.

In 2002, the European Council framework decision on combating terrorism laid out what we should regard as terrorist activity. One of the first acts it mentions is seriously intimidating a population. Most people of independent mind would agree that if one asks what populations on the planet have been most intimidated of late, one would not have to think too hard given that over 1 million people in Iraq have been killed, Afghanistan has been a fairly tough place to live, Yemen is not easy, neither is Somalia and Syria certainly is not. I wonder if the Government would agree, given that the European Council has argued that seriously intimidating a population is a terrorist activity, that we should have serious reservations about allowing the US military machine to use Shannon Airport in order to continue to seriously intimidate populations. People are probably tired of listening to us raising this issue but, sadly, we will have to keep raising it until something changes.

Another act of terrorism is seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country. Nobody has done it better than the US military machine. One can also be deemed to be a terrorist for attacks upon a person's life which may cause death. In 2014, US military operators killed people in 133 different countries. In other words, they carried out military missions against citizens in 133 countries. There are not many more countries in the world. Only 196 play in the World Cup. There might be 200 in the world, but 133 is a frightening number.

Another terrorist offence is kidnapping or hostage taking. Any of the Members who followed the court case in Ennis when myself and Deputy Clare Daly were brought up for trying to inspect planes for possession of weapons will be aware that different individuals came forward and testified under oath that they saw guns on military planes. Different witnesses testified that certain planes were parked a long way away from the terminal building where the airport personnel were not allowed the normal procedure where they would go in, clean the plane, put on food and whatever. They would be met at the door because what was inside was not fit for their consumption. At this stage, given the leaks from the likes of Snowden, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, there are not many doubting anymore that Shannon was used for rendition flights. Are we complicit? I am not saying there were any rendition flights during the lifetime of this Government. However, the State should investigate our politicians who made the decisions that allowed Shannon Airport to be used in such a manner.

Deputy Clare Daly

There is a bit of "Here we go again" with yet another criminal justice provision. It is getting tiresome and repetitive. It reminds me of the slogan, "No justice, no peace". We would be better off spending our time examining the conditions that gave rise to international terrorism and destabilisation, the break-up of areas like the Middle East and the role of Western imperialism therein than spending it on an even greater securitisation of the EU. We would also be better off discussing mutual assistance across the EU, for example, in debt write-downs and in solidarity with the ordinary people of Greece and Italy on whose shores have been landed tens of thousands of refugees of whom other European states have failed to accept their equal share. I am not interested in the type of mutual assistance that has seen the British Government co-operating with the Swedish Government and American authorities in the incarceration of Mr. Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for more than three years. He has played a key role internationally in highlighting the nature of modern surveillance, including surveillance of the past three French Prime Ministers and so on, and in exposing the role of Shannon Airport in the US military machine, as Deputy Wallace stated.

This Bill is another part of the securitisation of Europe. The Part 7A to be inserted by it includes provisions on enhancing the operation of special intervention units in so-called crisis situations. This stems from a 2008 European Council decision and is an instrument that we are told is aimed at improving co-operation between member states' special intervention units in man-made crises that present a serious and direct physical threat, such as a terrorist incident. Of course, this could also mean an outpouring of civil unrest. Let us be clear, in that special intervention units in the old Hollywood era were elite police forces, but the legislation calls them paramilitary police units that assist under Article 18 of the Prüm decision with policing mass gatherings and similar major events, disasters and serious accidents. The Council decision to which this Bill gives legislative effect complements and extends the provisions of the Prüm decision and allows for forms of police assistance between member states through special intervention units in other situations, namely, crises presenting a serious physical threat to persons, property, infrastructure or institutions, for example, hostage taking. Obviously, no one will object to a bunch of paramilitary units rescuing hostages, but we must be careful. Paramilitary units are neither police nor army. They are an amalgam of both. Our State has experienced difficulties with a civilian police force and a lack of accountability. How much worse would that be when dealing with military and paramilitary aspects?

In a European context, these special units operate transnationally under the umbrella of the ATLAS Network, which was set up following the September 11 attacks. That network works under the supervision of and is financed by the European Commission's Directorate General of Migration and Home Affairs, but neither the Commission nor the directorate is democratically elected. As such, the ATLAS Network is not accountable to anyone for its activities.

The terrorist attacks in the US and Europe in the years since 2001 have led to the relentless focus on international terrorism that we are fond of hearing about. The so-called new security agenda has gone hand in hand with that. It has been a strong driver of the reorganisation of police institutions in many countries. As sociology Professor Mathieu Deflem stated: " ...as terrorism is conceived as war-like behaviour and is responded to by military actions, it brings up the problem of a potential militarisation of the police." There are many reasons to be wary of this, the most obvious being that, in everyday life in Ireland and most of Europe, we are not living in a combat zone. We should not invite combat-ready militants into our midst. Unfortunately, that is what the ATLAS Network is. Professor Robert Warren called it a pop-up army that was mobilised transnationally to pre-emptively militarise cities facing major demonstrations.

Our special intervention unit, the emergency response unit, was pulled in to help with the G8 Summit in Fermanagh in 2013, which saw a major lockdown of citizens' democratic movements. When the G7 Summit took place in Brussels last year, Belgium's special intervention unit, the CGSU, sat on top of President Barack Obama's hotel, snipers at the ready. During the visit of the Queen and President Obama to Ireland in 2011, we had a lockdown of this city. Although the Government had to get rid of many of the emergency GMC-Sierra barriers that it had bought, it was ridiculous when the Dáil was locked down last winter. According to a 2013 Irish Independent article about the emergency response unit, it was deployed on more than 100 VIP duties per year. Heavily armed and State-funded paramilitary police units are being deployed to protect VIPs. There is something untoward about that. The idea that the EU would have a transnational paramilitary force is even worse. It is what Professor Stephen Graham called the "startling militarisation of civil society–the extension of military ideas of tracking, identification and targeting into the quotidian spaces of everyday life". He also wrote:

It leads to the creeping and insidious diffusion of militarised debates about "security" in every walk of life. Together, once again, these work to bring essentially military ideas of the prosecution of, and preparation for, war into the heart of ordinary, day-to day city life.

Security trumps everything. On Monday, Deputy Wallace, a number of cross-party Deputies and I visited Maghaberry Prison where we considered issues like improving prisoner conditions and welfare, but we were met with the barrier of security in respect of some of those. Making a heavily militarised transnational network of police normal, which process this Bill forms part of, is just one element in a relentless securitisation of our lives. We see it in increasingly sophisticated border controls, biometrics, mass data collection, surveillance, brutal crackdowns on protests, sinister fringes at home, etc. It is a worrying trend in terms of the erosion of human rights, as states of security exception rapidly become states of everyday normality. We saw that with the riot police in Greece who were deployed at protests en masse in 2010 but who, two years later, were standing guard on street corners in Athens every day of the week. We saw 3,000 armed police officers bring Athens to a standstill last March as students from hundreds of schools took part in a parade. We see it in Spain's new gag law, which effectively outlaws protests on pain of €600,000 fines. We saw it in the lockdown of our cities. This is not healthy.

This debate is feeding into a security industry across Europe. We have security fairs with names like Counter Terror Expo and Infosecurity Europe where government representatives rub cheeks with the private security industry, each selling its wares to the other. Information exchange does not just happen between the special intervention units of the EU. Israeli expertise is being used.

While the particular provisions of this Bill do not explicitly relate to protest, I think there is an overlap there. It is a further extension of a security state and a further normalisation of a discourse of constant war. In my view, this is as dangerous as it is at odds with reality.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014. This is an important debate because criminal justice issues are very relevant in the modern world, which sadly seems to be deteriorating. Human life now appears to be very cheap. One can now get gunned down on the streets of Dublin for owing €500 or €1,000 to some gangland criminal. We see the consequences of that each day for the children and families that are suffering. Along with my colleagues on the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, I am working on this important issue, which needs to be resolved. I hope the Minister will listen to our recommendations when we make our final report.

The Bill before the House is part of a process. We all have to buy into a fair and just criminal justice system that is based on equality and respect for all citizens. We need quality political leadership. We need quality policing management. We need trust and support from the local community. These things are currently lacking in many areas of Irish society. People are crying out for a proper system. This is a wake-up call. Reform must be implemented. Trust and confidence must be given back to the citizens and the people of this country. We cannot come in here and demand trust and respect - we have to earn them. States cannot demand support and respect when they are often involved in breaking the law and do not assist other countries where crimes have occurred.

I would like to mention the Dublin and Monaghan bombings as an example in this context. I commend Margaret Irwin and all the members of Justice for the Forgotten on their magnificent work in helping the families of those who died in and survived the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Justice for the Forgotten was formed in 1996 with the aim of campaigning for truth and justice for the victims of the bombings in question, which took place on 17 May 1974. Some 34 people, including an unborn baby, died that day. It was the greatest loss of life in a single day of the Troubles. The membership of Justice for the Forgotten includes an overwhelming majority of bereaved families and many wounded survivors. In 2001, the bereaved families and survivors of the bombings of 1 December 1972 and 20 January 1973 united with those of the 1974 bombings to create a single organisation, the aim of which is to demand the truth about why their loved ones died and so many others were maimed. Justice for the Forgotten also represents the families and survivors of the Belturbet, Dundalk and Castleblayney bombings and the families and survivors of the Miami Showband massacre. Justice for the Forgotten supports all of these victims.

I am raising these matters during this debate because the legislation before the House deals with mutual assistance. Not a single person has ever been prosecuted in connection with any of the cross-Border bombings. Indeed, the official silence about these events was maintained until the early 1990s. Over the years, the bereaved and injured have come to question the complicity of British state forces in the North in the bombings, the actions of the Irish State in pursuing those responsible, the integrity of the RUC and its investigations at the time and the integrity of the Garda investigations. I sat on the sub-committee on the Barron report in 2003. We also had the second Barron report in 2004. Many people worked on this issue. The weak link was the lack of co-operation from a state. How dare any state lecture people and look for co-operation internationally if it is refusing to hand over certain files? A motion to this effect was agreed by all Members of this House many years ago, but we have yet to get action on it. I would also like to mention the case of Pat Finucane. His family has been badly let down. I commend RTE on its recent programme about collusion. We have to face up to the reality of these issues when we are discussing the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill.

This legislation will give effect to a number of EU agreements on mutual assistance in criminal matters, including agreements relating to confiscation orders and financial penalties. It will also give effect to an agreement of mutual assistance between the EU and Japan and to the strengthening of Eurojust. It also gives effect to an agreement that will allow Ireland to take part in special intervention units in certain times of crisis. I would like to elaborate on two of those agreements, the first of which involves co-operation with Japan. Many people in the Japanese community and many Japanese citizens are concerned about a drift in the Japanese Government in recent times. Following its experiences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan has tried to keep out of international conflicts but now it is being dragged back to breach its own official policy of neutrality in many conflicts. This concerns me. I join the members of the Japanese community and the peace activists around the world who strongly support that position.

The second agreement I would like to mention is that allowing Ireland to take part in intervention units in certain times of crisis. I am in favour of intervening to help people. I commend the members of our Defence Forces on the LE Eithne who have been trying to assist and rescue families in European waters in recent weeks. I am keen to see our forces being involved in such situations. I am very proud of the work of our UN soldiers in international peacekeeping as well. I have family members who have served abroad, both in the Middle East and in Africa. We are all very proud of them. We have to ensure they are used for peacekeeping and not for getting involved in international conflicts. It is very important that we say this as part of the broader debate.

I would like to speak about the background to the Council decision on this legislation. The Commission states:

The fight against organised crime and the disruption of criminal organisations remain a daily challenge. Regretfully, the past decade has seen an explosion of cross-border crime. Drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, terrorism and cybercrime, including child pornography are some examples.

We need to ensure we have this kind of co-operation. I note the statement that "disruption of criminal organisations remains a daily challenge". That is something we have to learn from in Ireland as well. It is not acceptable that 12 people have been shot down in cold blood in recent times when engaging in activity like going into a pigeon club. That figure has probably increased to 14 more recently. There has been no response and no serious action. We need reactions to these incidents. We also need crime prevention measures. The important thing is to ensure this happens.

Under the Lisbon treaty, new possibilities to enhance Eurojust's efficiency in tackling these forms of criminality have been introduced. Article 85 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU explicitly recognises Eurojust's mission of supporting and strengthening co-ordination and co-operation between national investigating and prosecuting authorities in relation to serious crime affecting two or more member states or requiring a prosecution on common bases. Therefore, it is important to ensure the best possible use is made of Eurojust and obstacles to its efficient functioning are removed. That is exactly what is going on as well.

I would like to speak about what is happening in relation to Ireland. The Minister said in June 2014 that, in the previous year, Ireland had made 200 requests for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, of which 129 were transmitted to other member states of the EU and 71 were transmitted to other countries. In the same year, Ireland received 583 requests for assistance, of which 516 were received from within the EU and 67 were received from outside the EU. Ireland made 1,070 requests for legal assistance from other countries from 2008 to 2013. The majority of those requests went to the UK, the North and the US. As we are talking about mutual assistance, I reiterate my request to the British Government to listen to the families of those killed in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the Finucane family as well. Over the past six years, Ireland has dealt with more than 4,000 requests from other countries seeking legal assistance in criminal justice proceedings. I have given the statistics and figures. We need to ensure we have co-operation when we are talking about this legislation. If countries are not fully co-operating, they have to be challenged in this House, at UN level and at European level.

Co-operation is based on trust and confidence but it also involves respecting the rights of citizens, whether in Ireland, the EU or other countries.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin)

I thank the Deputies for their mostly constructive comments on the Bill. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the primary purpose of the Bill is to amend the existing Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, which gives effect to 12 international agreements which establish the existing legislative framework for the provision of mutual legal assistance. This Bill is necessary in order to give effect to a further six international agreements not yet provided for in the 2008 Act. These are international instruments which have already been approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Most Deputies fully recognise that the Bill is not controversial but is necessary legislation required to adhere to our international agreements within the EU and with non-EU states. This legislation will assist in enhancing existing mutual assistance provisions and provide for wider and more efficient co-operation in fighting transnational crime. The international mutual assistance powers provided here will be of use in detecting and prosecuting criminals. Given that we live in a world where crime is international and does not respect any borders, this legislation is an essential part of dealing with crime. I appreciate the broad support for this legislation here in the Dáil and look forward to further debating it on Committee Stage.

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Aylward, Bobby.
• Bannon, James.
• Breen, Pat.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Niall.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Conway, Ciara.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Terence.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Keating, Derek.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McEntee, Helen.
• McFadden, Gabrielle.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Mathews, Peter.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Mahony, John.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reilly, James.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.
• White, Alex.

Níl

• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Coppinger, Ruth.
• Daly, Clare.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Halligan, John.
• McGrath, Finian.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Murphy, Paul.
• O'Sullivan, Maureen.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Joe Carey and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Mick Wallace and Clare Daly.

Question declared carried.