First, we will deal with proposals for consideration today. Item 1.1 is proposed for referral to a sectoral committee for further scrutiny. Item 1.1, COM (2005) 6, is a proposal for a Council framework decision on the fight against organised crime. In the Commission's memorandum to this proposal it is contended that organised crime groups have built up large-scale international networks and amassed substantial profits in the past decade. The memorandum goes on to outline the view that these profits have been accumulated from illicit trafficking in persons and goods and that as a result, enormous amounts of capital have been laundered and reinjected into economies.
While I understand definitive figures are not available on the amounts of capital involved in these activities across Europe due to differences with respect to the definition of certain crimes, since 1998 there has been an agreed definition of a criminal organisation within the EU. The joint action of that year on participation in a criminal organisation defined such an organisation as:
a structured association, established over a period of time, of more than two persons, acting in concert with a view to committing offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty or a detention order of a maximum of at least four years or a more serious penalty, whether such offences are an end in themselves or a means of obtaining material benefits, and, where appropriate, of improperly influencing the operation of public authorities.
Members will have seen from the material circulated that it is outlined that organised crime groups often operate across national boundaries, and the Commission suggests that they exploit the anomalies in various systems, which means it is time for an energetic and co-ordinated response by the member states. The principal elements of the proposal to put in place such an energetic and co-ordinated response are: the obligation on member states to take the necessary measures to make directing a criminal organisation a criminal offence; that activities related to criminal organisations also be made a criminal offence, such as the provision of information for such organisations; and that a complaint or statement by a victim would not be necessary for initiating a prosecution.
Aspects of the proposed framework decision may raise issues for a number of member states, in particular the extent to which the proposed measure clarifies the situation between active participation in organised crime and the level of suspected guilt by association with organised crime. I understand it is with this in mind that the Department's note indicates that while the proposal does not, in the main, contain major implications for Ireland, careful examination and negotiation will be necessary to ensure that provisions are compatible with the principles of Irish law.
Given that the Department has indicated that its Minister intends to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that are related to this proposal and that the proposal itself may raise issues regarding Irish law, it is proposed that the proposal be referred for further scrutiny to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. Is that agreed? Agreed.
There were no Title IV or CFSP measures received for the meeting. Next we will turn to documents proposed for deferral, 4.1 and 4.2. I propose that we take item 5.1 in advance of item 4.1. Item 5.1 is a White Paper on exchanges of information on convictions which is related to item 4.1. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 5.1, COM (2005) 10, proposes a White Paper on exchanges of information on convictions and the effect of such convictions in the European Union. The lead Department is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The scrutiny committee has in recent months considered a number of proposals that were presented via the Commission or Council on national registers of convictions-disqualifications and proposing that the information contained in them would be shared with other member states. The proposals were COM (2004) 664, CL/8958/04, and 10206/04. Members may also recall that the scrutiny committee determined that these proposals be brought to the attention of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for further scrutiny, or for information in the context of likely future proposals from the Commission.
The White Paper outlines that there is considerable diversity in the national systems in place with regard to storing records relating to convictions-disqualifications and contends that the essentially intergovernmental systems in place such as that under the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters are "limited" in their scope and that, therefore, information is "not circulating efficiently". This would mean that it would be difficult for a member state to determine, on a definitive, reliable basis, whether an individual has been convicted of an offence in another member state.
The White Paper outlines a number of options to address what it sees as the need for a system that would facilitate the exchange of understandable information on an individual's previous convictions. These options are centred around the further development of national systems sharing information or the creation of a new European central criminal records office.
It is suggested in the paper that a hybrid system that would see the development of national systems based on a standard European format is the optimal way forward. This would entail establishment of a European index of offenders that, it is indicated, would comply with national and European privacy laws.
The White Paper concludes with a short outline of the uses to which the information exchanged might be put. These include the ne bis in idem principle, helping to prevent new proceedings for the same offence, the enforcement of a conviction, and the choice of a conviction for persons with previous convictions.
A closely associated proposal, COM (2005) 91, relating to a framework for the courts of the member states to take account of convictions handed down in other member states, was recently presented by the Commission. The committee will now consider it.
It is proposed that the White Paper be forwarded to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information and consideration in the context of the expected advancement of an EU initiative that would have particular implications for Ireland, where the Department's note indicates that there is currently no central computerised register of convictions or post-conviction disqualifications. Is that agreed? Agreed.
