I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials. I invite him to make a brief presentation.
Council Framework Decisions: Ministerial Presentation.
I thank the Chairman and committee members for coming in to deal with this matter today. It relates to a motion in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann approving the draft Council framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. The proposal is before the joint committee on foot of motions in accordance with advice from the Office of the Attorney General regarding securing the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas before we adopt such framework decisions. The origins of the measure are that the Tampere European Council in 1999 declared the principle of mutual recognition to be the cornerstone of judicial co-operation, particularly in criminal matters. That is the strategic alternative to the choice of harmonisation, uniformity and approximation, which is the other way of approaching criminal law in Europe. We agreed to make all the systems interoperable and base them on mutual recognition.
At the Brussels Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in November 2000, a programme of measures to implement the mutual recognition principle was adopted. One of those measures called for the preparation of an instrument enabling the state of residence to levy fines by way of a final decision on a natural or legal person by another member state. "Legal person" in European legal language usually means a body corporate of some kind. The purpose of the framework decision, which was proposed by the United Kingdom, Sweden and France, is to provide that a fine imposed in one member state can be recognised and executed in another.
The substantive text of that instrument was politically agreed at the last Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 8 May 2003. Discussions are to continue on the text of the recitals and the certificate with a view to concluding a final text for adoption by the Council by early next year. The main provisions are as follows. Article 1 defines decisions which come within the scope of the instrument, and those include decisions regarding criminal offences, whether taken by a court or an administrative authority, where the decision of the latter is appealable to a court with criminal jurisdiction, and decisions taken by an administrative authority regarding an administrative offence where such decisions are appealable to a court with criminal jurisdiction.
It is important to recognise here that the effect of that definition is that all offences must fall within certain criminal criteria. For example, if they are not classified as criminal offences in the state which made the decision or are not dealt with at the criminal court, they must at least be appealable to a criminal court. I point that out to the committee because we do not have administrative offences on the same basis as they do in continental Europe, where road traffic offences, which are expected to make up a large proportion of the fines concerned, may be dealt with by way of administrative fines, though I would say that we are now moving in that direction. On several fronts, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, and I are discussing ways to introduce non-court solutions for traffic offences so that gardaí do not have to spend so much time in court. The framework decision says that, if the fine is imposed by a body other than the court, it must be appealable to a criminal court to fall within the purview of the framework decision.
Article 1(b) defines a financial penalty so that it can be the fine imposed in the decision, the compensation for victims imposed by the same decision, the cost of administrative proceedings or moneys to be paid to a public fund or a victim support organisation as appropriate. Articles 1(a) and 2(6) provide for central and competent authorities to deal with requests for mutual recognition and enforcement under the instrument.
Article 4 is a key provision as it sets out the grounds for non-recognition and non-execution; in other words, grounds on which Ireland might refuse to recognise, say, a French fine or whatever. The first is the ne bis in idem principle. That means one cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The second is that there is immunity under the law of the executing state. If somebody was immune under Irish law from the particular penalty they could not be prosecuted on foot of a foreign demand for a penalty. The third is where someone is not yet liable on age grounds. The fourth is where there is a decision in absentia. That means not simply that the person was not present but that he or she was not notified. For instance, if one was convicted of a driving offence in France or whatever, the mere fact one did not turn up for the trial would not exclude collection of the fine as long as one had been notified of the hearing in some way. The next one is a de minimis rule which says the fine has to be equal to or above €70.
The last one states that if the offence is not punishable in both states there is a concept of dual criminality. However, that does not apply to the offences listed in Article 2(a). This is a list of offences which does not need to be verified. In other words, it is not necessary that it is an offence in both states. However, I must emphasise dual criminality is an important requirement for us to generally recognise decisions. The departure from the strict need to prove it as regards the list of offences is because the items on the list are known in this jurisdiction. Enforcement of fines for offences not on the list will still have to meet the dual criminality requirements in the ordinary way.
While the decision requires us to execute the fine it does not contain binding requirements on us in terms of enforcement, for instance by way of imprisonment. Article 7 provides that if the fine is not paid alternative sanctions, including imprisonment, may be applied if the law of the executing state allows and the state which made the decision consents. I would, however, point out that this is not a binding provision and that Ireland will not be obliged to provide for imprisonment in default of fines imposed in other member states, nor to impose alternative sanctions.
The general rule is that the fines collected under this instrument will go to the exchequer of the collecting state. That is interesting. One might think that if the French courts imposed a fine on an Irish motorist that the French would want that money. To make this system work it has been decided that the benefit should go to the person who does the collection and the hard work. That is to incentivise the system and make it effective. Otherwise, these requests would lie on shelves and not be executed. The exception is the case where there is a compensation award to a victim included in the amount being recovered.
As regards the declarations on this draft framework decision, an important one from Ireland's point of view and one which we were instrumental in developing is No. 3, which provides that the agreement on the list of offences - Article 2(a), decisions in absentia: Article 4(2)(e), fundamental rights and legal principles and Article 16(1)(b) - is without prejudice to solutions for future instruments on mutual recognition and to the interpretation of existing instruments on mutual recognition. What is possible as regards minor mutual recognition instruments of this sort may not be appropriate as regards instruments which would have a greater impact on fundamental rights and requirements necessary to guarantee those rights.
I am advised it will be necessary to make some amendments to Irish legislation to provide for the recognition and execution of fines in accordance with this framework decision. When the Oireachtas gives me the green light to agree to the framework decision and when it is put into place Ireland will then have a legal obligation to bring its law into conformity with this measure and to provide by statute for some of the provisions of the framework decision.
Thank you. What about the next one?
The next one is on the initiative of the Danish Presidency and relates to the 1990 Council of Europe convention on laundering, search, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime and the 2001 Framework Document on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime. It builds on initiatives by requiring member states to take the necessary measures to confiscate the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime from criminal offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty of more than one year. It extends the obligation on member states to apply their confiscation measures, in addition to drug trafficking, to certain other offences committed within the framework of a criminal organisation as defined in the joint action of 21 December 1998, making it a criminal offence to participate in a criminal organisation in the member states of the European Union. That is a matter which the committee will be coming back to from a different angle shortly, criminalisation of membership of a criminal organisation. That is coming down the tracks. Just now the criminal organisation and a gang of teenagers are not the same. Bear in mind we are talking about slightly different things.
Looking at the detailed provisions of this Framework Document on the confiscation of crime-related proceeds, Article 1 defines "proceeds", "property", "instrumentalities", "confiscation" and "legal person". The main provisions are contained in Articles 2 and 3. Article 2 requires members states to take the necessary measures to confiscate the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime from criminal offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty of more than one year.
Article 3 extends the obligation on member states to apply their confiscation measures, in addition to drug trafficking, to certain other offences committed within the framework of a criminal organisation. These offences include counterfeiting in connection with the euro, facilitation of unlawful entry, transit and residence, trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography and money laundering. The framework decision also extends to terrorism offences. Articles 3(a) and 3(b) make provision to ensure that interested parties who may be affected by the measures in the preceding articles have effective legal remedies to preserve their rights and ensure that fundamental rights and principles are respected.
Article 4 is a standard provision which obliges member states to adopt measures to comply with the obligations of the instrument within two years of adoption and to transmit the text of the transposing measures to the Council secretariat. Article 5 provides that the framework decision will come into force on the day of its publication in the EU Journal.
The Irish position on all of this is that the Attorney General is advised that Ireland has no difficulty with the confiscation of property or its equivalent value from a person following conviction on indictment, where this represents the proceeds of crime now set out in Article 3 of the Framework Document. However, the advice from the Attorney General's office went on to say that some limitation on the amount to be confiscated should be included to comply with the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the Phillips v. UK case, 5 July 2001, where the court found, among other things, that as regards the compensation penalty to be imposed, a reasonable relationship of proportionality must exist between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. In other words, for a trivial offence, if some vast amount of money was effectively confiscable, there would be a lack of proportionality.
During the negotiations a proposal to resolve this issue was made by Ireland and the wording of the Irish proposal was added to the text in Article 3, paragraph 2. That inclusion limits the confiscation of the proceeds to property which has been derived from criminal activities of the convicted person during a period prior to conviction, which is deemed reasonable by the court in the circumstances of the particular case. By a decision of 17 December 2002 the Government had agreed that Ireland could give political agreement at the JHA Council of 20 December 2002 to the draft framework decision, subject to a satisfactory outcome on the limitation issue that I mentioned. The agreement by Council to inclusion of the addition enables Ireland to give political agreement at that Council meeting, subject to a parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
This is now the parliamentary scrutiny stage. I am asking the committee to give me the green light for the adoption of a resolution in both Houses to that effect.
Are there any items coming up on the JHA Council meeting agenda which are relevant to those two motions?
No.
As regards the Criminal Assets Bureau and the experiences Ireland has had as a result of it, has that had an input into the thinking on this particular motion on confiscation?
Conceptually these are slightly different ideas. Many countries in the European Union have what the British have, which is equivalent to a criminal bankruptcy order. This means that on the conviction of certain persons their property and money may be confiscated, if these appear to be the proceeds of crime. The triggering mechanism in many countries is a criminal conviction. The concept in Ireland is different. The Irish Criminal Assets Bureau is based on the concept, which the Supreme Court has upheld, that the proceeds of crime are not an individual's legal property and therefore their removal is not a criminal penalty. It is the removal of property that in the first place does not belong to the individual but effectively to somebody else.
It does not require a prior criminal conviction to trigger the activities of the Criminal Assets Bureau. For instance, should the Criminal Assets Bureau bring a case before the courts, suggesting that on the balance of probabilities the €1 million in a Dublin bank account represents the proceeds of drug trafficking or whatever, it is not necessary that the account holder be put on trial and convicted of a criminal offence before the money can be taken away. In most European states, the confiscation law is at a lower level. When people are convicted of crimes, their assets are looked at and confiscation orders are then made. The United Kingdom is beginning to follow our lead on the assets recovery agency model. In one sense we are ahead of other member states and when I have explained the criminal assets bureau legislation and the Supreme Court jurisprudence they have been quite surprised that the Irish are ahead of them on the confiscation of criminal assets.
It was stated in The Irish Times yesterday that VAT fraud is one of the areas where criminals garner major moneys. Is there a suggestion that the confiscation of money resulting from tax crime would not be enforceable in another country?
The Buchanan & McVeigh case law, that you could not be extradited for tax and that countries did not enforce each other's tax laws, is now crumbling and disappearing and a new principle of mutual respect and cohesion on tax is supplanting it. Generally, the drift in European law is that rebates that result from an abuse of the system are recoverable, despite the fact that they are fiscal in origin.
Do they come under this motion?
I think so; in principle they would.
On that issue, I have never been aware of a case before the courts of a person being extradited because of a tax matter. There is certainly a great deal of bar talk of people having to flee from the UK with no hope of returning because of tax offences, and there is a history of subcontractors operating in the black economy in the UK returning to Ireland to set up legitimate businesses. I am not aware of extradition cases in those instances, but have there been such cases? Will these new regulations put an end to all of that? Can the UK seek retrospective retribution?
The old law on extradition was set out in the case of Buchanan & McVeigh, which was a classic Irish High Court decision and was followed by the English courts - that was that extradition did not apply to Revenue offences - much as it did not apply in the old days to political offences either. Deputy McGrath is correct that Irish people in the UK who were suspected of diddling the Inland Revenue were not liable to extradition under the classical law, but things have moved on since then.
The European arrest warrant permits extradition for tax fraud - it is coming in from 1 January 2004 - and that is a point on which I have to talk in private to the Chairman. If we do not have the legislation in place by 1 January, we face a situation that we will not have extradition arrangements of any kind with the United Kingdom. That puts very considerable pressure to have the legislation through both Houses and enacted into law. It would be very embarrassing for the Irish Presidency if both Houses had not delivered a very clear commitment of that kind. I ask the committee to confer with the officials on a Committee Stage debate. I have a Second Stage debate lined up in the Dáil and I will be requesting this committee for a committee stage debate so that the Bill will be debated in both Houses as quickly as possible.
Will it be taken before Christmas?
Yes.
We have facilitated the Minister in the past and I am sure we will do so again.
My problem is that the framework decision was written in very ambitious terms, which not merely provides for a new system of rendition between member states, but abolishes the old system. This was done in the heat of the moment after 11 September and to make sure it would be done, the old system was abolished by the framework decision. We are now faced with the proposition that there will be a vacuum in law unless we get this legislation through.
This is very important legislation that has very serious consequences from the point of view of criminal law and other aspects. It would be very interesting to learn if the possibility of extradition on fiscal matters still applies to tax exiles in the south of Spain and so on. Why is it left to the last minute to deal with this important Bill?
We will take that up later.
Deputy McGrath is asking a fair question. I have had the Bill published but the problem is that there is an accumulation of non-processed legislation from the Department for which I will need more time in both Houses.
Is the Minister proposing extending the framework decisions of 2001 and the earlier Council of Europe convention so that it would apply to confiscation of assets from drug trafficking as well as from other offences coming under the framework of a criminal organisation, as defined in the Joint Action 21 1998? I see nothing wrong with this; in fact it is very desirable the proposed legislation will extend to counterfeiting the euro, trafficking in human beings and so on.
I would like to question the Minister on how a criminal organisation differs from a criminal gang that he has trouble with. This is essential to the issues of the clusters of lawlessness around the country. There is a structure under the 1998 joint action that covers a major part of dealing with criminal gangs or organisations and seizing their assets. In essence we are extending the provisions to apply to others in addition to drug traffickers. All we are doing in this instance is extending it beyond drug trafficking to others under a format that is already in place. Will the Minister explain how, on the one hand, he can rule out what appears to be a similar definition of a criminal organisation as it applies here in terms of trying to deal with some of our more serious crime and, on the other, indicate that this can operate in a European context when it deals with, say, another set of criminal activities which are very much related?
That is a good question but there is a distinction and that is that in international law, and certainly in respect of the decision we referred to on organised crime in Europe, we are referring to structured organisations. The point I have been making to anybody who will listen to me is that we cannot say that a group of out of control teenagers in some area amounts to a structured organisation.
Nobody is saying that.
The point is that people are using the term "gang" indiscriminately to cover very different aspects. If three or four people in a particular road who are drinking pals rob a bank on the odd occasion or do over a neighbour's house or something like that, many people would refer to them colloquially as a gang. However, what the European Union insists on, and what we are dealing with here, is a structured organisation established over a period of time of more than two persons acting in concert with a view to committing criminal offences which are punishable by deprivation of liberty of a maximum of at least four years, or more serious penalties, where 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. We are dealing with structured organisations, not just casual alliances of people who get together to commit individual crimes or habitual accomplices in crime.
I have been making that point but some people like to confuse the idea of organised crime and what happens when a number of people act in concert on a series of non-organised crime. There is a difference and that is the whole problem with people using terms carelessly, if I may say so.
Chairman——
The difference is that if three, four or six people from a particular neighbourhood are associating with each other socially and also commit crimes, that is not organised crime within the meaning of the European statement. It must be a structured organisation. It must effectively have some permanence about it. It must operate as a structured group. If, for instance, three or four people from a particular neighbourhood or encampment commit a crime, it does not follow in those circumstances that they are a gang that falls within the definition of organised crime. A very loose analogy has been drawn between them and illegal organisations. The IRA and groups like that are structured organisations. We know they exist; that they have meetings to decide policy and that they have internal rules. We know that they are not just a casual group of republicans who, every so often, have a pint together and do something of one kind or another.
The problem with some of the calls that teenage members of gangs should be capable of being brought before the Special Criminal Court and that a member of the Garda Síochána above a certain rank should be able to swear his belief that they are a member of a gang raises many civil liberties questions. For instance, who is and is not in this gang? If it were unstructured, surely we would have to put all the members on trial. For example, how can somebody swear on oath that Deputies McGrath and Costello form a gang - or the Technical Group - and that Deputy McGrath is a member of it without prosecuting Deputy Costello on the same evidence?
The Minister is doing a lot of twisting and turning trying to suggest that a gang is not an organised, structured group.
We can return to this item again.
We would not expect such a gang to have a set of articles of association, hold an AGM, elect officers, take minutes and make sure they are in good standing and that they pay their subscriptions. We are not just talking about the IRA, the Mafia or the triads. There is organised crime and it is still structured. To call it, on the one hand, organised crime and then say that it does not have a formal structure is a contradiction in terms. If someone intended to import drugs from a country in Europe, Afghanistan, Colombia or wherever, it is wrong to think that can be done by a few people having a chat in an encampment somewhere - I do not know why the Minister used that particular word. It does not happen in that fashion. People have to meet and put structures and an organisation in place. Trafficking in people, child prostitution and drug trafficking cannot take place unless it is, in strict formality, in the form of organised crime.
We can go a step further on this matter and look at the established organisations or paramilitary organisations that have existed since year one but that is not referring to the current nature of organised crime. That is probably what the Minister is not taking on board. There is no reason we cannot do this without infringing civil liberties. I do not see any reason for bringing the Special Criminal Court into the matter.
At least we agree on that point.
We agree on that point. That is emergency legislation but we can deal with organised crime without bringing emergency legislation into the reckoning. It is very close to what we will be looking at over the next number of days in our hearings——
That is right.
——and what the country will be trying to deal with.
There is that conflict. I should indicate that I will be writing a letter to the committee on these issues and dealing with the distinction between organised crime, gang crime and the like. I have a first draft of the letter available and I intend to perfect it in the next few days because a number of issues arise, such as the one I am talking about, criminal organisation joint action, which we have to examine. I agree with Deputy Costello that it is not simply a matter of something as classic as the IRA or the paramilitary gangs. We are dealing with triads, Mafia type organisations and the like but all I am saying is that it does not follow from that that every group of hooligans, teenage——
That is the point. The Minister is going from a classic organisation to the exact opposite——
Exactly, but there is a middle ground.
——but there are many organisations in between which are well structured and organised.
I agree with the Deputy that there is a middle ground of organised crime.
They have everything except the set of meetings and so on.
I must ask Deputy Costello to put aside that item because it will be discussed in depth in our hearings.
I certainly support what the Minister——
I have just got confirmation that the hearings will be televised by TG4. We have a substantial list of contributors and we will hold a press conference tomorrow at 11 a.m. to announce the format in terms of who will appear, when and so on. I hope we will have a strong viewing audience for the hearings so that we engage the public in this as well.
The Minister mentioned the Criminal Assets Bureau and, generally, the European Union. Are there examples of good practice in this regard? Many people believe that the money that has been confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau is kept in cold storage and that there is no distribution of such funds to the poorer sections of society. Are there examples of EU member states making more effective use of such proceeds? Many citizens are extremely angry about the fact that millions of euro collected by the Criminal Assets Bureau is merely lying in an account? Is there any more effective way to distribute such proceeds? Is there an example of an EU member state using such proceeds more effectively than ourselves?
I will not harp on the issue of gangs involved in crime because we will deal with that in more detail. We are talking about a structured organisation. Those concerned organise, have weapons and are involved in drug-related and other crimes. That is not the interpretation some people have concerning those involved in anti-social behaviour, hooliganism and other such behaviour. I am surprised that I agree with the Minister on the point, that civil liberties do not have to go out the window when one is tackling crime. However, I add a word of caution in that a number of people mentioned the word "encampment" when referring to crime - I hope that is not labelling any sections of society, in particular, I refer to the Traveller community.
Certainly not. I am merely making the point that on occasion people come from the same street, locality or encampment and have committed crimes in the past. One cannot say that because they have that common link and happen to know each other that they fit into the category of organised crime. From wherever they come, be they from the settled community or the non-settled community, the mere fact that they are acquaintances when they commit crimes does not make them into organised criminals. That is my point.
The Deputy asked what should be done with the proceeds of the Criminal Assets Bureau's activities. First, unpaid tax liabilities should go back into the tax pool because they should not be earmarked for particular purposes. On other assets, after the statutory period for any claim in respect of them is exhausted, they become liable to be appropriated by the State. I have heard people suggest that they should be earmarked for particular socially beneficial activities, whereby there is a direct link between the act of confiscation and a positive benefit to the community, particularly communities which have been ravaged by crime.
The seven year period is supposed to allow all claims that would be usually brought within six years to be dead in the water. A property is taken into ownership and if a person wants to make a claim in regard to it, he or she has six years in which to do so. After that period - this is from where the seven year period comes - it is then property which has been in the possession of somebody else for seven years and all claims in respect of it would appear to have lapsed.
The idea of linking - the term used is "hypothecating" - individual flows of money to individual purposes is sometimes a good idea and sometimes a bad one. Given that a great deal of CAB's activities is drug related, one might say that drug rehabilitation projects should benefit from the proceeds of such activities, and that is a point of view. Much of its activity relates to the smuggling of oil and the question arises as to what should be done with the proceeds of such activities. What should be done with the proceeds in the case of the non-declaration of tax where there is vast tax evasion by what appears to be a legitimate business? People think that CAB deals only with the proceeds of drug-related crime, but much of the money it got was planning corruption money. In that context, one could argue that such proceeds should go to disadvantaged communities who are suffering from bad planning.
Can the Minister give examples of EU member states where there is good practice in this regard?
I do not know about that.
If a link could be made whereby money taken out of a community, as a result of which it has been decimated, as in the case of drugs, was put back in the community in the form of the proceeds of the ill-gotten gains of those concerned, that would be a powerful mechanism to empower people to believe that the system responds to their needs. That is the point Deputy Finian McGrath made.
I understand the point. The Exchequer has a huge pool of cash.
The Exchequer wants to take everything in. It would be helpful if such proceeds could be identified and used separately for such purposes.
I do not know whether the members want to deal with the agenda.
I want to deal with the motions first.
Perhaps we might deal with a matter covered in the other document we did not discuss, the question of a levy that will be imposed in one state in respect of certain offences and collected in another state. The Minister indicated that would relate mainly to traffic offences.
It probably will, but it is not confined to such offences. The great probability is that Irish people will be fined in France for traffic-related offences rather than substantive infringements of——
They will be fined in France?
Yes.
If an offence is something more than one which would collect a penalty point, will there be a process whereby such a penalty point will be added on to one's licence, on the one hand, and, on the other——
That would be a matter with which the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, would have to deal. There must be - I believe some preliminary work is being done on this - mutual recognition in the case of disqualification, but this is not a matter for which my Department has responsibility and I cannot really say anything useful on that.
This concerns a matter on which there is mutual recognition. How would an injury resulting from a road traffic accident or other offence be dealt with? In the case of an offence for which a fine would be imposed, there would be no need for anybody to travel between the countries, but in a case where somebody would be expected to be in court, is provision made for those types of cases?
This area presents an interesting dilemma for Ireland. In the Road Traffic Act of 1961, there is provision for a court where it came across uninsured drivers to levy compensation as well as punishment, but that was found to be unconstitutional at a later stage because it was regarded as a civil sanction dressed up as a criminal sanction and was not limited in the manner required by law. That is a matter we will have to re-examine. Ireland had this provision in law and the courts disapproved of it. The question of compensation and the amount of compensation is a serious issue. I note the point the Deputy is making. If a French court was to award, say, €10,000 against an Irish person for knocking someone down in France, on the face of it that is recoverable from the Irish person under this system in Ireland, but the question of whether one is insured to deal with it is another day's work.
The distinction between civil and criminal is not as clear in the continental system. I remember when I was a law student going into the Palais de Justice in Paris and seeing a poor North African fellow who was up for a mugging. He faced a populaire d’état acting as a prosecutor, he had the police lawyer against him and three victims, who were separately represented, were claiming compensation. It looked a bit intimidating; all the victims were separately represented in the court claiming compensation, as part of the criminal process against him. The French system is slightly different from ours and we will have to take on board differences in the systems. France would not recognise many aspects of our adversarial system and the fact that there are only two sides in a criminal case.
This is a good measure but I am sure its application in the courts and the penalties that will be imposed on foot of it will cause all sorts of headaches.
The direction of this measure is right. Undoubtedly, there will be headaches in terms of how we transpose it into Irish law, but that is a matter for another day.
That completes consideration of the proposals.
Have we dropped the clause about there being no debate in the Oireachtas?
I doubt that it would be prudent of us to tell the Dáil whether I should debate it.