JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 26 May 2004

Drug Trafficking; Confiscation Orders; European Order for Payment; and Internet Offences: Motions.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, and his officials to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to consider four motions. I apologise for the delay in starting our proceedings, which was unavoidable.

Members have been circulated with copies of the texts of the various measures, together with briefing notes. The Minister's speaking note has also been circulated to members. I now invite the Minister to make an opening presentation on the two motions concerning criminal acts and penalties in the field of illegal drug trafficking, and attacks against information systems. A short discussion and questions will follow.

The motions are as follows:

That Dáil Éireann approve the exercise by the State of the option of discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure: a proposal for a Council framework decision laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 18 February 2004, and the analogous Seanad Éireann order;

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option of discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure: a proposal for a Council framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition of two confiscation orders, a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 18 May 2004, and the analogous Seanad Éireann order;

That Dáil Éireann approve in accordance with Article 29.4.6° of Bunreacht na hÉireann the exercise by the State of the option provided by Article 3 of the fourth protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam to notify the President of the Council of the European Union that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council creating a European order for payment procedure a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 8 April 2004, and the analogous Seanad Éireann order;

That Dáil Éireann approve the exercise by the State of the option or discretion provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure: a proposal for a Council framework decision on a tax against information systems, and the analogous Seanad Éireann order.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy McDowell)

The object of the drug trafficking instrument is to target illicit drug trafficking by providing, in the main, a common EU definition of drug trafficking to be punishable in all member states, and by establishing minimum rules on punishment levels.

The value of this proposal is that it is the first EU instrument providing for a common approach to the definition and punishment of drug trafficking which, by its transnational nature, necessitates common action among member states. The approximation of the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties is generally aimed at creating greater certainty and co-operation at EU level in the prosecution of offenders, such as in the provision of mutual legal assistance. The instrument has yet to be examined in detail with regard to any necessary legislative amendments to our law. However, at this stage the general provisions of the instruments have already been addressed in our misuse of drugs regulations, and regulations made under them, and in our criminal justice legislation.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is a document being circulated?

Chairman

Copies of the document have already been circulated but we will provide one for the Deputy.

Deputy McDowell

The definition of trafficking in drugs is also compatible with Irish law. A member state has an option under the framework decision to establish jurisdiction over drug trafficking offences committed by its nationals outside its jurisdiction but in circumstances where it does not extradite its own nationals it must do so. This provision will be examined in due course having regard to the fact that Ireland does extradite Irish nationals on a reciprocal basis. Irish punishment levels which provide for up to life imprisonment for drug trafficking offences go beyond the minimum punishments required by the instrument and should require no legislative adjustment.

The Government decision of 11 June 2002 authorised me to give political agreement to the draft framework decision subject to a parliamentary scrutiny reservation. Political agreement on the text of the draft framework decision was reached at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in November 2003. In light of substantial changes to the proposal since the European Parliament was originally consulted in 2001 the Council also decided to re-consult the European Parliament, which has given its support to the instrument. While it did suggest one change to highlight that the focus of the instrument is serious cross-border drug trafficking, this focus is already reflected in the recitals to the instrument. It is hoped that the parliamentary scrutiny reservations for a number of member states will be lifted in time to allow for formal adoption of this instrument before the end of the Irish Presidency.

I draw the committee's attention to Articles 1, 2 and 4 which are the main provisions of the draft framework decision. Article 1 defines the terms "drugs" and "precursors" in accordance with the 1961, 1971 and 1998 UN Conventions and relevant EU instruments.

Article 2.1 provides for a definition of the drug trafficking offences to be made punishable under the instrument. The definition has been aligned with the definition in the 1998 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It is compatible with the definition in Irish law. The instrument will oblige member states to make it a criminal offence to engage in certain conduct such as the production, manufacture, distribution, sale, importation and exportation of drugs and to possess drugs for any of these purposes or to cultivate opium poppy, coco bush or cannabis. The manufacture, transport or distribution of precursors, which are the substances used to make up drugs, knowing that they are to be used in or for the illicit production or manufacture of drugs will also be an offence. Article 2.2 excludes from the definition conduct described in Article 2.1 as being committed by its perpetrators exclusively for their own personal consumption, as defined by national law; in other words, it is left to member states to decide themselves how they deal with such lower scale domestic abuse.

Article 4 provides common standards for the punishment of offences. All offences are to be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties. In the case of offences under Article 2, it is proposed that the maximum penalties will range from at least between one and three years imprisonment to between five and ten years imprisonment where the offence involves large quantities of drugs and where the drugs involved are most damaging to health or result in significant damage to the health of people. Where certain offences are committed within the framework of a criminal organisation, the maximum penalty provided is to be at least ten years imprisonment.

Provision is also made to enable member states, without prejudice to the rights of victims and of other bona fide third parties, to confiscate substances, instrumentalities, proceeds of offences or property the value of such proceeds, substances or instrumentalities. In summary, although this instrument will not have significant impact on our drug legislation, it is an important statement in the context of the EU effort against international drug trafficking.

The framework decision on the application to mutual recognition to confiscation orders arises from the programme of measures agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in November 2002. Following the terrorist attacks in Madrid on 11 March, the European Council on 22 March in a draft declaration set out a number of legislative measures that require to be taken and we are working towards that end. The framework decision is designed to facilitate co-operation between member states with regard to the recognition and execution of orders to confiscate the proceeds of crime.

The substantive text of this instrument was agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting held on 29 April 2004. The text of the certificate appended to the framework decision was not considered at the time. It is being discussed and hopefully will be concluded at expert level today. It is expected, therefore, that the final text of the framework decision will come before the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting for formal approval on 8 June 2004.

Let me now outline some of the more substantive proposals of the draft framework decision. Article 4 deals with the requirements to be met by a member state in transmitting a confiscation order to another state. Article 4a provides that subject to certain exceptions, set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Article, a confiscation order may only be transmitted to one executing state at any one time, in other words, one cannot use a scatter-gun approach. Paragraph 2 sets out the circumstances in which a confiscation order concerning specific items of property may be transmitted to more than one executing state at the same time.

Article 5 sets out a list of offences, with a maximum of at least a three year custodial sentence, to which the framework decision can apply without invoking dual criminality, in other words, it is not necessary to check that they are offences in both the issuing and the executing state, although that will nearly always be the case.

Article 7 is a key provision which sets out the circumstances where recognition and enforcement can be refused. These include: if the certificate accompanying the order is not produced or is incomplete; if enforcement would be contrary to the ne bis in idem principle; where there is immunity or privilege under the law of the executing state; where the person did not appear personally and was not represented at the original trial and was not properly notified of the proceedings; where the rights of any interested party, including bona fide third parties, under the law of the executing state make it impossible to execute the confiscation order; and where the execution of the confiscation order is barred by statutory limitations in the executing state provided that the acts giving rise to the confiscation order fall within the jurisdiction of that state under its own criminal law. Legal remedies are provided for in Article 8 and postponement of executions dealt with in Article 9.

Article 10 provides that in the event of multiple requests for the execution of confiscation order, the competent authority in the executing state will decide which order to enforce in accordance with the national law of that state. Article 11 makes execution of the confiscation order subject to the law of the executing state and requires execution of decisions against legal persons even when, unlike in Ireland, the executing state does not recognise the criminal liability of legal persons — that does not apply to us.

Article 14 lays down the conditions for the disposal and sharing of confiscated assets. It also contains a provision whereby confiscated items which constitute cultural objects forming part of the national heritage of the executing state will not be required to be sold or returned to the issuing state.

I am advised that it will be necessary to make some amendments to Irish legislation for the purposes of its transposition. In particular, it will be necessary to provide for confiscation orders to be executed without the necessity to convert them into Irish orders. Provision will also be made for the sharing of assets as between the issuing and executing states. I recommend these proposals to the joint committee.

Chairman

There are two proposals for which there are fairly short speaking notes. If the members agree, we will also hear from the Minister on those before the responses from the members of the committee.

Deputy McDowell

The first is a European order for payment procedure. The essential aim of the proposal is to establish a uniform procedure within the member states whereby a decision on an uncontested claim can be attained. Other EU instruments, which have already been adopted, deal with the recognition and enforcement issues which may subsequently arise — the Brussels I Regulation of 2001 and the Regulation creating a European Enforcement Order for Uncontested Claims which was adopted in April under the aegis of the Irish Presidency. I should also add that the question of how decisions are enforced in practice is not yet the subject of any formal Commission proposal, although clearly there is a linkage between the process of getting a decision, having that decision recognised in another member state and then proceeding, should it be necessary, to the practical steps whereby, for example, the debt owed can be recovered.

Most member states have within their national law an order of payment procedure of the type which is before the committee today — Ireland has a recovery procedure in the ordinary civil law. Notwithstanding a number of procedural differences within member states, a key feature of these systems, and one that is reflected in the Commission proposal, is that, upon submission of an application by the plaintiff, the competent authority of the member state takes a decision on the claim on an ex parte basis. The defendant is subsequently served with the decision, together with an instruction to abide by the order or to contest the claim within a certain period of time. In cases where the defendant fails to respond, the order acquires automatic enforceability. If the decision of the court is contested, the case is transferred to an ordinary court procedure.

Where it is in existence, the order for payment procedure is generally seen as a valuable tool to assist economic operators recover outstanding debts that are not the subject of legal dispute. Recovery of outstanding debt is an important tool for all enterprises.

The broad equivalent of an order for payment procedure within Irish law is the judgment in default of defence or appearance procedure, which is well known to the legal practitioners at any rate. It should be noted that the Commission proposal is not intended to replace those national procedures which exist at present. Instead, the order for payment procedure is envisaged as being an optional additional tool.

Negotiations on this proposal have recently commenced under the Irish Presidency. Having regard to our Presidency role in the short term, to the benefits to be derived from the proposed instrument itself and to the fact that we have already opted into other connected proposals, I hope the committee will recommend that we should opt into this as well.

The draft framework decision on attacks on information systems was introduced on 19 April 2002. It seeks to improve co-operation between judicial and other competent authorities, including police and other specialised law enforcement services, through approximating criminal law in the member states in the area of electronic attacks against information systems — hacking is a more colloquial description.

The framework decision uses the term "information systems" in its broadest sense. I have set out what can and cannot happen. The types of attack against information systems covered by the framework decision include unauthorised access, which is known as hacking, disruption, which is a denial of service attack, execution of malicious software, which is viruses, logic bombs, worms such as the recent Sasser worm, interception of communications, compromising confidentiality, and malicious misrepresentation. It does not cover physical attacks on an information system such as by placing a bomb.

As it is a fairly straightforward matter, I do not intend to delay the committee by going through all the articles. The idea is that there should be an approximation of the legal framework for dealing with this kind of behaviour so that there will be a joint approach between all the member states, as viruses on the Internet are an international phenomenon.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I would like to raise a few issues with the Minister. The first instrument proposes to target illicit drug trafficking by providing a common EU definition of drug trafficking punishable in all member states, which makes a lot of sense. The Minister said that he hopes to get this issue through during the Irish Presidency, but that there were delays and reservations as a result of parliamentary scrutiny in a number of member states. He might indicate how many countries are involved, whether the delays in scrutiny are purely procedural and if there are substantive issues emerging from other member states.

He also said that Article 2.2 excludes from the definition conduct described in Article 2.1 as being committed by perpetrators exclusively for their own personal consumption. This will be defined by national law. The Minister refers to it as lower-scale domestic abuse. I presume he is talking about some member states agreeing to the use of cannabis for personal purposes. There is also a medical aspect to this from the prescription point of view. The Minister might indicate his views on the matter.

The next issue relates to the framework decision designed to facilitate co-operation between member states with regard to the recognition and execution of orders to confiscate the proceeds of crime. This appears to make sense. I do not fully understand the Irish situation. Perhaps the Minister will expand on what we need to do to conform fully on this issue. When he refers to converting into Irish orders, is he referring to the Irish language?

Deputy McDowell

Orders of Irish courts.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

There would have to be an order of the Irish courts. I would like to know more about the sharing of assets. Does this refer to confiscations by State bodies? Is there some common situation in regard to sharing of assets, including an issuing and an executing stage? Is this normally done on a 50-50 basis? The requirement for a regulation creating a European order for payment procedure appears to be a sensible approach. The essential aim is to establish a uniform procedure within member states whereby a decision on an uncontested claim can be attained, which appears sensible. Is there any follow-up from the point of view of enforcement? If someone gets a debt order by default for €10,000, is there a common procedure whereby they can readily enforce the debtor to go through the normal process?

On the framework decision on attacks on information systems, as I would not dare to get into the information systems, I am prepared to take the Minister's word that this is a sensible motion, which I support.

Deputy Costello

I thank the Minister for his presentation, with which I have no great problem. I always think that illicit drug trafficking is a bit of tautology. I would have thought there is hardly any such thing as licit drug trafficking, therefore the word "illicit" would appear to be unnecessary.

Deputy McDowell

The drug is illicit, not the trafficking.

Deputy Costello

Surely both are illicit.

Deputy McDowell

Some drugs such as medical drugs are licit.

Deputy Costello

Is it licit to traffic in medical drugs?

Deputy McDowell

Some large pharmaceutical companies do so.

Deputy Costello

Perhaps we can bring them within the terms of the framework document.

To take an overview, we are talking about 25 countries which will provide standard definitions and minimum penalties in regard to illicit drug trafficking. What is the timescale for the various countries to have their legislation conform to the principles contained herein? The Minister said that, by and large, our legislation already covers most of what is provided here. It appears that in many cases our legislation goes a step further. Does any other country in Europe have a mandatory penalty of ten years? Whether it has been exercised or implemented by the Judiciary is another matter. Is it a mandatory penalty of ten years for possession of €10,000 worth of drugs, irrespective of the type of drug? This is likely to be an anomaly in the systems within the different countries.

Will the Minister clarify what level of application will be left to the principle of subsidiarity and what will operate on a European basis? Article 2.2 refers to personal consumption and member states deciding among themselves on a lower domestic abuse scale. Nevertheless, I would have thought the existing laws would continue to apply, by and large. The Minister is unlikely to draft a consolidated drugs Bill to enable us to sign up to this framework measure.

Does the document say how the substantial prison sentences will be served? They will not be served in a drug free environment. The people who will come within the remit of this document will be sent to prison for long periods for crimes related to drug abuse, including illicit trafficking, manufacture and consumption of drugs. The drug problem in every prison in Europe is the same as that in our prisons. We often introduce legislation, impose penalties and agree mutual recognition in a limbo situation but do not implement those measures.

I agree with mutual recognition of the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The European arrest warrant will be helpful in this regard. Are the powers of the Criminal Assets Bureau not superior to those in almost any country in Europe? Will we not find ourselves in conflict with the judicial and legal principles of other countries with regard to the confiscation of the proceeds of crime? Will it be possible for some countries to adopt a common strategy on this matter? Is Ireland likely to be either the leading nation or the anomaly on this issue?

I welcome the European Union order for payment procedure as it facilitates the recovery of outstanding debts. Greater co-operation is needed in the area of attacks on information systems. Computer viruses and Internet spam have become serious problems. Whether this measure will be effective is another matter.

The attack on the World Trade Centre has had an enormous effect on what is coming before us. The first, last and middle items on this list focus on combating terrorism. The focus of the Criminal Assets Bureau was on drug abuse and ill-gotten gains in that area. The focus of the measure before us today is on combating terrorism. This is the backdrop which informs everything being done in the justice and home affairs area in Europe and we need to address the issue. While not an extraneous item, it impinges on much of our legislation and often comes without due consideration and is an over-reaction to a situation. While the danger exists in some circumstances, the policies of certain countries need to be examined closely. Do these policies give rise to the situations which we are having to address in our legislation? I do not like to see measures of this nature coming to us in a policy vacuum where other countries are engaging in policies which bring about the circumstances which make these measures necessary. The drugs trade, for example, has been facilitated by the invasion of Afghanistan. More drugs are circulating throughout the country and more opium and cocaine is available. These measures are directed at combating terrorism through the seizure of the proceeds of crime and of materials used by terrorist organisations.

I would like to hear the Minister elaborate on the points I have raised.

Senator J. Walsh

When I read the framework decision on attacks against information systems I wondered if Article 8 had implications for parents. Many of the difficulties encountered have been caused by young people who are adept at hacking IT systems and creating havoc. However, am I correct in thinking it deals with legal persons and refers to corporate entities rather than individuals? Are there implications for sole traders or self-employed people who may operate from their homes and have computer systems which can be accessed by younger members of the family? What liability would such people be exposed to under this measure?

Deputy McDowell

I will deal with the last item first. Article 8 requires each member state to take the necessary legal measures to ensure that legal persons, which means non-natural persons such as bodies corporate, can be held liable for offences referred to in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually or as part of an organ or a legal person, who has a leading position within the legal person, based on a power of representation, an authority to take decisions on behalf of it or an authority to exercise control within the legal person. One would have to be a senior management figure or a controller of a legal person before the article would apply to one and the offence would have to have been committed for the benefit of the legal person. In the case of an individual sole trader at home whose son used his computer, the use would not be for the benefit of the trader and the article would not apply.

Deputy O'Keeffe asked about drugs. The great part of the drugs trafficking framework decision poses no issue for us. On these occasions one asks what is the value of such a measure, especially as it took so long to negotiate. However, once the framework decision is in being no country can walk away from the framework's principles. If a new government were elected in a member state it could not suddenly decide to legalise the sale and distribution of heroin, for example.

In the case of penalties there is also a clash of legal cultures. The common law system is to establish a high maximum penalty and give the judiciary discretion down to zero in almost every case, with the exception of a ten year sentence in Ireland. The civil law system is to establish detailed patterns of sentencing policy in statute form. We are dealing here with minimum/maximum penalties which must be established. The maximum penalties in our system far exceed the minimum maximums provided for by these framework decisions. In some instances, life imprisonment is imposed. One cannot have a bigger penalty than that.

Some member states have a more liberal disposition on the personal use of drugs. To achieve a framework decision common to all member states and at least acceptable to all member states in the context of the requirement for unanimity, it was necessary to make provisions for countries which take different approaches to drugs. For instance, the Netherlands has a no prosecution policy in respect of small amounts of cannabis for personal use. The United Kingdom also operates a type of no prosecution policy by using police cautioning in the case of first offenders found in possession of small amounts of cannabis.

Were Deputies to ask what is my position in that regard my reply would be that I do not propose going down that route. It is not that I do not understand why those countries have taken that route, rather it appears to me the consumption of cannabis is in very many cases the gateway to greater drug addiction. Ireland has enough problems with alcohol and tobacco without bringing cannabis on to the stage. Smoking cannabis is highly carcinogenic. If tomorrow it were to be developed as a commercial product the person responsible would be up to his or her ears in trouble in terms of product liability. I do not propose to deal with that matter.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Perhaps the Minister could deal with my query regarding medical prescriptions. A recent debate suggested there is a case to be made in terms of MS and medical prescriptions.

Deputy McDowell

That is a matter for the Irish drugs board rather than criminal law. If the medical profession, through its instruments which include the drugs board, state a substance is not appropriate for use for a particular purpose, it ceases to be a crime to use it for that purpose.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

It then becomes licit instead of illicit, as Deputy Costello said.

Deputy McDowell

On mutual recognition of financial penalties, the general rule is that fines collected under the system go to the collecting state, not the imposing state. Ireland has enough problems trying to collect fines without acting as paymaster collector for other countries. If one wants to motivate a system and encourage people to collect the money one must ensure it is to the benefit of the collector to do so.

It was argued during the negotiations that confiscation orders are different from fines because they sometimes involve much higher financial penalties. Some member states were, therefore, of the opinion that the amount collected by means of confiscation should return to the issuing state. Others, including Ireland, were in favour of some form of incentive for operating the scheme. There is no point telling the Chief State Solicitor there is €200,000 worth of assets in the hands of Joe Bloggs, requiring him to recover it and then send it off-shore. There is much pain and no gain in such activity. Following negotiations, it was agreed that if a sum of money obtained as a result of a confiscation order is less than €10,000 the executing state retains it. In all other cases, the sum will be split 50:50 between the issuing and executing states.

Chairman

What about costs?

Deputy McDowell

The costs are deducted from the sum before arriving at the net value.

It has been agreed that member states may not claim expenses from each other except when the costs are considered by the executing state to be large or exceptional. Generally speaking, member states do not claim expenses from each other except in cases where such expenses are large.

Chairman

For legal fees and so on.

Deputy McDowell

Yes. An enforcement order can be enforced by way of the European Enforcement Order adopted in April or under the Brussels One regulation.

Deputy Costello asked about mandatory sentences. I am not in a position to state whether or not other countries operate mandatory sentences for drug trafficking. However, I imagine some of them do because they have quite prescriptive systems. I am not in a position to say whether any state operates a system similar to ours.

There is a school-of-thought among the activists in European Union matters that it would be a good idea to approximate penalties across the European Union. This somewhat academic project is always hauled out at meetings. When one asks why it would be a good idea, one is told criminals would tend to go to the countries with the lighter penalties. That may be true on the desk of somebody in academia or in the depths of bureaucracy, but I cannot imagine a criminal taking out Austria and Ireland's criminal code, comparing the penalties of each country and on the basis of the lighter penalty system choosing to locate their enterprise in a particular country. The real world operates on a different basis. The unreal world has a huge interest in approximating penalties out of some general feeling that it is a good idea to do so.

This is one of the issues which arises in terms of the IGC. We will have difficulty maintaining our minimum ten year penalty and so on if somebody arrogates to the European Union institutions detailed powers regarding what types of penalties should or should not be applied.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Spoken like a true anti-European.

Deputy McDowell

Spoken like a pragmatist.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

We will not get into that debate now.

Deputy McDowell

I sometimes believe I have quite considerable energy but having listened to prolonged debates while people argue the merits of their system when in the end approximation would achieve absolutely nothing is not something which attracts me as a good way to spend the rest of my life.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

We will relieve the Minister of the job following the next election.

Deputy McDowell

Thank you. Deputy Costello asked about drug free prisons. We must have drug free prisons. Such a possibility requires that Ireland and other countries show a much greater appreciation of the damage done by drug infested prisons.

Deputy Costello also asked about confiscation in terms of our Criminal Assets Bureau arrangement. I have stated at previous meetings that the jaws of the rest of Europe drop to the desk when they hear tales of our Criminal Assets Bureau. Only Britain and Ireland have a system where confiscation without pre-existing conviction is possible. Eyebrows shoot up and jaws drop in civil law countries when they hear this is possible. The jurisprudence of our Supreme Court in this matter is clear: it is not a penalty to take from a person the proceeds of crime because they are not their lawful property in the first instance and in that regard they are not being deprived of something to which they are entitled. That is lost on civilian lawyers.

I am anxious to ensure our highly effective system is not dragged down to a lowest common denominator of effectiveness by people becoming activist in that area.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I am sure the Minister will agree that there would be an objection to that.

Deputy McDowell

There might be but I can assure the Deputy one would have to bring resuscitation machines into most meetings because most of them do not buy into that project. However, the Bulgarians are very interested in our system at the moment.

Deputy Costello had a question about hacking.

Deputy Costello

My question was more in the context of combating terrorism.

Deputy McDowell

Yes, it was Senator Walsh who made the point about hacking. Deputy Costello raised the issue of combating terrorism and I understand what he is saying. He says the measure providing for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime is being expedited in the context of the terrorism package. That is true, but it is also true that we had this provision before the terrorism package arose. It did not originate at European level as an anti-terrorism measure exclusively but was part of creating an area of freedom, security and justice separate from terrorism.

Deputy Costello makes the point that war against terrorism, to use the phrase in vogue these days, is not the only way forward and that there must be engagement with the issues that are driving terrorism. I agree with him on that. Simplistic and extreme rhetoric on this subject does not do justice to the realities of the situation nationally or internationally.