We move on to No. 5, a proposal for a Council decision concerning the signing of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border co-operation, particularly in the areas of combating terrorism and cross-border crime, and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border co-operation, particularly in the areas of combating terrorism and cross-border crime, and the annex thereto, and the proposal for a Council framework decision on the application, between member states of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. I ask the Minister of State to commence.
Co-operation Agreements: Motion.
I thank the joint committee for also considering this motion this afternoon. The purpose of this draft Council decision is to facilitate co-operation between the member states of the European Union, on the one hand, and Norway and Iceland, on the other, in the framework of police co-operation proposed under the Prüm Council decisions.
Co-operation among European Union member states in line with the Prüm Council decisions — so-called because they were inspired by the Prüm treaty — is aimed at enhancing the joint efforts EU states make to combat terrorism and serious crime. As the joint committee has previously considered and approved the Prüm Council decisions, I will not delay proceedings by dwelling on them in detail.
In outline, the co-operation will involve the exchange of information between member states of certain data from their national DNA, criminal fingerprint and vehicle registration databases. Provision is also made for information sharing with regard to major events with a cross-border dimension and mutual assistance in policing mass gatherings, disasters and serious accidents. As this co-operation is primarily concerned with the exchange of data, provisions are in place relating to the protection of personal data and ensuring data are processed only for the purpose for which they were supplied under the Council decisions.
The draft Council decision before the joint committee is somewhat standard in that it provides for the association of Norway and Iceland with this measure. These two non-EU states are closely associated with the European Union in the fields of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. For example, they fully apply the Schengen acquis, European arrest warrant and EU mutual assistance provisions. In this context, they are important partners in the action the EU takes to counteract terrorism and serious crime.
It bears repeating that those who engage in terrorism and serious crime have no respect for states and no regard for borders. Close co-operation between the law enforcement services of states, whether they are inside or outside the European Union, is essential in combating those who seek to undermine the rule of law. I commend the motion to the joint committee and look forward to the support of members.
I propose also to bring before members another European Union proposal for a Council framework decision on the application between member states of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. The measures in this framework decision will enable EU citizens in a case where they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence in the territory of a member state in which they are not ordinarily resident to return to their normal state of residence for supervision by the authorities in the state in question while they are awaiting trial. In other words, citizens do not have to remain in detention in the State in which they are temporarily resident but are returned to their ordinary state of residence until their trial proceedings take place.
During this time, suspects are supervised in a manner similar to persons who are on bail. The supervision measures are monitored by the state in which they are ordinarily resident. When applied in certain circumstances this new measure is an alternative to provisional detention and contains rules according to which one member state will, where appropriate, recognise a decision on supervision measures issued in another member state as an alternative to provisional or remand detention.
As regards the origins of the framework decision, this measure was first presented by the European Commission in September 2006. An Oireachtas scrutiny information note on the proposal was provided shortly thereafter. Following various textual amendments political agreement was reached during the French-led Presidency in December 2008 and the final text, dated 6 March 2009, was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 24 March. The measure facilitates enhanced mutual recognition by EU member states of judicial decisions in criminal matters and enables the extension of this principle to pre-trial orders, thus extending co-operation between member states in the area of supervision measures in pre-trial procedures.
The costs of these measures will, for the most part, be borne by the executing state, that is, the country in which the subject of the supervision order normally resides and which is responsible for monitoring the supervision. It is provided that to limit costs provision may be made for pre-trial hearings or other procedures to be undertaken by video link between the issuing and executing states. In the area of costs, it is important to bear in mind that the operation of the proposed framework decision, which is similar to our system of bail, is likely to result in lower costs to the Exchequer than the costs of keeping a person in a remand prison while awaiting trial.
This measure is similar to two other framework decisions based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, in particular, the measure facilitating the transfer of prisoners between EU member states and a framework decision which entered into force in December 2008 enabling offenders sentenced to custodial sanctions to serve their sentence in their home country.
On the key provisions of the framework decision, one of the decision's stated objectives is to ensure the person concerned will be available to stand trial while promoting the use, during criminal proceedings, of non-custodial measures for persons who are non-resident in the member state in which such proceedings will take place. To this end, the measure includes the promotion, in suitable and appropriate cases only, of the use in criminal proceedings of non-custodial measures for non-resident persons. These measures will thereby avoid persons having to remain in detention in a state in which they are resident on a temporary basis.
The decision on whether to issue a supervision order is a matter for the issuing state, that is, the state in which the alleged contravention occurred. Provisions include non-custodial supervision measures which may be put in place, grounds for refusal and review procedures, dealing with breaches and a return mechanism. The consent of the individual concerned is necessary before a supervision measure may be made in respect of him or her.
There is no minimum threshold of offence to which such a measure would apply. The provisions in the framework decision include a detailed list of supervision measures, which include matters such as an obligation to report to a specified authority and-or limitations on leaving the executing state in Article 8.
The establishment by member states of a central or competent authority for the administration, transmission and receipt of requests is provided for in Articles 6 and 7. Procedures for forwarding and receipt of supervision measures are outlined in Article 10. Provisions regarding recognition of the decision on supervision by the competent authority in the executing state and time limits of up to 40 working days for processing decisions are contained in Articles 11 and 12. The proposal provides that a decision on whether to issue an order for supervision is a matter for the issuing state and outlines the supervision measures that can be put in place. It also provides for grounds for refusal, mechanisms for review, dealing with breaches and a return to the issuing state for trial.
It will be necessary to make some amendments to Irish legislation to provide for implementation of the proposed framework decision. The necessary proposals will be drawn up in due course in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas in the normal way. I recommend the instrument to the joint committee.
I welcome the Minister of State's comments on both proposals and confirm the support of the Fine Gael Party for them. In regard to the second motion, I seek his clarification of several issues.
On the agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the stepping up of cross-border co-operation, I assume there is not a great deal of concern in terms of terrorist activity or cross-border crime, unless it is a case of money launderers and bankers fleeing Iceland. It is my understanding the agreement will facilitate a level of co-operation between Iceland, Norway and the European Union as envisaged under the Prüm treaty on police co-operation. Under that treaty, members states are required not only to maintain a national DNA database but to share the information contained therein with other member states. Ireland does not have such a database and will not, therefore, be in a position to comply with the requirements of the agreement. Does the approval we are conferring today not add greater urgency to the need to establish a DNA database by bringing forward the long-promised legislation in this regard? Without that legislation, are we in breach of the Council decision?
We are also required to provide legal assistance in collecting and examining samples of DNA in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings. Member states are required to maintain data relating to fingerprints and share that information, as well as information on vehicle registration. The need for a criminal database in the State is reinforced by the fact that in most European states police forces have access to a database recording the DNA profile or fingerprints of convicted offenders, particularly convicted sex offenders. Are we required to share whatever fingerprint data are available to the Garda with European Union colleagues? Will the Minister of State enlighten us on the extent to which we share vehicle registration data with other member states?
The second matter relates to mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures which represent a type of pre-trial detention, as the Minister of State said, or a form of bail or remand arrangement between member states. I understand the Attorney General has expressed reservations about this matter. To what extent have these reservations been taken on board in the proposals? We are all aware that the bail system in the State is dysfunctional. One of the main reasons for this is the time lapse between arrest, charge and caution and the matter coming to trial. I have a concern about what is being done to ensure there will be adherence to strict time limits.
There may be practical difficulties for the State. For example, administrative procedures not currently in place will have to be established. If there is to be a time limit of 20 working days for formal recognition of decisions on supervision measures, there will be practical difficulties for us if our compliance arrangements are not in place. Will the Minister of State address this issue with his European Union colleagues? What proposal is there to bring forward the necessary administrative procedures? Has the Minister of State spoken to the Garda Commissioner about the issue? What procedures will be required from an administrative point of view? The Minister of State referred to the issue of costs. It will undoubtedly be a costly exercise.
What is the central authority to which the Minister of State referred? We already have a central authority operating within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the purposes of the administration of the mutual legal assistance system in the case, for example, of the European arrest warrant. Will there be a burden for the probation and welfare service, for instance, in administering the scheme? Given that the service has seen a multi-million euro cut in its budget, it will be difficult for it to take on board additional responsibilities without appropriate guarantees being given as to the availability of funding. We have also seen reductions in the budget of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to such an extent that the director himself has said it will not be possible for him to function as he would like. Is there a relationship between the establishment of the central authority and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? What is the position on costings?
What are the implications for the Courts Service in so far as it is envisaged that the preliminary hearings in pre-trial court appearances will be undertaken by way of video conferencing between the issuing and executing state and vice versa? What facilities are in place for international video conferencing? The use of video technology within the criminal justice system is not well established. I would go as far as to suggest that not only will the facilities for video conferencing have to be put in place but there will also be a requirement for specific legislation to be introduced. Is such legislation envisaged? The DNA legislation to which I referred has been flagged as urgent but has not yet been published.
These are serious issues and I am concerned about the prospect of proceeding without a clear indication that the necessary procedures will be in place in terms of backup. For example, procedures will be necessary for dealing with the inevitable breaches of orders. In addition, procedures to deal with arrests and transfers to the executing state will have to be worked out. If we have no proposals for our role on this matter, what proposals, if any, have we received from other states on this issue?
The principle of this decision is worthwhile and I support it, but there are serious issues to be dealt with before we proceed. Will the Minister of State put on record the timeframe envisaged?
Let me answer the Deputy's second question. It is envisaged that we will legislate within a two-year timeframe. We do not have to do it tomorrow, next month or in six months' time as we have two years to get the administrative and central authority established.
The Deputy raised the issue of cost. It is important to state that it will not be a costly exercise; in fact, we will save on incarceration costs. The current figure is that 690 people are on remand in detention.
At €90,000 a year.
Of those, 180 are EU nationals. For obvious reasons to do with our court system, the Courts Service and judges in general are loth to allow people out on bail who are non-national or non-resident in the territory. The figure does not mean that EU citizens as opposed to Irish citizens or non-Irish EU citizens are committing more crime; it is simply the case that the courts are more likely to remand them rather than Irish citizens because of the danger of absconding.
As the Deputy rightly points out the cost of incarceration of a single person per year is €97,000. There should be significant savings from this measure if some of those people are returned to their ordinary state of residence and brought back for the actual trial. It is hard to quantify the savings fully, apart from the cost of incarceration because a significant number of Irish citizens in Britain who may be remanded on offences may opt for this arrangement and we would bear that cost. Obviously, nobody can be forced into it. The person concerned must consent and want to be returned to the state of ordinary residence. It happens from time to time that not everybody remanded in the south of Spain wants to be brought home for the crime he or she is suspected of having committed in Spain. I know that from my experience in the constituency. Obviously, some people would like to return.
On the broader issue of the reservations of the Office of the Attorney General, the Deputy is correct that the Attorney General had reservations that the administrative court service arrangement and the central authority would be efficient and properly working before we would envisage opting in and operating it. In particular I reassure members of the committee, Fine Gael Party members, and Deputy Flanagan, who, like many other Members on the Government side, would be worried that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was about to establish yet another quango or semi-independent authority. The intention of the Department is to set up and incorporate the central authority, which is essentially a processing operation in the Department.
Is this the same administrative section that deals with the European arrest warrant?
Broadly speaking, that would be the logical place to put it. It would be a processing operation where the real work of supervision arrangements would happen in the courts. We have not consulted with the Garda on the implications as yet because that will happen when we move into legislative mode.
The Deputy raised the issue of video conferencing. We have quite extensive video conferencing facilities in the courts. These facilities are in the Four Courts, the Central Criminal Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court and at Cloverhill. Outside the Dublin area, video conferencing facilities are available in centres in Cork, Nenagh and Tullamore. Obviously if one were to extend that service internationally it would pose technological and other cost challenges.
The Deputy queried the DNA database. The legislation with regard to the DNA database is at a very advanced stage and considered to be very urgent. It will come before the House in a timely fashion. We are co-operating with other EU authorities in regard to sharing information on vehicle registrations and fingerprint material and information that may be material or helpful in the detection or prevention of a crime.
This measure does allow Iceland and Norway to participate fully in the Prüm arrangements and the Deputy is correct in that regard. Obviously the DNA database would be of enormous assistance. Already we know from the immigration section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that the use of fingerprinting in the immigration process has prevented multiple false asylum claims from the same people in different territories. In other words, there was a habit on the part of some false asylum claimants of making an application in a number of territories, for example, the UK, Ireland, France and Spain and to use different or multiple identities to facilitate that based on forged documentation and proceed to apply to see which asylum claim would be accepted by which particular authority. Already we are catching out people who are lodging multiple claims in the UK and Ireland for asylum. Fingerprinting is already detecting people. The information flows back and forth between Ireland and the UK with the border security agencies. That is very helpful and positive and is working well right across the European Union. It is one of the real breakthroughs in this area of illegal migration.
I hope that answers all the Deputy's questions.
I speak on behalf of the Labour Party, which supports both agreements. In regard to the Council decision and the agreement between the EU and Norway and Iceland, it strikes me that Iceland is an island. I suspect that there is not too much terrorism and cross-border crime emanating from Iceland, so vehicle registration would not be a major issue in that instance.
The issues I wished to raise have been adequately dealt with by the Minister of State in his response to Deputy Flanagan. In regard to the second issue, it strikes me that it is at the early stage. As far as Ireland is concerned, we have given political approval but there is a great deal of detail to be worked out. Has any estimate been made of the number of Irish people we may be able to pursue under these measures?
A question that strikes me is whether the tardiness of the court system will inhibit the effectiveness of these measures. People may now opt to return to their country of origin while awaiting trial but we may not move decisively enough to provide that the time they spend outside the country will not be as long as it might be. In my area the length of time it takes to get cases to court is too long. Are the level of savings the Minister of State is indicating aspirational?
It is not aspirational. It is a matter of public record that it costs €97,000 per year to keep a person in remand. When one third of remand prisoners are non-residents, that could potentially represent a significant saving in terms of moving them back to their country of origin, whether it be Poland, France, Germany or wherever. In some cases, members say that delays in our courts system are unconscionable. When there is a long delay before a court case proceeds the person can be dealt with and supervised on bail in his or her own country rather than being incarcerated here. There will be obvious savings but it is hard to quantify them, particularly as this is a voluntary scheme.
From my own constituency experience, I have been involved in a great many cases of Irish citizens who got into trouble for assault or causing damage while on holidays in southern Spain. If people are given a prison sentence there, they may not wish, in every case, to be returned to serve their sentences back in Ireland under the existing arrangements. In some cases, perhaps for family reasons, people prefer to stay out there and do not want to advertise the fact that they have committed an offence. In Ireland, with its small, close rural and urban networks, people know each other. Because it is a voluntary scheme it depends on the person charged with an offence being willing to be returned to Poland, France or in our own case, Ireland. Typically, if an Irish citizen commits an offence while visiting London for a football match, for example, he or she is charged and remanded. The issue then is whether such persons feel comfortable being remanded in custody in the UK or whether they would like to be remanded here, thus reminding people at home that they have been charged with an offence.
Is the Minister of State oblivious to the fact that it is now politically incorrect to make representations on behalf of prisoners? Maybe he would like to proffer a view on it.
I do not think it is politically incorrect. We all have to serve our constituents whether they are compliant or non-compliant in some cases.
I tend to agree but there is another view among the Minister of State's colleagues.
Members of the Oireachtas have an absolute right to make representations on behalf of those who are incarcerated because they have issues too. They may not be voting but they are citizens of the country with families, so I have never made any apologies for any representations I have made in that regard.
I agree.
I thank the Minister of State for his contributions on motions 4 and 5. We fully support what he is proposing. Under motion 4, he might tell us if this agreement is applicable to Northern Ireland, Britain and the crown dependencies. How much captured data do we have on DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration? I presume the latter is fully advanced at this stage but I am not sure what we have on the other two. The Minister of State might like to tell us what the situation is.
Alluding to what Deputies Charles Flanagan and O'Shea said, once this measure is passed will it expedite the situation if the Garda Síochána or the courts require assistance in bringing to justice some of our own citizens who now live in sunnier climes for their own particular reasons, having transgressed the laws of this land?
The Deputy has asked some wider questions that do not particularly pertain to this measure. I can reassure the committee, however, that we have an active exchange of information between Northern Ireland, Britain and ourselves.
Will these bilateral agreements impact on cross-Border co-operation?
In terms of developing the DNA database.
Yes. Is it legally binding?
Yes.
Therefore, this measure copperfastens the agreements we have under the common travel area as well.
Absolutely.
Excellent.
It builds the next layer beyond fingerprinting and vehicle registration, so we are getting more intelligence matter.
A further addendum pertained to crown dependencies, such as the Isle of Man, and Jersey and Guernsey in the Channel Islands. They are not part of the European Union as such, although they have an agreement with the UK. Does this legislation have any role or relevance to Ireland, the UK and those islands?
It is fair to say that on occasion some of these dependencies are not entirely ready to send people for trial even in London when certain cases involving financial crime, such as fraud, arise. Broadly speaking, however, in criminal matters these dependencies do co-operate and share intelligence information. I am not entirely sure about the practicalities of how such security and intelligence exchanges occur or under what protocols. I will ask my officials to communicate with the Deputy directly on what those protocols are concerning the crown dependencies.
I thank the Minister of State. How does the measure assist us concerning our citizens who hibernate in sunnier climes when they might be required to return to this island?
What particular climes is the Deputy talking about?
I am referring to people who have committed crimes in this country, including Dublin, but who now live in Spain, Portugal and elsewhere. Does this measure assist us in bringing them back to face justice here if necessary?
Clearly, if they have committed an offence and DNA material is available to the police where they live, under these arrangements such material can be shared if it is of assistance. As regards drug traffickers and others who are active in Holland, southern Spain and elsewhere, clearly DNA material is also helpful for ruling out certain people from further inquiries or surveillance activity of one kind or another.
I have a final question. Can the Minister of State indicate how much captured data we have on fingerprints, rather than criminals' fingerprints, and DNA, if any?
We have nothing on DNA because we are building up a DNA database.
What about fingerprint data?
In terms of volumes?
How many non-Irish or non-EU citizens are on our fingerprint database?
I do not have figures on that, but I will certainly get the Deputy a note on what stage it is at, whether advanced or otherwise. There is quite a lot of criminal fingerprint data, but the wider population is another matter.
I thank the Minister of State.
We are also building up a bigger database on non-Irish nationals who are involved in criminal activity, precisely because it is a requirement that in order to be in the system one must provide fingerprints.
I hope Deputy Treacy is not distinguishing between the EU and the crown dependencies in terms of where criminals should move to. The crown dependencies might not be too happy about that.
Norway and Iceland have made this agreement with the EU, which is indicative of their position as non-EU members. Would the Minister of State agree, however, that since they accept a lot of the acquis, not just in the area of justice and home affairs but generally on Single Market issues, that may have a broader relevance for those who suggest that we might be better off outside the EU?
I am glad the Deputy mentioned that because I have served in a number of Departments and have attended various ministerial Councils in Europe covering foreign affairs, trade, agriculture and now justice and interior discussions. It is noteworthy from an Irish perspective that Norway transposes, pretty much directly, all of the EU requirements and simply mirrors them into its laws. However, it is a source of intense frustration to them and to my ministerial colleagues in other parts of the EU that Norway is not fully at the table. In other words, Norway has to operate a separate lobbying system if it wants to influence the direction of other directives because it is not in the room. It is simply being handed things on a plate and must implement them automatically. It frequently approaches Ireland on these matters seeking insight and information from us on what it suspects, or what we believe, is the Commission's intention on a particular measure. It does so because it does not have the inside track, for all sorts of reasons, on the actual formulation and gestation of a potential decision, directive or regulation.
It is not a great position to be in. Privately, these Ministers express their frustration at this and that they have to come, to a certain extent, cap in hand to existing member countries such as Ireland or others to find out what is going on and whether a threatened directive will be a real or imaginary threat or will fall by the wayside.
Will the Minister ask one of his officials to e-mail the second part of his speech to the clerk?
Yes, absolutely.
He can make it available to any members who want it.
As we have now completed our consideration of the motion, in accordance with Dáil Standing Order 87 and Seanad Standing Order 72, the joint committee will report back to Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to the effect that it has completed its consideration of the motion. Under Dail Standing Order 86(2) and Seanad Standing Order 74(2) the message is deemed to be the report of the committee. Is it agreed that there should be no further debate on the matter by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann? Agreed.