I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on it. Also, on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.
Order of Business. - Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 14 and 15, to delete "that established the team".
When I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, said he would consider it. I tabled this amendment because I consider there is a drafting error in this paragraph, in that I believe the words "that established the team" should be deleted. I would like to hear the Minister of State's explanation as to why a similar Government amendment has not been tabled on the issue I raised.
I second the amendment.
The position is as set out by the Senator. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, agreed to examine the provision. However, on further examination the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform finds that the Senator's concern is already provided for in the Bill. She suggested the deletion of the qualifying term "that established the team" on the basis that where a member state joins a team which has already been established, the members appointed to the team by that new member state would not be seconded members, by virtue of the fact that seconded members of the team are defined in the Bill as being members of a team appointed by a competent authority of another member state that established the team. However, this is not the case.
Section 5(4), (5) and (6) make provision for late joiners. Section 5(4) allows the State to join a team which has already been established by other member states. Section 5(5) allows other member states to join a team which has been established by member states including the State. Section 5(6) is a technical interpretative provision which extends the reference to member states which established the team to include those member states which join after initial establishment. This means, in effect, that although a member state may be a late joiner, once it has joined it will be considered as if it had been involved in the initial establishment and its members will be seconded members for the purpose of the Bill.
I hope this explanation satisfies the Senator. I do not propose to accept the amendment, as the provision the Senator is seeking to cover is already included in section 5.
I withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, lines 5 to 7, to delete "if the circumstances so require, for such period or periods as may be agreed by the Competent Authority" and substitute:
"For such periods not exceeding its duration since establishment, or if the circumstances so require, for such periods as may be agreed by the Competent Authority in consultation with the Minister".
I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage and I had hoped the Minister would have given further consideration to putting in place a structure in terms of the length of time for which these investigations can be in existence. As the Bill stands, I am fearful that these investigations could be lengthy, that there would be many of them and that this would put great pressure on the Garda and involve a major cost to the State.
My amendment seeks to limit the duration of the existence of an investigation team. I would like to hear the Minister of State's comments
I second the amendment.
As explained on Committee Stage, section 5 provides that a joint investigation team will be established for a specific purpose and for a limited period and that, where it is necessary to do so, that period may be extended for an additional period or periods as agreed by the competent authority concerned. This appears to be a perfectly reasonable provision.
The Senator's proposal attempts to limit the periods of time for which a joint investigation can be extended to such periods as do not exceed its duration since establishment, unless other periods are agreed by the competent authority in consultation with the Minister. However, the net effect is the same. Where an investigation has not been concluded by the end of that period for which it was established, that period will be extended.
I appreciate the Senator's concerns that investigations could become open ended affairs at great cost to the State. However, the purpose of this legislation is to provide a statutory framework for what is already happening in practice. The State has been and is involved in joint teams which have been set up and established on a informal basis. This Bill provides a formal structure for the establishment of joint teams which will facilitate further police co-operation in criminal investigations and assist in improving crime detection, investigation and prosecution of offences.
The Senator's fear seems to stem from a belief that once the legislation is in place, joint investigation teams will spring up all over the country, tie up huge amounts of resources and that the Garda Commissioner will allow the teams to run on regardless. This is not the case. Joint teams will be set up in exceptional circumstances where an offence has been committed, where there is an international dimension to that offence, where that offence has links to the State and where the offence is of such serious consequences to the State that the Garda Commissioner believes that the investigation warrants and will benefit from the establishment of a joint team.
The cost and burden on existing resources of such an exercise must be taken into consideration when deciding whether to take part in such an exercise. The Garda Commissioner must always balance the benefit of a joint investigation against the cost of the exercise. It must be remembered too that because of the nature of an investigation team the cost will be a shared one. We will never bear the burden of the expense alone.
It is not possible at the beginning of a criminal investigation to know exactly how long it will take. The length of time involved in an investigation depends on many factors that are often completely outside the control of the persons involved in the investigation and change as the investigation progresses.
As indicated on Committee Stage, where a joint investigation team is in operation and the purposes for which the team was established have been achieved in advance of the period allocated, the Garda Commissioner will terminate the team in accordance with section 5(7)(a).
Where an investigation has not been completed and more time is needed, the period for which the joint investigation team is to operate will have to be extended for a period considered adequate for its completion. The Council recommendation on a model agreement for establishing joint investigation teams, adopted by the Council of the European Union on 8 May last, also deals with extended periods for a joint investigation in this way. To extend the team in this limited fashion would result in unnecessary restrictions and bureaucracy which would be better deployed in resourcing the completion of the investigation.
With regard to the inclusion of the Minister in discussions on the period for which a joint investigation team should operate, as was explained on Committee Stage, the Minister is a competent authority for the purposes of the Bill to facilitate the transmission and receipt of requests to and from member states that do not have provision in domestic legislation to permit direct transmission of requests between judicial authorities and police forces of a foreign state. The Garda Commissioner has responsibility for the establishment and operation of joint investigation teams. The Minister does not have a role to play in the operational aspects of a team's work. The Commissioner will be answerable in terms of the strategic goal in the Garda policing plan concerning managing finance to achieve best value for money. Not only would the amendment not add anything, it would also serve to impose unnecessary restrictions and not take account of the fact that accountability also comes into play in the use of resources. I do not propose to accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, between lines 8 and 9 to insert the following:
"(2) Each joint investigation team to be established under this Act shall be costed by the Competent Authority prior to establishment.".
The Minister of State may have answered this amendment in his previous response. I have tabled it because I believe it would be appropriate that each investigation be costed before it was established, in the same way as Garda drugs operations are costed. I do not see the reason the same system cannot be in put in place in this regard. It would make more sense and we would have some idea of how much an investigation would cost before we entered what could possibly be a lengthy process. I would like to hear the Minister of State's response.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being seconded?
I second the amendment.
This is an interesting amendment, although I am unsure of its relevance in this regard. As a principle, we tend not to get value from the public service for the money we spend. It is important that we put in place more measurements to ensure this happens. While I am unsure of the relevance of the amendment, the principle and concept behind it are something that should be taken on board by Departments in the public service.
A business controls its costs primarily because of competition. If it does not do so, it does not stay in business. There are in-built disciplines which do not exist where only income and expenditure measurements are in place, especially when the income comes from another source. I do not know if the amendment can be accommodated but it is a principle I would like to see established across the public service.
The amendment would provide that the establishment of each joint investigation team should be costed prior to establishment. As was explained on Second Stage, one of the guiding principles for the Garda Síochána, as indicated in the Garda corporate strategy for 2000 to 2004, is to ensure the Garda carries out its functions in a way that obtains the best value from Garda activities. The Garda policing plan for 2003 lists 12 strategic goals, one of which is managing finance to achieve best value for money. The performance indicators in the plan for this strategic goal include: compliance with budget allocation and costing of major functional policing areas, including law enforcement in the areas of drugs, traffic and other crime. This goal is intended to ensure resources are properly managed and effectively used.
With regard to certain drugs operations, which can involve the deployment of personnel and resources from different Garda divisions, as a matter of good management practice, it is not unusual, as the Senator indicated on Second Stage, that they be costed in advance to determine where costs fall and to ensure such resources are used effectively. I am, however, informed by the Garda authorities that sanctioning operations that involve major seizures or arrests are not dependent on such costing. However, it is considered to be good management practice for the reasons illustrated.
As the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, pointed out on Committee Stage, the deployment of gardaí and the assignment of tasks to them are matters for the Garda Commissioner. Gardaí constitute a scarce resource which the Commissioner must employ to maximum effect. Any reasonable and responsible Commissioner would not commit to the establishment of a joint investigation team if it was not appropriate to do so and he did not have the necessary resources available to him at the time. The Commissioner will be answerable in terms of the strategic goal in the Garda policing plan concerning managing finance to achieve best value for money.
Joint investigation teams will only be established in exceptional circumstances where an offence has been committed with an international dimension which has links to the State and where the offence is of such serious consequences that the Garda Commissioner believes the benefits of the investigation outweigh the cost. Costs will be shared between the member states involved.
It would be very difficult to estimate the cost of a joint investigation team in advance of its establishment, especially as such a team would involve joint costs. These will vary greatly depending on issues such as the nature of the investigation, the type of offence or suspected offence to be investigated, the size of the team, the length of the investigation and the resources available to our partners. The costing of national operations is an easier exercise and is not one done in all circumstances.
It is important to remember that joint investigation teams have already been and are in operation in the State. They have been established on an informal basis without the benefit of a structured format in which to operate. The Bill provides a structured format and, following enactment of the legislation, the issue of costs will be addressed in every agreement drawn up to establish a joint team.
The issue of pay and remuneration for team members is dealt with in section 6 while section 8, which provides for the written agreement drawn up between member states establishing a team, makes specific provision for the financial arrangements for the team, including arrangements for the payment to its members of remuneration, allowances for the expenses, if any, incurred by them and the payment of other expenses that may be incurred by the team in the performance of their functions.
In addition, a Council recommendation for a standard model agreement was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 8 May last. The model is intended to provide for consistency between member states when drawing up agreements for the establishment of teams. The Council recommendation also provides that the issue of costs should be dealt with in the agreement drawn up between the states involved rather than in separate costed exercises. The draft agreement deals with the setting out of costs that will be subject to the exclusive competence of one or other of the parties to the agreement and costs that will be shared by the competent authorities.
While I appreciate the spirit in which Senators made the proposals, the costing of joint investigations is the responsibility not just of the State but of all the states involved in the establishment of a joint investigation team, and the only way in which to address the issue is by way of an agreement drawn up by the member states to establish the team. It would be almost impossible and inappropriate to endeavour to fit a costing provision into the legislation which would meet the criteria of all states. I am sure Senators will agree that the benefit to be gained from the establishment of these teams in the fight against terrorism will largely outweigh any cost involved. For this reason, I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 7, to delete lines 18 to 21, and substitute the following subsection:
"(4) The State may join a joint investigation team that has been established by Member States other than the State if the Competent Authority is satisfied that–
(a) either–
(i) the conduct which would constitute an offence if it occurred in the State has occurred, or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that such conduct has occurred, partly in the State and partly in another Member State or States, or
(ii) the conduct which would constitute an offence if it occurred in the State has occurred, or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that such conduct has occurred, in another Member State or States and the investigation of it has links with the State,
and
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation into the conduct concerned, to agree to the State joining the joint investigation team concerned because–
(i) it is likely that, in order for the investigation to be more effective, part of it will have to be conducted in the State, or
(ii) the investigation requires coordinated and concerted action by the Member States (including the State) concerned.".
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are being discussed together. Sections 4 and 5 allow the State to join a joint investigation team which has been established on such terms and conditions as the Irish competent authority may agree with the competent authorities of the member states involved in the original establishment of the team. Section 4(3) deals with the criteria to be taken into consideration by the State when deciding whether to agree to a request from another member state to establish a joint investigation team.
On Committee Stage, Senator Tuffy made the point that the State could join an existing joint investigation team without any conditions and especially without any of the conditions that would have to be considered if the State was involved in establishing the team, and proposed a cross-reference from section 5(4) to section 4(3). The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, explained that although he considered the proposal reasonable, the sections in question deal with two different sets of circumstances. Regarding future establishment of a team and joining a team which has already been set up, it has been advised by the office of the parliamentary counsel that as the sections deal with two different sets of circumstances, it would not be technically possible to link them in this way.
The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, promised that in deference to the points made he would return to the issue on Report Stage. Section 5(4) is being examined again in consultation with the office of the parliamentary counsel. We agree that while section 3(1) lists the criteria which must be considered when the State decides to establish a joint investigation team, section 4(3) lists the criteria which must be considered when the State is considering whether or not to agree to a request from another member state to establish a team. There are no criteria to guide us when deciding to join a team which has already been set up. This is an omission and I thank Senators for drawing it to our attention.
The effect of the proposed amendment is to provide for such criteria. I propose to introduce a new subsection (4) to section 5 which provides that when deciding whether to join a team which has already been established, the competent authority must consider whether conduct which would constitute an offence if it occurred in the State has occurred, whether the investigation of such conduct has links with the State, whether it would not be in the public interest to join the investigation team and whether the investigation would be more effective if part of it was conducted in the State. In the circumstances I invite Senators to withdraw their amendment in favour of the one I have submitted. I recommend the amendment to the House.
On that basis I will agree to withdraw amendment No. 5. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, for taking on board the issue I raised in my amendments and for addressing the issue in their amendment which is similar to what I proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Senators who have contributed to the debate. As many of them said, it is an important Bill and the tone and content of the debate has been very constructive.
The importance of co-operation between member states' operational police is recognised by the Treaty of Rome. It is an objective which the Government supports in full. The concept of joint teams is not new but one of the main obstacles which has arisen and which has mitigated against our success to date has been the lack of a specific agreed structure within which such teams could be established and operate. The Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Bill 2003 provides agreed conditions for such a structure.
The Bill provides a framework for the creation and operation of joint investigation teams which will enable law enforcement authorities to co-operate in a structured and meaningful way. It is another example of how we can put into practice in a real and meaningful way the type of co-operation which is so vital nowadays in ensuring that the world is a safer place for all.
I thank Senators for their contributions and look forward to the Bill coming before the other House and its enactment in time for the summer. I commend the Bill to the House.
I thank the Minister of State for his attendance this morning and I also thank the Minister, Deputy McDowell, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea. This Bill when enacted will be a worthwhile tool in the fight against crime and terrorism and will allow Ireland to work in close co-operation with other countries to achieve that. I welcome the Bill.
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea and the Minister, Deputy McDowell for their contributions. It is a worthwhile Bill that will assist in the fight against organised crime.
I thank Senators Terry and Tuffy, in particular, for their contributions and their thought provoking amendments. I am confident their input will form part the Bill.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, for his attendance this morning. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, and the other Senators who have contributed to the debate. I generally welcome the provisions of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon.