I move amendment No. 17:
In page 26, subsection (9) (a), line 29, to delete "12 months" and substitute "2 years".
—(Deputy G. Mitchell.)
SECTION 27 (resumed).
Since our last meeting further amendments have been tabled and all the amendments have been amalgamated in one list with today's date which the committee has before it. We resume on section 27; amendment No. 17, in the name of Deputy Gay Mitchell, which has already been discussed with amendment No. 16. Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18.:
In page 26, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(12) In this Part ‘other criminal activity' means such offences as shall be prescribed by the Minister for this purpose.".
This amendment refers to the term "other criminal activity" which is mentioned in section 27 but is not defined or designated. There is a danger — and perhaps the Minister would like to respond to this — that it could be construed as being too imprecise and ambiguously wide. There could be offences of a quasi-administrative nature which might give rise to uncertainty as to whether they would constitute a criminal offence.
Section 27 (11) provides that the section applies to activities which amount to an offence under the law of the country or territory in which they occur. Therefore, where the activity occurs outside the State employees of any designated body must not only be aware that it is an offence under the law of the State but also that it amounts to an offence under the law of the country or territory in which it occurs. It would be useful at this stage to have a practical definition in the Bill as to what "other criminal activity" means for the purposes of this legislation and it might be important in pursuit of a workable implementation of the monitoring and reporting requirements as laid out in the Bill. I would ask the Minister if she would consider that "other criminal activity" needs to be defined.
I am aware that Deputy O'Donnell's amendment is designed to give effect to a change in the Bill which has been sought by the Irish Banker's Federation. In that context, I would like to repeat what I mentioned last week that I have arranged for officials of my Department to meet representatives of the federation to discuss this point and other points they have raised in connection with the Bill. In the light of those discussions I will be in a better position to assess whether or to what extent the Bill should be amended as they suggested and, if necessary, to bring forward amendments on Report Stage.
That said, however, I should indicate that I am not disposed to accept an amendment along the lines of that proposed by Deputy O'Donnell. At present section 27 applies to laundering the proceeds of all offences. The inevitable effect of the Deputy's amendment would be that laundering the proceeds of certain crimes would not be a criminal offence and, to my mind, that would be totally unacceptable. I cannot see any basis for providing that a person who launders the proceeds of one crime would be guilty of an offence, but another person who does exactly the same thing in respect of the proceeds of another offence would not.
A further concern I have arising from this amendment is that it could adversely affect the effectiveness of the anti-laundering measures which are provided for in the Bill. In particular, I have in mind the measures which financial institutions are required to take where they suspect that money laundering is taking place — for example, under sections 28 (2) (c) and section 44 (1). These provisions impose obligations on banks and other bodies to take certain action if they suspect that any criminal proceeds are being laundered. It would in my view place an unreasonable burden on a bank employee, confronted with what might be a suspicious transaction, to determine whether any criminal proceeds which might be involved are derived from a particular offence as distinct from any other. Surely the correct way to deal with this is to provide that all money laundering is to be covered. That would mean the bank employee would not have to go beyond identifying a transaction as suspicious and the appropriate procedures could be put into effect at that stage.
For all of those reasons I am not prepared to accept this amendment. As I said, officials from my Department will be meeting representatives of the federation. If as a result of those discussions certain amendments to the Bill are seen to be necessary I am prepared to bring those forward on Report Stage.
I take the point the Minister has made, that the banks will put forward their vested interest in this legislation because it dramatically changes the culture in which they will continue their business and financial activities within the State. A balance must be found. If it is primarily the banks who will be in the front line in disclosing under the Bill, they will have to discover workable schedules of training and operation for their employees. I am glad the Minister is willing to have her officials meet the banks to discuss the practical issues. I agree that one should not dilute the legislation to suit any reservations the banks might have in policy terms.
This amendment, which I will not press, relates to what constitutes other criminal activity. Is it envisaged that the legislation would include revenue offences for the purposes of money laundering?
Yes.
I am glad to hear that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection 10 of the section reads: "Offences created by this section shall be felonies". Could the Minister explain why those words have been included and why they specifically refers to this section?
This is to ensure the power to arrest without a warrant will be available in respect of these offences.
The Minister has confirmed that the powers given under this Bill relate to revenue offences. Traditionally, extradition legislation omits political or revenue offences. Would the Minister consider it appropriate at this stage to discuss how this Bill ties in with the proposed extradition Bill?
It will not be dealt with under this Bill but it is being examined separately. When that has been carried out, if decisions need to be made on legislation or amending legislation, they will be.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 18a, 24, 30 and 30a are related; amendments Nos. 32a, 34a, 45, 46 and 47 form a related composite proposal; amendments Nos. 30 and 30a are alternatives; amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are also alternatives. Amendments Nos. 18a, 24, 30, 30a, 32a, 34a and 43 to 47, inclusive, can be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
I was going to say "check" when you were reading out those numbers, Chairman. I wish to clarify that we are just taking the second line in the grouping of amendments.
Yes.
I move amendment No. 18a:
In page 26, before section 28, to insert the following new section;
"28.—(1) An officer of customs and excise may seize and, in accordance with this section, detain any cash which is being imported into or exported from the Republic of Ireland if its amount is not less than £10,000 or the amount for the time being prescribed by regulations made under section 29 (9) (b) and he has reasonable grounds for suspicion that it directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.".
Eleven amendments are being taken together here, eight of which are in my name. They are related to each other. The main proposal is that officers of customs and exicse would have the same powers as the Garda in relation to drug trafficking, money imported or exported in cash, seizure and detention. In amendment No. 18a I seek to include a section I have drafted based on recent British legislation. The paragraph referred to in the amendment is currently section 28 (9) (b) of the Bill but would become section 29 (9) (b) if my amendment is carried.
Many drugs are being purchased in Amsterdam and certainly Rotterdam is the main port for drugs coming into Europe. It has been suggested there is a transfer of money across the internal frontiers of the European Union. A recent investigation showed that a sizeable amount of money was taken out through Shannon Airport and changed into Dutch guilders, or another foreign currency, for the purchase of drugs in Holland.
Under the UK Drug Trafficking Offences Act, 1986, the British Customs and Exicse can seize cash from persons suspected of drug trafficking and exporting and importing money for this purpose. Under the current section in 28 (9) (b), the Minister would have the power to set regulations. I suggest that were a figure of not less then £10,000, or whatever figure the Minister specifies, is involved, and the customs officials have reasonable grounds to believe that money is being used for laundering or drug trafficking, those officials should have power to seize the money. The other amendments suggest extending the same powers that the Garda Síochána would have to the Customs and Excise.
I believe this is reasonable because our main drugs problem is that of importation. Some marijuana is grown here and there is undoubtedly some capacity for manufacturing synthetic drugs. However, the vast bulk of drugs is imported by sea, air or other concealed methods. The people in the front line where importation of drugs or export of money is involved are the Customs and Excise officials. It would be reasonable to allow them the power to seize where they see reasonable grounds for doing so. They should not have to await the assistance of a garda in these circumstances. Customs officers already have extensive powers of seizure in relation to unlawfully imported vehicles. I do not see why they should not have the same powers in relation to cash which they suspect is being used as part of a money laundering or drug trafficking exercise.
It is a fact that there are some countries which manufacture more illegal drugs in terms of GNP than all of their other products put together. I can produce documentation to support that point. I can also produce a table of ten countries and tell the committee precisely who manufactured what in terms of tonnage of drugs. I can show the committee the routes which are used. This documentation will stand up to examination, especially that which was presented to a Christian Democrat conference in Santiago, Chile, in 1992. The chairman of the American Senate Sub-Committee, Senator Carey, said that narco-dollars are distorting geopolitics all over the world. This is definitely true. In some places they are creating states within states.
The Customs and Excise authorities have a front line role to play in tackling this problem. The Garda should have this power on the ground, but at the boundaries of the State, at the point of import and export, those in the customs are in the front line and often have useful intelligence. I ask the Minister to extend these powers to the Revenue Commissioners and the Customs and Excise authority so they can, of their own volition and where they see good grounds for doing so, act in a way which would help to combat this enormous problem. Excluding Customs and Excise, when the problem is really one of importation of drugs and the exportation of cash to purchase these drugs, would be a weakness of the legislation. I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept these amendments.
Members of the committee will recall that in the course of my response last week to amendment No. 4 from Deputy G. Mitchell, in which he was seeking the creation of a new drugs enforcement agency, I outlined my position on Garda-Customs co-operation. There is no need to go over much of what I said at that time. I did say that I expect to receive shortly a report from an assistant secretary in my Department on this matter. I will at that stage take any steps, including legislative ones, that may be considered appropriate; but I will only do that when the report has been received and I have had an opportunity of examining its recommendations.
In this context I might mention that my Department raised directly with the Revenue Commissioners matters arising from material which was supplied to Deputies, apparently setting out views of some of the customs staff about additional measures that should be included in the Bill and which I think are reflected in these amendments. The Revenue Commissioners, not I, have indicated that in their view it is not clear, pending the outcome of my review, that any further legislation is required as far as customs officers are concerned. They fully support the decision to await the outcome of the review, which I have already mentioned.
The Revenue Commissioners also went on to reiterate their commitment to the fullest co-operation with the other agencies involved in the common fight against drugs, and I fully accept this. The review is comprehensive in that it deals not only with the two agencies referred to here — the Garda and the customs — but with the Naval Service, who play such a crucial role in support of both the Garda and the customs on a regular basis. Since that review is near its completion and will have within it a comprehensive view of the existing position and recommendations as to where we might go from here and in view of the fact that the Revenue Commisisoners have participated in and have been supportive of the report and have indicated they do not want anything to happen in advance of its publication, I regret that I am not prepared to accept the amendments put forward by both Deputy G. Mitchell and Deputy O'Donnell.
The Minister is correct when she said that Opposition and perhaps other Members of the committee were circularised with proposals indicating the views of customs officials on this matter. It is only right that they should feel that Deputies are approachable and that they can set out the views of those working in the front line. The Revenue Commissioners and customs officials have built up an enormous amount of intelligence in this area over many years. They have tried to do their best, given the present legislation. I am glad that the Minister is willing to set up a review group to bring all of these parties together, especially the Revenue Commissioners. Apart from the customs aspect, criminal offences relating to revenue make up a big part of this legislation. Hopefully, we can tie that in with the extradition question as well.
It was said earlier that there should be a designated body to enforce the legislation. Rather than coming after the event, it might have been useful if representatives from the Revenue Commissioners, the Garda and the banks could have come before this committee to give us their advice as we went through the legislation. It is a little unsatisfactory for members of the committee to get rushed proposals from the various groups involved. This legislation is vital to them because they will be responsible under the Act for its implementation so that it is workable. Discussing the powers of this committee is a matter for another day, but I would have liked to have had members of the Revenue Commissioners present so that they could have put their views, fears and proposals forward. The legislation would have been better as a result. However, I accept that the Minister, through her Department, will review the customs matter.
It has been recognised by this committee that the legislation is concerned with moving beyond the frontiers of this country. This sort of legislation cannot be dealt with in a national forum. The enforcement of criminal justice, especially where it relates to international drug trafficking and money laundering, must incorporate the cooperation of many countries.
I will not be pressing my amendments. They are all similar to those put by Deputy G. Mitchell and I am satisfied with the Minister's response to them.
Since money is the root of all evil, especially where drugs are concerned——
I would not know anything about that.
I never had a problem in getting rid of my money.
If a lot of effort is being put into preventing drugs from coming into our country, all legally possible measures should be taken to ensure that a suitcase of money going to buy drugs abroad can be confiscated in advance. We are bringing in legislation which should make this possible. In the long run, drugs are sold for financial gain. If one can confiscate the money for buying these drugs in advance, one can prevent them from coming in and can also prevent a lot of misery. I hope that the Minister's review will see that the confiscation of drug money, which is vital, is properly addressed. We would be foolish to try to stop the importing of drugs if we did not deal with the money used to buy them.
I met a person last night who had driven across the borders of five European countries who, because of the new European Union, was not stopped. Money and drugs can travel freely across Europe with no check whatsoever. If people knew they could be stopped at the customs, it would make it more awkward for those who have no respect for human life who are prepared to sell drugs for profit.
The Minister assured the committee last week—she mentioned it again today — that there was close co-operation between the customs and the Garda. I know a person dealing with a report on drugs who was assured of this co-operation, but he found that in practice it did not seem to be half as efficient on the ground as it should have been. There should be the greatest co-operation possible between the customs and the Garda because we are dealing with criminals of the worst kind.
I am anxious that these powers are conferred on Customs and Excise personnel. Could the Minister give any indication in that regard? I understand when the Department of Justice consults with the Revenue Commissioners that people there will say that they are happy to await the review. That is not what I am hearing from front line people in Customs and Excise who are involved on a day to day basis. It is also inconsistent with what is happening in other jurisdictions. My first amendment is based on the British Drug Trafficking Offences Act, 1986, which seems to be reasonable. The problem is that if we allow this legislation to pass without conferring these powers on Customs and Excise officers, when will we get an opportunity again to amend this legislation? Will the Minister have concluded her review by Report Stage and will we be in a position to consider the matter further then? If that were the case I would be happy not to press may amendments. But if we will not get an opportunity to vote during this legislation on this matter and this is our only opportunity to do so, we should take it. It is reasonable that Customs and Excise officers, who are in the front line of the whole sorry business of importation and exportation, should have those powers. Regarding the time scale, will it be done in time for Report Stage of the Bill and will we be in a position to consider it further then?
I ask the Minister to elaborate further on the review she mentioned, particularly in the context of the EU and what is happening at that level in relation to this matter. It seems that the problem here is not so much a case of drug traffickers deciding to waltz through the blue channel at airports or ports in this country, perhaps from other EU member states, but rather a reverse process. By and large we have a relatively unprotected coastline. Taking the stretch of coast from Rosslare to Shannon, it is estimated that there are approximately 1,000 points of entry, many of which would be suitable for landing drugs or whatever. It is no accident that major drugs hauls have been found off the south coast. The concern is that Ireland would be the point of entry to the EU for substantial drug trafficking.
It is no secret either that though the Naval Service is fine, the extent to which it patrols the coastline is limited because of its lack of vessels and so on. It is not just in relation to the seizure of Spanish fishing vessels that this problem exists. We have a substantial amount of unprotected coastline. I do not know if there are plans to enhance the capacity of the Naval Service to patrol the coastline, but one matter which needs to be examined is the extent to which there is an EU involvement in the policing. I ask the Minister to comment on this, particularly given that EU internal barriers are down and there is the problem of an unprotected coastline. I know some initiatives have been taken at EU level, but it is important to see where those initiatives tie into the review the Minister mentioned.
I support Deputy Mitchell's amendment. Deputy Gilmore referred to the coastline and there is no coastline more rugged than that of County Donegal. Having listened to the debate, I ask who has the most knowledge of movements around the coast of County Donegal, the Garda Síochána or Customs and Excise officials? I was born and grew up within 100 yards of Lifford customs station. During my lifetime I have known people from all over the country who have worked there as customs officers. It always amazes me, and local people, how expertly customs officers get to know things that members of the Garda might not get to know. It would be a major disadvantage for customs officers in their fight against drugs if they did not have the same powers as the Garda Síochána and the Minister recognises that.
If we are serious about fighting drugs, then we should not differentiate between the people who are battling against it — as Deputy Mitchell said, those on the front line — such as the Garda Drugs Squad and the customs officers. I would put them all on the front line and wish them good luck, because nothing threatens modern society as much as drugs. What has happened on the southern coast could happen on the northern coast, given the coastline of County Donegal, with all its little harbours, and the movement that could take place if people wanted to use it. Customs officers in County Donegal, or in any other part of the country, should not be put at a disadvantage compared to the Garda because they complement each other in their operations, such as the exchange of information. I presume that information the Garda in County Donegal have would be available to the customs officers operating there and vice versa. They are working in tandem, as a united front, and I appeal to the Minister to give to customs officers the same powers that the Garda have.
I am a little surprised that this is receiving so much debate. As the Minister already outlined, she went into great detail when this matter was referred to last week. She openly and wholeheartedly agreed that the maximum cooperation between the relevant authorities should take place. She indicated that a review is underway by one of the senior officers in the Department and that whatever necessary legislative steps should be taken when she receives that report will be taken. I thought it was quite clear, given that the Minister stated it last week. Perhaps the Minister could clarify when the review is likely to come before her; and, if steps are necessary, would they be by regulation under ministerial order or would new legislation be required which would come back before the committee? I ask the Minister to clarify that point.
In relation to Ireland as an island nation and our coastline, most of us recognise that it is a physical impossibility task to police it. If anybody thinks it is possible, I would like to hear how it could be done. I believe we do a good job under present circumstances, given our geographic design and the attention various Departments address to coastal protection. It is important to recognise that it is a difficult task.
As I understand, Customs and Excise officials have greater authority than gardaí. They can go anywhere; they are not confined to a particular post. They can stop anyone anywhere on a road, along the coast, etc. I imagine the work of the Customs and Excise will be extended along the coastline. It will be able to hit any spot at any time. If they see a ship unloading anything they will be able to get close to it without being seen.
People will be encouraged to be vigilant if they see something and bring it to the attention of the Customs and Excise. It is important that there are sufficient numbers for people to telephone, although we do not want Customs and Excise officials to be decoyed from other areas. I do not understand what Deputy Harte was talking about in relation to the Customs and Excise. He did not seem to estimate fully the powers of Customs and Excise officials to stop anyone anywhere without a warrant. The Chair has allowed the debate to become more general and perhaps the Minister might comment on this.
We are touching on the question of the co-ordination of efforts against drug smuggling and money laundering at every level, including ministerial and agency levels. In that context, we must address the question of the powers available to the different agencies. I support the proposal to include the Customs and Excise in this Bill and to extend the necessary powers to it.
If we are to get to grips with the problem there must be co-ordination at every level. Starting at the top, there must be co-ordination at ministerial level between the Minister for Justice who is responsible for the Garda Síochána, the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for the Customs and Excise and the Revenue Commissioners, and the Minister for Defence who is responsible for the Navy. Following on that, we must ensure these agencies have the necessary powers to cope with the situation.
A perfect solution would be for local gardaí to make an arrest in circumstances which would be appropriate to the Garda Síochána, but what happens if a garda is not available? That question must be addressed when talking about the type of sophisticated criminals referred to in this Bill. The Minister for Justice must address the question of the type of powers available to agencies other than the Garda Síochána. I want the Garda Síochána to have maximum powers, but this Bill provides us with an opportunity to talk about the powers which should be available to other State services.
With respect, the Minister has a responsibility to spearhead the attack on drug smugglers and money launderers. Part of the problem is—I know this from my experience in Government — that the Minister's instructions come from her Department and from the agencies she is responsible for. When I raised the issue of a drugs find in my area, the south-west which is, in my view, the gateway for smugglers to Ireland and Europe, the Minister for Finance dealt with my query on the Adjournment because the find in question had been traced by Customs and Excise officers. The briefing which he had came from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. That type of limited approach also applies here.
It is necessary for the Minister for Justice to take a broad view while taking into account the need for proper powers and resources for other State services in the fight against crime. That involves not only the Customs and Excise; I also raised the question of the Naval Service. It is an issue which has been raised lately and one which we will possibly hear more about because the Naval Service has the power to arrest boats suspected of bringing drugs to our shores. A major query has been raised in that regard, but I do not want to prejudge court decisions which may or may not be made in the future. I understand this issue will be addressed by the courts, if there is any doubt. The Naval Service should have these powers. The same issue arises in relation to the Customs and Excise. If it does not have sufficient powers in relation to drug smuggling or money laundering, we must ensure it gets them. We are talking about an overstretched service and small numbers. In my area of west Cork, two Customs and Excise officers based in Bantry with one official car deal with drugs smuggling. They cover the coastline from somewhere east of Clonakilty to County Kerry. Another two officers cover the coastline from there to County Limerick. That shows the extent to which the Customs and Excise service is overstretched.
We now come to the nub of this amendment. As legislators and, I hope the Minister sees it as her responsibility, we must raise the issue of the need for proper powers and resources for the services involved in the fight against drug smuggling and money laundering. A major point which has been touched on by these amendments is the need for greater powers for the Customs and Excise. This does not take from our respect for the work of the Garda Síochána. It is my view, and I am sure it is that of my colleagues, that the Garda Síochána and the Customs and Excise have a joint job in relation to drug smuggling and money laundering. From that point of view, a narrow approach should not be taken. The committee needs to focus on that.
I would like to mention difficulties faced by people in that situation. As I said, two officers deal with drug smuggling in my constituency. I will give an example of the type of problem they face. Last August the officers boarded a boat in Castletownshend which they suspected was involved in drug smuggling. They did not have the facilities to get to the boat which was not conveniently located along the pier, but rather moored in the harbour. They borrowed a punt to go out to investigate the yacht in question. They were aware that the person responsible for it had an association with drugs. Nearing the yacht they found the punt was taking in water and it almost sank. They just made it to the yacht. They then carried out their duty of investigating and interrogating the suspect. To crown it all — this is the Keystone Cops part of it — they had to beg the suspect to row them ashore. This kind of approach will not do from the point of view of resources for the agencies involved. Their lack of powers to deal with drug smuggling and money laundering is also unsatisfactory. A strong case has been made and it is up to us to emphasise this to the Minister. I hope she will respond in a way which is open and will involve her looking at the issue not just from the narrow perspective of her own Department.
I am sure Deputy Mitchell is as sorry as I am that Deputy O'Keeffe was not here last week because it is now necessary for me to repeat what I said then. I express my sorrow to the committee that I have to do this because I said at the beginning that I would not do so.
The Minister may not be aware that last week a meeting of the Northern Ireland sub-committee of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs was scheduled for the same time as a meeting of this committee. I was chairman of that sub-committee and, therefore, could not attend the meeting of this committee.
I said last week that when I became Minister for Justice concern was expressed within the Department that co-operation in relation to drug trafficking and drug related offences was not as it should be at ground and operational level. This was most evident in the south-west. I went to Ballinskelligs early last year. Two weeks ago I visited Haulbowline. When I came back from Ballinskelligs I decided it was necessary to do exactly what Deputy O'Keeffe is concerned should be done, that is, to broaden the view of the Department of Justice and to review at the highest level the three agencies involved. As I said earlier, we seem to be concentrating only on the Garda and Customs and Excise. The Naval Service is an important third agency. There was a feeling that co-operation was not at as high a level as it should be.
This review is being carried out by an assistant secretary in my Department. It has involved the Garda at the highest level, the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and senior officers in the Naval Service. It is considering how the highest possible level of co-operation, which exists at the top level of management, can be transmitted to middle management and those involved in day to day operations.
Deputy Mitchell asked when would we have an opportunity to amend this legislation and when would the review be completed. I hope the findings of the review will be presented to me within two weeks. I cannot give him a commitment that before we complete this Bill in the Dáil I would have an opportunity, having received the review, to make decisions in relation to its recommendations and have them incorporated in the Bill at that stage. However, there may well be an opportunity before the Bill goes through all Stages in the Seanad for this to happen. This will depend on how the Bill is scheduled to appear before the Seanad. If this is not possible — I hope it will be and will work towards it being appropriate to have amendments to this Bill because it would be the appropriate place to have them — another Miscellaneous Provisions Bill will be introduced in the near future and it will be possible at that stage to table amendments. As Deputy Mitchell knows, last year we added amendments to a number of other Bills.
I have answered the question raised by Deputy Mitchell by saying there will be a review which will be as comprehensive as possible and involve not only the Department of Justice but also the other two agencies involved. It is taking a cool look at the present situation, the methods by which it can be improved and whether it is necessary to do this by legislation or otherwise. From past experience as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Keeffe is aware of the high degree of co-operation he received from my Department during a certain critical and sensitive time. He can be assured this level of co-operation exists and will continue with the two other agencies involved.
The Revenue Commissioners have been involved at all times during the course of this Bill. As a result of the three page document which was issued by some Customs and Excise officials, we discussed with the Revenue Commissioners whether they felt the proposals in the Bill were necessary. They gave a clear indication they would prefer to wait until the review was completed because it included all the agencies and would deal with the issue comprehensively. As of now they did not think it was necessary to change the legislation but were prepared to accept amendments if these were recommended to the Minister in the review's findings. The officials on my left and right could be offered as witnesses to the fact that they give advice, not instructions, to the Minister.
I am reluctant not to press these amendments if we are unable to obtain the details before Report Stage. I may have to press the amendments. I would be happy not to do so if I thought we would see this report before Report Stage. If this is not possible I hope the Minister will publish it so that we will see the outcome of the consultations.
Deputy Callely asked how we could tackle this problem. Under Article J4 of the Maastricht Treaty, European Union security and defence will be considered during 1996 when Ireland will again hold the Presidency of the EU. Given the state of flux of the security situation in Europe, with many countries seeking an association with NATO, it seems to me there will be rearrangements of security considerations within the EU. We are inclined to put a great deal of emphasis on defence rather than on security. Would there be any harm in advocating the establishment of a European coastguard which would take on the role of defending our coastline against the massive importation of drugs? This could be considered in response to the question raised by Deputy Callely.
It is time such proposals were considered because there is a great deal of drug traffiking in the world. There is now evidence that the Columbian drug cartel, which is one of the greatest and best organised cartels, is moving from cocaine to heroin. God help us if it is. They have already established routes for their products. This is a lethal drug. Would it be possible for the Minister to bring forward the timing of the completion of her review? If not, would she publish its findings?
I have not considered publication but will consider it following the points made by Deputy Mitchell. There may be sensitive issues for the three organisations, or for two of them, and they may be unhappy if these were published. I would prefer to publish the findings of the review so that they would be in the open. I do not like to hide anything. However, having said that, it is a sensitive issue and I will have to look at it very carefully. I hope to have the review in two weeks. I think Deputy Mitchell would accept I need this period to consider it comprehensively. The review will be comprehensive and will need to be considered by the law division of my Department, the Office of the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman if there are legislative recommendations in it. Therefore, I cannot give a commitment, quite honestly, that I would have all of that done before Report Stage in the Dáil. It depends, of course, on how the Bill is scheduled for Report Stage in the Dáil. It may be possible to get to it. I hope to have it in place by the time the Bill goes to the Seanad and that it would be possible at that stage to put in any amendments recommended by the review. I am trying to be as helpful as I can and that is as far as I can go at this stage.
I realise the sensitivities which might be contained in the report but if there are no such sensitivities involved for the Minister when the report is made available to her office, I suggest that she might consider making it available to this committee for discussion. It may be possible for her to bring in legislation immediately on the basis of her detailed consideration of the report.
Much of today's debate has been a repetition of what was said last week, which is why I did not contribute earlier. However, I appreciate that there is deep concern in relation to this area and much interest about what the report might find. There is concern because a certain minority group within one service appears to be pushing a particular agenda, which it may be correct in doing and its case may be quite valid. However, given that there is a call for the publication of the report I would welcome, if it is possible, an opportunity for this committee to debate the report.
I am sorry if I misled the committee when I said "sensitivity". I was not referring to sensitivity for me, there would not be any sensitivity in it for me, but there may be sensitivity in it for one or maybe two of the agencies involved. I would not like to do anything which might add to any perceived difficulties which might exist there. Having said that, I repeat that I am always in favour of publishing reviews and reports undertaken by Departments because then the contents are out in the open for discussion by everybody, not just Members of this committee. Taking the sensitivities into consideration, my personal preference would be for it to be published if at all possible.
To take up the point made by Deputy Mitchell in relation to the European approach to this problem, I have always been of the view, and have expressed it consistently, that in relation to both fishery protection and drug trafficking a small island such as ours cannot deal with an international problem. Even if the power are extended to the Naval we do not have the resources to provide it with the necessary ships and equipment to deal with this problem on its own.
I ask the Minister to initiate at European level a European approach to dealing with this problem. We should forget about boundaries when it comes to dealing with drug importation or whether it is a Spanish, Irish or Portuguese vessel which breaks our fishing laws. These are European laws and it is wrong to leave a small nation such as ours totally exposed to this consistent raiding, whether it is in the fisheries area or the drugs area, because we do not have the resources. Ireland is a small island with a couple of ships and has in the region of 16 per cent of European waters to patrol. Unless there is a combined European approach to this problem with, if necessary, a European coastguard, it will not be resolved in a satisfactory way. I know that everybody here is as interested as I am in ensuring that drugs do not get onto this island but the reality is that we do not have the resources to prevent that. Therefore, the Minister in conjunction with the review which is taking place between the various agencies would do us all a great favour if she used her own initiative to bring this to the European table and insist that there be a European approach to this and that the necessary resources be provided on a European basis.
I would like to ask Deputy Fitzgerald what he meant by small minorities in one group pushing their point of view. No minority in any group has been pushing its point of view to me. Does this muddy the waters? Is there an agenda here of which I am not aware?
I am not the Minister. All I am saying as a backbencher is that I am not aware of any national movement seeking major changes on this. Therefore, I made certain assumptions — perhaps my assumptions are completely groundless — and deductions on the basis of the absence of any overall submission to me as a Member of this committee. Perhaps I am totally wrong.
I take it that Deputy Fitzgerald is saying that he is not aware of any small minority in any one group pushing its point of view.
I suggest that Deputies confine their contributions to the amendment. I do not want cross-talk between Deputies.
Perhaps Deputy Harte will clarify this for me. It was my understanding before this meeting that certain Opposition spokespersons received submissions from small groups. On the basis of that understanding, naturally I drew the conclusion that since I did not get such a submission it was not made on an overall basis. In other words, the Revenue Commissioners did not make a general submission to all TDs as is customary in such circumstances where a lobby group sets out to convince all Members of the Dáil of the validity of its case. In this instance the lobby group, whoever it is or was, and maybe Deputy Harte or some of his colleagues might be able to enlighten us in that regard, was rather selective in its approach. Perhaps I might be seeking clarification from them.
I wish to reiterate that the points of view which I put before the committee are mine on the situation as I perceive it to be in County Donegal. At a meeting last week Deputy O'Donoghue from Kerry quoted almost verbatim from a report. If that is the report to which Deputy Fitzgerald is referring it was not confined to Opposition Deputies and the lobby which he is talking about is directed to all parties. I am not aware of the existence of any lobby on this. However, if there is a lobby, and I do not know from which side it is coming, it is in the interests of everybody concerned, no matter to which party they belong or whether they wear the uniform of a Garda officer or a customs officer— they are all dedicated people in the war against drugs — to support each other. If there is a loophole or a blank spot that should not be ignored. ? tabled by Deputy ? out in my constituency where there is a large customs location there is an anxiety that they are being excluded from this legislation. I do not know exactly what goes on in the Revenue Commissioners but there is a need for them to brief their staff about this legislation. Their personnel requested inclusion and the Minister in her review should consult with the staff on the ground if she believes that the Revenue Commissioners at headquarters want an exclusion. I do not think that is really the case. If she makes contact with these people she will find that a genuine effort is being made to have a unity of purpose especially with regard to drugs. There is a great necessity for that now in the south.
I would like to expand a little on the point briefly raised by Deputy Barrett. I fully support everything he said about encouraging our partners in Europe to recognise that the size of the Irish coastline necessitates extra funding for a coastguard. I would like to see this happen. It may well be called a European Union coastguard but it should be manned by our Naval Service because we know our own coastline. Funding should be made available for this because, as the Deputy mentioned, 16 per cent of the region is a substantial area to patrol. The issue must be examined, because unless the coastline is properly policed we will be unable to stop people bringing in supplies. These people make large profits and will not suffer greatly by losing some money. It is an area in which I would like to see the Minister taking some action.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. If she is not in a position to publish the document, I ask her to brief the committee or the Opposition spokespersons on its contents to at least enable us to discuss it again.
Yes, I would be prepared to do that.
In that case I will not press the amendment. I hope we will ? amendments again on Report Stage.
If the Minister is willing to come back to us before Report Stage with a deliberation and the outcome of the review, that would be satisfactory. If not, we can propose our amendments again. I will not be pressing my amendment.
Is there any potential within Europol to examine the question to which Deputy Mitchell, Deputy Barrett, Deputy Briscoe and others were referring? We have already joined Europol and a number of us spoke during the debate on that. Could the Minister examine the potential for the co-ordination of measures such as are proposed by the Deputies?
Would it be possible to have Deputy Briscoe brief us on this next July?
We were contemplating Euronaval.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 18b:
In page 26, before sction 28, to insert the following new section:
"29.—Notwithstanding anything contained in legislation allowing a tax amnesty any money or assets found to have arisen as a result of, or in connection with, money laundering activities as defined in this Act shall be specifically outside of the provisions of any tax amnesty legislation or regulations.".
The recent tax amnesty was originally intended to encourage people with large amounts of so called hot money outside the country to repatriate the money and pay a penalty of 15 per cent to the Revenue Commissioners in lieu of any taxes due on that money. I do not want to reopen the debate on the tax amnesty because that is not a matter for this committee. However, if it is found that money so repatriated is drug money which was laundered and held abroad, I do not believe any person should be allowed to bring that money into the legitimate business system by simply paying a dividend of 15 per cent to the State. The State should not be prohibited from pursuing the balance of that money and everything possible should be done to discover and seize it.
This legislation empowers the courts to require banks and financial institutions to offer advice and assistance to prevent money laundering where they suspect it is taking place. It may be possible that the bank would at some time in the future discover a person who has been making large movements of money who would come under the suspicion of the Garda Síochána and be investigated. That person may offer as a defence the fact that he or she has already declared this income and come to a settlement with the Revenue Commissioners at the rate of 15 per cent under a tax amnesty. If the Revenue Commissioners under the law as passed are prohibited from pursuing the matter further, any information they have may be privileged and therefore inadmissible as evidence in court. That is not desirable.
It is essential that if it is suspected that repatriated money was derived from drugs, money laundering or other criminal proceeds, this legislation should specifically provide that such money is outside the provisions of any other legislation. I move this amendment in the hope that the committee will support its contents.
This is an interesting amendment and I look forward to the Minister's response. The Minister confirmed when I asked her earlier that this legislation does apply to revenue offences. This seems to conflict with the immunity and confidentiality that was part of the recent tax amnesty.
With regard to the general application of the Act, the banks will want to keep at arm's length from the Revenue because traditionally they have a different culture. The Revenue Commissioners are well placed to look into people's lifestyles, report back and take action on the basis of their considerations of those lifestyles. On the other hand, the banks have developed in Ireland and other jurisdictions on the basis that mum is the word.
The area of "other criminal activity" in this Act, which has been explained by the Minister to include revenue offences, needs to be clarified. This amendment is useful for that purpose because it does pin it down. The amendment deserves a comprehensive response from the Minister because it does have an impact on the tax amnesty as it has operated and it has been very bountiful.
It goes without saying that I would be concerned if a person involved in money laundering could escape the effects of section 27 and other provisions of the Bill by virtue of a tax amnesty. My Department has obtained clarification on this point from the Department of Finance and I can inform both Deputies that because of the way in which tax amnesties have been established and operated the situation provided for in this amendment will not arise.
The issue of money laundering was raised by a number of Deputies during the debate on the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993. Members of this committee will recall that that legislation was discussed in detail in the Houses of the Oireachtas and, like Deputy Mitchell, I do not propose to undertake any general examination of it here. I draw the attention of the committee to section 2 (3) (a) (iv) and section 4 of the 1993 Act. The first provision required a person who applied for an amnesty to give a declaration in writing that none of the money in respect of which amnesty was sought
arose from, or by reason of, an unlawful source or activity (other than the evasion of tax or the non-compliance with the provisions relating to exchange control).
Section 4 removed any protection from prosecution conferred by the 1993 Act from persons who made false declarations under section 2 (3) (a). The combined effect of the provisions to which I have referred would make it impossible for any person who was involved in money laundering to rely on that tax amnesty in order to circumvent the present Bill. I listened very carefully to what Deputy Mitchell said and I share his concerns and, indeed, those of other members of the committee, including Deputy O'Donnell. I am anxious to make it even clearer in this legislation that nobody who puts their affairs in order in a tax amnesty is exempt from the provisions of this legislation. In order to make that clearer if it is necessary to do so — the Department of Finance say it is not — I will talk to the parliamentary draftsman in relation to whether the effect of the amendment put forward by Deputy Mitchell should be put into the legislation on Report Stage.
I am happy with that. It is important, because often people who have laundered money are trying to find a way to bring it into the system, trying to find an explanation for the existence of that money. If they simply pay a 15 per cent dividend by way of tax amnesty and they can for all time then explain away their possession of such money it allows them a very smooth way to bring money on board. I realise that the Minister said that under sections 2 and 4 of the 1993 Act it may be possible to set aside any provisions because people are required to make a declaration. Of course it would not be beyond the powers of any criminal to make such a declaration or get an agent to make such a declaration on his or her behalf. It is necessary to look at this whole question and to ensure that it is tied down. I am happy that the Minister will look at it and talk to the draftsman between now and Report Stage and in those circumstances I will not press the amendment.
Has the Minister to hand what the penalties are for a false declaration under the other Act? It may be necessary to change the penalties for money laundering involving drugs and that is where it should come into this legislation.
Where the amount of the specified difference is less than £5,000 a fine not exceeding 25 per cent of the amount is imposed; where the amount is equal to or greater than £5,000 but less than £10,000 to a fine not exceeding 50 per cent is imposed. Of course, these provisions go on to specify a term of imprisonment or both. Where it is equal to or greater than £10,000, but less than £25,000 to a fine not exceeding the amount of the specified difference is imposed and a term of imprisonment not exceeding four years or both can be imposed, and it goes on up to £100,000 and then over £100,000. The penalties for making a false declaration appear to be fairly draconian but as I said, to make sure that the case Deputy Mitchell is making is covered, I will ask the parliamentary draftsman to have another look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 26, subsection (1) (a), line 45, after "or" to insert "authorised".
This is a simple amendment and Deputy Mitchell has a similar one. Perhaps he would like to speak to this amendment.
We are proposing to add in section 28, line 45, after the word "or" the word "authorise" so that it would now read: "This section shall apply to the following persons or bodies (referred to in this section as "designated bodies"), namely a body licensed to carry on banking business under the Central Bank Act, 1971 or authorised under regulations made under the European Communities Act 1972". It is purely a technical amendment.
It is purely, as Deputy Mitchell says, a technical amendment and it relates also to an issue that was raised by the banker's federation. We are talking to them, as the Deputy knows, but because the amendment involves a technical banking matter I wish to consult the Minister for Finance and quite honestly I have not had an opportunity of doing that. I will do so and if what Deputy Mitchell and Deputy O'Donnell are proposing is necessary I will bring an amendment in on that basis on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 27, subsection (1) (k), line 20, to delete "and" and substitute the following:
"(1) a person providing foreign exchange services, and".
This seeks to include and embrace the bureau de change foreign exchange services into the list of designated bodies in section 28 and it is yet another proposal put forward by the bankers’ federation. I will leave it to the Minister to respond.
It seems that from the submission made by the bankers' federation that the bureau de change may be outside the terms of this section and it is simply a question of trying to ensure that designated bodies as defined is drawn widely enough and that bureau de changeor persons providing foreign exchange services are not outside the provisions. It is a technical amendment and I do not want to delay on it.
Again, it is one of these technical amendments and in principal I have no difficulty accepting it. I need to include one word in it, Chairman. If I can propose an amendment to the amendment that is down here, could the committee accept that?
Of course.
"If it read: "a person providing foreign currency exchange services", I could accept it.
That is agreed, Chairman.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 27, subsection (2), lines 33 to 35, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) otherwise where it suspects that a transaction is connected with the commission of an offence under section 27 of this Act.".
This amendment is in my name and in that of Deputy Mitchell.
Section 27 deals with money laundering and we are proposing to include in page 27, between lines 33 and 35, a subsection (2) which would read: "otherwise it suspects that a transaction is connected with the commission of an offence under section 27 of this Act". This is purely a technical amendment to ensure that the section which deals with money laundering is as widely drawn as possible. If I recollect properly, this proposal was put forward by the bankers' federation in a briefing document.
I have a problem with this similar to the problem I had with the last one. My main concern is that it refers to a transaction rather than to a service. If Deputies O'Donnell and Mitchell are prepared to change the world "transaction" to the word "service" then I could accept the amendment. It may be necessary, following discussions with the bankers' federation, to amend that again, but at the moment I am prepared to accept it if we change the word "transaction" to "service". For example, the provision of financial advice to a client by a bank or another body which would constitute a service might not be regarded as a transaction as such. That is the difficulty with the word "transaction".
Is that agreed?
Yes.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 29, subsection (9), between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(c) following consultation with the Minister for Finance, prescribe states or countries for the purposes of subsection (5) of this section,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 29, subsection (9), between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"(d) prescribe examples of documents, or other means of identification, which, either generally or in relation to a specified designated body or a category of designated bodies, and either generally or in relation to a specified service or a specified category of services or in relation to a specified transaction or a specified category of transactions, would constitute sufficient establishment of identity for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section,
(e) prescribe offences for the purpose of the definition of ‘criminal activity' under subsection (12) of section 27 of this Act.".
On page 9, in subsection (9) we are proposing to introduce a further amendment. This deals with the whole question of measures to be taken which would include the words as set out in the amendent, "prescribe examples of documents, or other means of identification." This is an attempt to draw the section more widely so that the law might cover the whole area. Paragraph (e) of the section should include the words "prescribe offences for the purposes of the definition of ‘criminal activity' under subsection (12) of section 27 of this Act.". This is the correct wording if the amendment is accepted. It is a technical matter to try to broaden the scope of the section.
I cannot be as helpful about this amendment as I was about the other amendments. I hope the Deputies will appreciate that I need to wait until Report Stage before making a final decision.
I appreciate the thinking behind paragraph (d) of the amendment, but I am not sure it is necessary to prescribe documents which would constitute sufficient means of identification for the purpose of section 28 (2). I accept what the Deputies have in mind that these prescribed documents should not constitute the only means of proving identity. However, one of my main concerns in this area is that if certain documents were prescribed, banks and other institutions would insist that they be produced for identification purposes. This could cause problems for people who might have other means of identification but might find it difficult to provide or produce a prescribed document when, for example, applying to open a new bank account.
I have some doubts about the wisdom of providing that a document such as a passport would satisfy the requirements of section 28 (2). While a passport would undoubtedly establish the identity of a person, it would not necessarily include the current address of that individual. The Irish Bankers' Federation has sought a change in the Bill along the lines of paragraph (d) of this amendment. As I said already, officials from my Department are meeting the Irish Bankers' Federation to discuss these issues and the problems they have with the legislation. As a result, I would prefer to wait until those discussions have taken place and we have an opportunity to reflect on them. We would then be able to say on Report Stage that it is necessary to do this or that, there is a different way to do it, or that I can accept the Deputies' suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Question proposed: "That section 28, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On section 28 (6) (a), why is the question of premiums paid and life asurance policies in any 12 month period specifically included?
The purpose of the subsection is to save life assurance businesses the task of carrying out special identity checks in cases where it is most unlikely that money laundering is taking place. I understand we must comply with the European directive in this part of the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.