Vol. 625 No. 2
5 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the decision he has made regarding the rights of citizens from Bulgaria and Romania to freely travel here to work upon succession of those countries to the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32162/06]
The European Commission report of 26 September 2006 stated that Bulgaria and Romania will be in a position to join the EU on 1 January 2007, as long as they address a number of outstanding issues. The European Council of Foreign Ministers will decide at its meeting on 16 October whether accession should go ahead on 1 January 2007. The treaties of accession provide for the following transitional arrangements. During phase 1, in 2007-08, member states may liberalise access to their labour markets or continue to require nationals of Bulgaria and Romania to hold employment permits. Member states must notify the Commission before the end of 2008 of whether they plan to continue the restrictions for a further three years during phase 2. During phase 3, in 2012-13, the transitional measures which restrict access should, in principle, cease to be applied. However, in the case of a serious disturbance to its labour market or a threat thereof, a member state may continue to apply restrictions for a further two years.
The Government will make a decision on access to the Irish labour market of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals before the accession date, following consultations with the social partners. Contacts with the United Kingdom authorities have continued in recent weeks at prime ministerial and official levels. The Employment Permits Act 2006, which was signed by the President in June, provides the legal basis for three options. Nationals of Bulgaria and Romania who wish to participate in the Irish labour market during the first two years of transition will continue to require work permits with the current requirement for a labour market test to establish that the positions cannot be filled from within the European economic area or will be granted work permits on foot of a job offer without a labour market test, or will be allowed to participate without any requirement for a work permit.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Fine Gael believes that the Irish labour market should not be opened to Bulgarian and Romanian nationals on 1 January next. In advance of the accession of the two countries, the Government should announce details of the transitional arrangements to be put in place for Bulgarian and Romanian citizens and restrict their access to the Irish labour market. Will the Minister elaborate on the discussions he has had with the UK authorities? Has he consulted any other EU member states? What impact will their decisions have on the decision that will be taken here?
We are examining this issue in the context of what has happened in recent years. That Ireland has, since May 2004, experienced the most rapid inward migration of any of the 25 EU member states will inform our deliberations on the matter. We undertook in the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, to consult the social partners. The Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has written to ICTU and IBEC in fulfilment of that commitment and he is awaiting a response from those organisations. We have been in contact at official level with the UK authorities, who are actively considering this issue. We are assessing a number of issues. We are taking a conservative approach not only to our assessment of Ireland's current labour market situation but also to our analysis of the key challenge of integration. We regard social integration as a fundamental priority objective. In light of the significant inward migration we have experienced, all sectors of society, including all Departments and State agencies, are charged with ensuring that they provide for the fullest and most effective degree of integration. Training and education are related issues which are critical to integration.
It is estimated that approximately 260,000 personal public service numbers have been issued since May 2004. It is estimated that approximately 177,000 people to whom those numbers were issued have taken up employment. Some of the personal public service numbers were issued to students, people on short-term and seasonal contracts and people with more established forms of employment. The Central Statistics Office estimates that approximately 80,000 nationals or citizens of accession states are currently in employment in Ireland.
Will the Minister repeat that?
Some 80,000 people from the accession states are currently working here, according to CSO estimates. While the capture of data relating to people coming here is quite good, as a result of the issuing of PPS numbers, some work remains to be done to create a more accurate database of information about people on the way out. Ireland is now the fourth most favoured destination for Polish citizens, after the United States, the UK and Germany. It is obvious that there are high levels of unemployment in Poland.
Some 1,840 work permits were issued to Romanian nationals in 2005. Just 250 of those work permits were new permits. Some 570 work permits were issued to Bulgarian nationals in 2005, of which 50 were new permits. The unemployment rate in Romania is 17% and the unemployment rate in Bulgaria is 11%.
The Minister is probably aware of the Small Firms Association's recent statement, with which Fine Gael is in agreement. The association argued that we need to consider the establishment of a State-subsidised English language instruction course to assist people who have come to this country to work but are not accustomed to the English language. Difficulties in understanding English seem to represent a significant barrier to employment in this country at present. We are all aware, having heard advertisements on local radio, for example, that English is now a critical requirement. Many foreign nationals are availing of VEC English language classes which are normally offered to people with literacy difficulties. Does the Government plan to put in place a scheme, part-funded by employers and the State, whereby English language courses would be offered to people coming to this country to help them to develop basic communication skills?
I was somewhat surprised by the recent development referred to by the Deputy. We need to be careful about language. The number of people in employment increased by 88,000 in 2005, which does not suggest that substantial barriers are preventing people from getting employment.
A lack of English is a significant barrier to social integration.
I am talking about barriers to employment. There was a need to facilitate integration and English language training is part of that. We fund a variety of employer and industry-led initiatives through the in-company training programme, the Skillsnet programme and the Accel programme. The various sectors may make proposals relating to, perhaps, the Skillsnet issue.
Have they made any proposals?
FÁS is actively providing training for foreign workers in this country. There are obligations on the employers to facilitate the proper integration of employees and many are fulfilling them. In terms of small and medium enterprises, SMEs, there are issues relating to economies of scale and capacity. A variety of schemes is available to companies if they wish to work with us. We will be responsive, as will FÁS.
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will report on the status of the proposed services directive; if this matter has been raised at a European Council of Ministers meeting since the European Parliament vote earlier in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32166/06]
Subsequent to the European Parliament's vote last February, the Competitiveness Council adopted a Common Position on the draft directive on services in the Internal Market at its meeting on 24 July. The text was adopted as an A item at the council with only two member states abstaining. It was supported by Ireland. This followed intensive discussions on the proposal at the Competitiveness Council on 29 May at which political agreement was reached.
The Common Position was substantially based on the compromise text that was brokered by the European Parliament on 16 February 2006 and carried through in the amended Commission proposal of 4 April. The Commission's amended proposal was supported by Ireland although we secured some technical amendments in areas of concern to us.
Ireland would have preferred a more ambitious proposal, in particular the inclusion of temporary employment agencies in the scope of the proposal. There are about 90 agencies involved in this important sector in Ireland with an annual turnover of €1.3 billion. There is a worldwide shortage of skilled people in the aviation industry as well as in the medical, financial and IT industries and the recruitment industry finds them.
Ireland is the largest provider of personnel to the aviation industry worldwide but much of the business is done outside the EU because of barriers to trade within it. This effectively means that skilled personnel that the EU needs to improve its competitiveness are frequently placed in third countries rather than the EU because of the difficulties the recruitment industry has in operating in the Internal Market.
Total employment in the Irish services sector is approximately 1.3 million, compared with 912,000 in 1997. Forfás estimated that the original Commission proposal would have benefited Ireland to the tune of about €400 million annually. The indications are that the amended proposal would be worth about half that to Ireland. The enterprise policy group report, the O'Driscoll report, identified the services sector as having significant potential for development in a freed-up Internal Market. While traditional industries have been under pressure it should be noted that in the last five or six years 440,000 jobs have been created in the services sector and 150,000 in high end manufacturing. These figures come from Forfás following research on manufacturing and internationally traded services.
The current status of the draft directive is that it is undergoing a Second Reading in the European Parliament.
Ireland is becoming a service economy, rather than a manufacturing or primary produce economy. What steps are the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the agencies under that Department taking to alert small and medium sized Irish companies to the potential benefits of utilising the provisions of the draft directive? This directive is now essentially a done deal and I am told it will be completed by the end of this year. Will the Minister indicate when it is proposed to come into effect? Now that we know the shape of the directive, what communication has been given to the Irish services sector to maximise the potential that it will have?
Our major thrust in terms of developing enterprise in indigenous enterprise and SMEs has been to develop the services side of the equation, while supporting high end manufacturing underpinned by indigenous research and development within Irish manufacturing companies. There is a significant drive, on the services side, to inform companies of the opportunities worldwide, not just in the European market. We have made rapid progress and Ireland's share of worldwide services has increased to approximately 2.2% from about 0.5% in 1999.
Enterprise Ireland is promoting investment and development in the services sector in the client companies with which it deals. At a micro level the work of the Small Business Forum will inform some of the work of the county and city enterprise boards in terms of developing innovation. Some reports indicate that we are lacking productivity and competitiveness in the domestic services sector. We will try to achieve more innovation in this area through the implementation of aspects of the Small Business Forum's recommendations.
On the European Internal Market, we are not holding our breath in terms of the impact of the new services directive. We think it is a fairly neutered measure at best and its impact will not be fundamental. We will seek to exploit opportunities in the Internal Market. In the region of €200 million could be added, which is significant for SMEs, but our assessment is that it may not represent the Holy Grail that might have been originally suggested. Commissioner McCreevy felt it was important to implement a services directive to begin the journey to a more liberalised EU market. We have supported this outlook and will continue to provide supports in the form of trade missions, soft supports, mentoring supports and research and development supports to companies engaged in exploiting services markets worldwide.
I am surprised at the Minister's dismissal of the potential of the services directive beyond the €200 million mentioned, which is not a lot of money at one level. He mentioned that the focus was on the client companies of Enterprise Ireland, rather than those under the county enterprise boards which would be very small in terms of reaching beyond the county, let alone the country.
I am more concerned now, given the tone of the Minister's reply, than I was when I tabled this question. I sense that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is receiving advice that the services directive's potential has been neutered as far as Ireland is concerned and that it should not register high on the Minister's list of priorities. It seems that the suggestion is that a globalised market for Irish services emanating from this country is as attractive as the EU market, if not more so. Is this a fair interpretation of the Minister's viewpoint?
It is fair with the exception of the Deputy's suggestion that the services directive does not constitute a high priority. The development of services will always be a high priority as the employment return is huge and it is the direction in which most developed countries are headed. The Deputy is correct that the advice to me is that the services directive is not a huge step forward and this is also my assessment of it. I welcome the opportunity to approach this issue in a calm manner as I felt the debate got out of hand last year.
Ireland needs an informed debate on the positive and negative aspects of the liberalisation of world trade and the EU market. This must include discussion of the protection of fundamental labour laws and workers' rights while at the same time endeavouring to pave the way for our services companies. The issue must be examined from a macro point of view with consideration given to where the economy has gone in the past eight years.
Some of the barriers in Europe facing recruitment agencies are very real in terms of how some countries impose a variety of ——
Are these barriers in place at the moment or will they arise after the implementation of the services directive?
It remains to be seen whether the directive will break these barriers. Some countries impose conditions of establishment on Irish companies that would be anxious to establish bases in other EU countries and require them to deposit substantial sums of money. I am sure those companies would be willing to speak to the Deputy and other Members. They have found the current position quite prohibitive and regard it as a barrier to establishing in other EU countries. I am willing to work as enthusiastically and proactively as I can to honour the spirit of the directive but it remains to be seen whether it will realise its potential.
7 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment his plans to bring corporate manslaughter legislation, based on the proposal made by the Law Reform Commission, before the Houses of the Oireachtas in view of the fact that there were 73 workplace fatalities in 2005 and 42 to date in 2006. [32165/06]
The issue of corporate manslaughter was considered while drafting the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill, which ultimately became the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. The Attorney General was of the opinion that there were much broader issues to be considered than those of safety, health and welfare at work. Legislating in the relatively confined area of occupational safety and health would have omitted other sectors in which corporate manslaughter could be committed. It was therefore decided it was inappropriate to deal with the issue of corporate killing in legislation pertaining to occupational safety, health and welfare and the regulation thereof.
The Law Reform Commission accepted the view of the Office of the Attorney General that the scope of the 2005 Act was appropriately narrower than the scope of the legislation it recommended to deal with the proposed offence. The commission also recommended that there should be individual statutory liability for managers who are culpable in the causation of death. Section 80 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 provides for directors, managers and other similar officers of an undertaking to be prosecuted before the courts for an offence that is attributable to connivance or neglect on their part.
The matter of consideration of the wider implementation of the recommendations in the report of the Law Reform Commission is one for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the context of his responsibility for the criminal law system.
Will the Minister of State consider a Bill that includes the Law Reform Commission's wording on corporate manslaughter? Does he object to its wording or to the concept of introducing legislation to deal with corporate manslaughter?
Is the Minister of State aware that 73 people died in the workplace last year and that 42 died in the workplace so far this year? There were only 40 prosecutions and only 94% of cases were successful, amounting to fines totalling €463,000 and to an average fine per prosecution of approximately €10,000. Does the Minister not accept that a wayward captain of industry or operator would consider a cost-benefit analysis in which he would weight the cost of replacing a faulty machine worth in excess of €100,000, for example, against the likely fine of €10,000 which would be awarded against him if he were caught? Such a fine is a pittance in comparison with the value of some of the operations in which workers lost their lives last year. In light of this, is it not extremely important that we move quickly to ensure a corporate manslaughter provision within the framework legislation of the State?
Deputy Morgan is correct regarding the fines this year. However, there have been much greater fines, including those issued last year. A fine in the order of €500,000 was issued in one case.
It is important to remember that the provisions of section 80 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 implements the second recommendation in the report of the Law Reform Commission. It covers the Deputy's requirements adequately in the context of safety, health and welfare at work. The Law Reform Commission accepts that the much wider responsibility pertaining to corporate manslaughter falls within the remit of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
We had a lengthy discussion on this subject, particularly during Committee Stage of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill 2005. Has the Minister of State had any contact with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this regard? Does he regard this as part of his role in strengthening the legislation, which clearly needs to be strengthened given the 42 deaths that have occurred in the workplace this year? Will such interdepartmental contact, if initiated, deal with corporate manslaughter legislation?
Section 80 of the 2005 Act deals more than adequately with what would be required in the context of safety, health and welfare at work. When the debate on the legislation took place in the House, the consultation paper of the Law Reform Commission was all that had been published. The legislation came into effect in September of last year whereas the report was not published until October. It is accepted that section 80 deals with the second major recommendation of the commission and that it is the only element relevant to my Department in terms of safety, health and welfare at work. The other matters that arise are clearly the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He is clearly aware of this and no doubt we will have ideas on how progress can be made.
8 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, further to Question No. 949 of 27 September 2006, the reason grant aid has not been returned to his Department; the steps being taken to recoup these funds; the further reason they have not been recovered to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32163/06]
This issue is a day-to-day operational matter for Enterprise Ireland and neither I, as Minister, nor my Department has any function in respect thereof. Enterprise Ireland has informed me that the issue relates to a fire that took place at a plant in Rooskey, County Roscommon, in May 2002. As a result of the fire, slaughtering and boning activities in the plant were terminated. A cannery operation survived and continues to employ more than 80 people.
The plant in Roosky received grant assistance from Enterprise Ireland. Consistent with the agency's grant liability policy, contingencies exist for a limited period after payment. In this case, most of the contingency period has expired.
I understand that discussions between Enterprise Ireland and the company on any outstanding liability are continuing and that the company has not returned any grant aid to the agency to date. I am advised that progress is being made in the negotiations, which involve complex legal issues, and that they are expected to conclude in the near future.
I tabled this question because in 2003 a sudden and inexplicable decision was made by Glanbia, which was then proceeding with the development in Roosky, to do a U-turn and invest instead in Edenderry and Roscrea. Concern was expressed at the time that influence was used to transfer the operation from Roosky. I raised this issue with the Minister's predecessor, the current Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, who made a commitment to a certain group that no influence would be used and that funding would not be used to transfer jobs from Roosky to Edenderry.
The Minister and his predecessor said the Government was examining the position on the recoupment of money in the context of the cannery operation and other developments at the Roosky site. In light of this, why is the Department saying it is now considering the issue not in the context of the cannery and the development of that site but in the context of the developments in Edenderry and Roscrea, which were not supposed to be grant-aided and for which no grant aid has been furnished to date because of the transfer of jobs from Roosky thereto?
My Department is not doing that or saying anything about it.
The Minister should look at his reply.
The agencies involved are statutory bodies and my Department is not involved.
They are accountable to the Minister.
Enterprise Ireland is the agency involved and my Department does not get involved in the day-to-day administration of grants or the return thereof. This is fundamentally a matter for the agency. The House has delegated this authority to it and the other industrial development agencies. We cannot delegate authority to the agencies while at the same time running their day-to-day operations. I do not mean that in a derogatory way but we frequently delegate authority and then try to haul it back when an issue of concern arises relating to a constituency or a particular issue. That said, I accept the Deputy's genuine commitment to and interest in securing further employment at the site in Roosky. I understand Enterprise Ireland is also very keen to add to the development in Roosky and some of the negotiations will take on board whatever can potentially be added to the site.
In previous replies reference was made to the significant progress on the pork development side, albeit not at the Roosky site but in Edenderry and Roscrea. It was stated that significant investment was made by the company concerned to increase employment in the latter locations. Neither the Deputy nor Enterprise Ireland can ignore this, bearing in mind that the Deputy's key focus is on the Roosky site. The situation in that regard is somewhat complex. There are issues which are somewhat fluid at the moment and the agency has assured me it is actively considering a range of options.
The reality is that there is a net loss of 150 jobs between the three sites, so jobs have not been created. Is it not the case that the Minister is answerable to the House for the actions of Enterprise Ireland and that €3.4 million has been handed over through his Department by the agency to Glanbia and its predecessors at the Roosky site? Do we not need to get answers as to why none of that money has been handed over to date, and what will be done with it as regards the development of the site in Roosky? Are there specific plans on the table to develop that project? There is some concern the money has been transferred to the amalgamation and the protection of the jobs in Edenderry and Roscrea is to the detriment of Roosky and that should not be used for that purpose.
The Deputy has the wrong take on this. We should never get to the stage of saying we are giving money to one side to the detriment of another. Grant money is not allocated on that basis. Enterprise Ireland or any agency would wisely work with all of the food companies in Ireland to add as much value as possible, within the jurisdiction. It will continually encourage companies to do added value projects within their portfolios and supports that. It would be wrong to suggest that because something happened in one side nothing should happen in any other. It does not mean——
I am not saying that.
——-a transfer of one to the other. It should not have to mean that. I am not at liberty to discuss ongoing fluid discussions that are under way between a number of interested parties as regards the Roosky site.
Are there discussions under way?
That is all I can say at this stage. We are very well aware of the need. All Members of the House, particularly Deputies in the constituency such as Deputy Finneran and Deputy Naughten, have raised this issue on an ongoing basis and are very keen to see development here. The fundamental point, however, is that whereas I am accountable for Enterprise Ireland, a global sum is allocated to the agency and the Department does not get involved in second guessing or validating every grant allocation it makes to client companies. We make inquiries following representations from Deputies, but we do not second guess every individual proposal. There are very good reasons why we do not and why the Oireachtas does not either — and why the Oireachtas has given the agency specific powers to discharge. There is a variety of other ways, through the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, the Committee of Public Accounts and so on, to pursue these issues as well. Enterprise Ireland is endeavouring a developmental approach to this issue to see what may done to create more jobs in the area.
9 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if there is an indication that the strong growth in company registrations indicated for the first half of 2006 is part of a trend of false contracting, whereby employees are being required to register as companies and be employed as contractors in order for their employer to avoid many regulations, costs and duties involved in employing these people; the actions the Government is taking to end the practice of false contracting; if a survey or analysis has been undertaken by a Department or agency to investigate this practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32167/06]
I share the Deputy's concern that individuals, whose status based on the application of the standard criteria may be more appropriate to that of an employee, may seek to register as self-employed in order to abdicate and avoid their rights and obligations under employment rights legislation. There are also, of course, tax and PRSI implications but these are matters for the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs respectively.
Irish employment rights law makes a distinction between a contract of service, which applies to an employer-employee relationship, and a contract for service that applies in the case of an independent subcontractor. In effect, employment rights legislation does not apply to independent subcontractors with the exception of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Equality Act 1998. In most cases it will be clear whether an individual is employed or self-employed. However, the individual's employment status may not be clear in all cases.
Where there is doubt in relation to the employment status of an individual the relevant Departments and agencies will have regard to the code of practice for determining the employment or self-employment status of individuals. This code was drawn up and agreed in 2001 by the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Business and Employers Federation. A number of criteria are set out in the code for determining whether an individual is an employee or self-employed. These include whether the person is under the control or direction of another, owns his or her own business, supplies labour only, receives a fixed wage, is exposed to financial risk, assumes responsibility for investment and management, supplies materials for the job, can subcontract the work, works set hours or a given number of hours per week, month etc.
The criteria set out in the code are applied by this Department in making a determination in cases where an individual claims he or she is self-employed rather than an employee and, therefore, not responsible for complying with certain employment rights legislation. In the case of difficulties in deciding on the appropriate status of an individual or group, the Revenue Commissioners or the scope section of the Department of Social and Family Affairs may, following consideration of all the relevant facts, issue a written decision as to the status in a particular case. Such a decision is generally accepted by other Departments and agencies provided all relevant facts were given at the time, the correct legal principles have been applied and the circumstances remain the same. However, consensus on employment status may not be possible in all cases given the differences between the legislation across the employment rights, taxation and social welfare areas and the differing responsibilities and focuses of the enforcement agencies.
A major package of measures has been agreed by the parties to Towards 2016, the new social partnership agreement, to provide for enhanced public confidence in the system of compliance. This new compliance model seeks, among other matters, to maximise the effectiveness of the substantially increased compliance effort. New legislation will be published next year to provide for enhanced employment rights measures including the establishment of the office of director for employment rights compliance. The application of employment rights legislation to employees and the self-employed will be examined in the context of drawing up that legislation. The proposed legislation will also empower the labour inspectorate to join with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners to work together in joint investigation units. Such units will have a particular focus on the employment status of workers.
Finally, I note the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, as part of its recently launched construction industry project, will be reviewing the tax status of contractors and, in particular, whether individuals currently designated as self-employed should be regarded as employees and subject to PAYE and PRSI. I welcome this initiative.
I welcome the Minister of State's comprehensive reply, but I am somewhat concerned about the complacency at the top of his response, where it is suggested these are matters for the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Revenue Commissioners. Yet he goes on to say that in Towards 2016, the social partners acting in a joined up way have recognised there is a need for co-operation between those two other actors as well as his own Department. Would he not recognise that given the increase in enhanced building activity and the shortage of available labour, along with anecdotal comments about the displacement of Irish workers by foreign nationals, that this abuse is continuing if not intensifying? The social partners have, in effect, recognised that a problem exists, having regard to the measures he has just outlined. In advance of the legislation next year, for which he probably will not have responsibility when he is on this side of the House, will the Minister of State initiate now on an interim basis exactly the type of co-operation that will be put on a statutory basis in 18 months time, since the problem is immediate?
Deputy Quinn may have misunderstood the distinction I drew between the roles of the various Departments. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners has responsibility for taxation matters as the Department of Social and Family Affairs has for PRSI matters. It is necessary in these instances to be clear as to who precisely has which responsibilities. In previous discussions in the House I indicated the intention of the Department to introduce legislation to empower the particular agencies and Department to co-operate in joint investigation units, which ultimately is the only manner in which this may successfully be implemented. All the evidence suggests that this is the case.
Of course, the Deputy is correct that the construction industry is particularly successful currently and is enjoying a period of growth, which undoubtedly will not continue if he is correct in his projection as regards the outcome of the general election. Nevertheless, there are issues here which are being dealt with in the most constructive manner possible. The Government is fully aware of the need to change the compliance model and intends to do that in conjunction with the social partners, in the context of Towards 2016.
May I take it that my request for co-operation on an interim basis in advance of the legislation is not being accepted by the Minister of State?
The strong advice we have received is that legislation is required in order for the joint investigation units to successfully prosecute in cases that are brought to their attention. It would be folly for the Department to embark on attempted prosecutions in circumstances where the legislative base was not sufficiently strong enough to sustain them in the courts.
