Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Oct 2014

Vol. 234 No. 13

Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, back to familiar territory. I invite her to begin her contribution.

I am pleased to be in the Chamber to present the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014, the primary purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008. The Act gives effect to 12 international agreements that establish the existing legislative framework for the provision of mutual legal assistance. The Bill is necessary in order to give effect to a further six international instruments not yet provided for in the Act, but which have been ratified by the Oireachtas and must be implemented before December.

At the outset, I should set out what mutual legal assistance means in practice. In simple terms, it enables a state to provide, within its own jurisdiction, a service to another state related to the administration of justice in the latter. The type of assistance may concern such matters as the investigation of serious international crime, including the gathering of evidence for use abroad, or the service of documents issued by a judicial authority. It may also involve the freezing or confiscation of proceeds of crime that have been trafficked across borders.

The first of the six agreements to which the Bill is giving effect is the 2005 Council framework decision on the mutual recognition of financial penalties. This instrument establishes the rules under which a member state recognises and executes in its territory a financial penalty order issued by a court competent in criminal matters of another member state. This agreement will, for example, allow fines imposed by courts in one member state to be collected in another member state where the person concerned resides or is a citizen. The agreement applies to fines imposed that exceed €70 in respect of any criminal matter, including road traffic offences. It would apply to any fine imposed that is appealable to a criminal court. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of the Council framework decision in accordance with our constitutional requirements on 26 November 2003.

The second agreement is the 2006 Council framework decision on the mutual recognition of confiscation orders. This instrument establishes the rules under which a member state recognises and executes in its territory a confiscation order issued by a court competent in criminal matters of another member state. These confiscation orders are used primarily to recover proceeds of crime that have been trafficked from one state to another. They can be used to recover stolen objects or to seize financial criminal assets. Ireland receives approximately five or six such requests each year. The Houses approved the terms of the Council framework decision in accordance with our constitutional requirements on 2 June 2004.

The third agreement in respect of which I am asking the House to agree this Bill is the 2008 Council decision on enhancing the operation of special intervention units in crisis situations. This instrument aims to improve co-operation between the special intervention units of member states in man-made crisis situations that present a serious and direct physical threat, such as terrorist incidents. It should be noted that the framework decision would only become relevant in the event of a serious terrorist or similar incident. The situation envisaged would involve a large-scale crisis where a single member state may not have the means, resources or expertise to deal with it. Assistance could take the form of the provision of equipment, expertise or direct assistance on the territory of the requesting member state.

Any visiting specialist units would operate under the responsibility, authority and direction of the requesting member state. In addition, they would only be able to operate within the limits of their own national powers. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council decision on 4 June 2008.

Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 strengthens Eurojust, which is an EU agency based in The Hague that deals with judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This Council decision amends the earlier Council Decision 2002/187/JHA which established Eurojust, and provides for increased co-operation of Eurojust with other agencies such as the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, and Europol, and strengthens its operational capabilities. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council decision on 26 November 2008.

The Council framework decision of 26 February 2009 enhances the procedural rights of persons and fosters the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. This instrument seeks to ensure that principles of natural justice are adhered to in cases where judgments in absentia arise in regard to requests for mutual legal assistance. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council framework decision on 10 December 2008.

An agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters was the subject of a Council decision in 2010 . This agreement provides for mutual legal assistance between EU member states and Japan, based on the laws of the requested state. Implementation by Ireland will be based on existing provisions of the 2008 Act. The Houses of the Oireachtas approved the terms of this Council decision on 25 November 2009.

These international agreements have all been ratified or adopted by Ireland following their approval by the Houses of the Oireachtas. For ease of reference, the text of each of these international agreements will be added to the Schedules to the 2008 Act by the Bill.

In addition to making the necessary legal provision for these international agreements, the Bill also makes a number of minor corrections to existing legislation. The legislation being amended includes the Criminal Justice Act 1994, the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1998, the Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Act 2004, the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008.

I will answer any questions Senators may have, but will now go through some of the sections in more detail. Sections 7 to 23 amend the 2008 Act to give effect to Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA. These are the most technical parts of the Bill and I will elaborate a little on the need for these sections and the effect they will have on the legislation. This instrument establishes new rules under which a member state recognises and executes in its territory a confiscation order issued by a court competent in criminal matters of another member state. Under the existing provisions of the 2008 Act, all external confiscation orders must be translated by an Irish court into a domestic confiscation co-operation order. However, under the provisions of this framework decision, courts will in future recognise confiscation orders from member states without the necessity to issue a domestic confiscation co-operation order. This means that effectively we will be required to operate two different regimes for dealing with confiscation orders received from other states. Those received from EU states will not require a domestic confiscation co-operation order but those received from non-EU states will continue to require a domestic co-operation order issued by an Irish court.

Section 7 amends section 38 of the 2008 Act to provide that the powers of recovery of property by the High Court or by a receiver will apply to confiscation orders transmitted by member states, as well as to confiscation co-operation orders issued by the court in respect of requests from non-member states.

Section 8 amends section 44 of the 2008 Act to provide that freezing of the relevant property remains in place until such time as the property confiscation process has been concluded or terminated.

Section 9 amends section 45(1) of the 2008 Act to provide that the central authority may apply to the High Court to have a freezing co-operation order varied or discharged. This corrects an oversight in the 2008 Act. At present, only a person affected by the order can apply to have it varied or discharged. However, the Department has found that where a freezing co-operation order is flawed, for whatever reason, the person affected often does not have reason or need to seek a variation or discharge. This amendment will allow the central authority to seek a variation or discharge in such circumstances.

Section 14 creates a new section 51B in the 2008 Act. This new section provides for enhanced provisions for refusal of confiscation orders. Senators may wish to note that for reasons of legal consistency, I am providing that the grounds for refusal or postponement of confiscation will be exactly the same, whether a confiscation request is from an EU or non-EU state. The grounds for refusal reflect the provisions of Article 8 of Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA. Among the grounds for refusal are where the offence is not an offence to which the international instrument relates and that a person cannot be tried a second time for an act on which another court has already adjudicated. Subsection (1)(d) provides for refusal if the judgment was made in absentia and the defendant did not have an opportunity to defend the case. This particular provision is required to give effect to the 2009 Council framework decision on decisions rendered in absentia.

Section 15 creates a new section 51C in the 2008 Act, to provide for postponement of confiscation. The grounds for postponement include where it might prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation in the State or where confiscation proceedings in respect of the property are already in train.

Sections 22 and 23 amend the 2008 Act to provide that relevant sections of the Act apply to external confiscation requests from EU member states as they apply to requests from non-member states.

The next element of the Bill is a new element in mutual assistance legislation to give effect to Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on mutual recognition of financial penalties. When this part of the Bill is enacted and commenced, the effect will be that fines greater than €70 which are imposed in this State can be collected by another member state if the person concerned is a resident or citizen of that other EU state. Furthermore, penalties imposed in other EU states on persons who are residents or citizens of this State will be collected in this State. The provisions of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 will apply to such fines.

Section 24 inserts a new part into the 2008 Act to provide for this mutual recognition of financial penalties. Sections 60A, 60B, 60C, 60D, 60E, 60F and 60G, which will be in the new part, set out the definitions and procedures in this regard and give detail on how mutual recognition of fines will be carried out in member states. Section 60I provides that amounts collected on foot of executing a financial penalty order accrue to the Exchequer unless otherwise agreed with the issuing state.

Minor technical amendments will be made to the wording of the 2008 Act. Sections 28 and 29 make an explicit provision that where evidence sought by another state is already in the possession of the Garda Síochána or the evidence is obtained on foot of a warrant, the Garda may transmit the evidence to the requesting state. This is simply to provide legal clarity.

Section 30 provides that where requests for searches for evidence under section 74 or 75 are conducted by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to revenue offences, the officers of the Revenue Commissioners have the same powers of search and seizure of evidence as have An Garda Síochána.

Sections 31 and 35 give effect to the 2008 Council Decision on enhancing the operation of special intervention units in crisis situations as I have already described. The section inserts a new Chapter 8A in the 2008 Act setting out the procedures which will apply in regard to requests and operation of special intervention units. I have already said the type of situations that it is expected that this would apply. I can say that an incident of this type has not happened to date in Ireland or in any other EU member state. In the event that such a major international incident did occur here we would be able to request appropriate assistance from other member states. Senators will note that the express agreement of the Government will be required if, as a result of the commission of a criminal offence, a crisis situation did exist and it is in the public interest to seek the assistance of a special intervention unit from another state.

Sections 94A to 94E, inclusive, go into details of what would happen if a crisis situation applied. They explain how it would be defined and how the Garda Commissioner would, for example, establish a special intervention unit if we wanted to supply aid to another member state. The following sections deal with repealing the sections in different pieces of legislation which is necessary in order for these framework decisions to be fully implemented and passed here today.

I thank Senators for giving me the opportunity to present this legislation today. I hope it will receive much support in this House. It will assist in enhancing mutual legal assistance and mutual assistance provision. It will provide for wider and more efficient co-operation in fighting transnational crime which, as we know, is a huge issue. Whether we are talking about drugs, trafficking of human beings or financial criminal activity we need this kind of international co-operation and sharing of information, and co-operation between police forces and between governments. The increased mutual assistance powers provided here will be of use both in detecting and prosecuting criminals. It is essential legislation in a world where crime is international and does not respect any borders.

I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to hearing the views of Senators.

I call Senator Power and she has eight minutes.

I welcome the Minister to the House. She is right on the necessity for this legislation because crime is so international. Nowadays it is easy to launder money internationally due to complex payment systems and because we have become more borderless as a Continent. The latter is a good thing for people who want to move around Europe and internationally without experiencing visa restrictions, border controls and such like. However, criminals find it easier to exploit such openness which means there is an increasing need for the type of co-operation outlined, particularly across the EU. Unfortunately, Ireland has been a little bit slow in terms of opting into justice measures at EU level. I hope the Minister will be more proactive in this regard. We cannot tackle organised crime on a national level because it can only be effectively done at a European level and through much greater global co-operation as well. It can only truly be tackled if the Garda and our other agencies, such as the courts, have enough resources to implement this legislation and thus provide the best possible detection of crime and co-operation with organisations at a European level.

Recently we had a very good example of excellent cross-border co-operation. I refer to the seizure of a yacht in Irish waters beside Cork that was carrying €80 million worth of cocaine. From an Irish point of view it was an excellent operation. The Naval Service boarded the boat and reeled it in and the Air Corps provided air cover. It was a big international operation as it was based on intelligence from English and French services. It was also the result of European co-operation because it utilised the EU Maritime Analysis and Operation Centre in Lisbon. It was great to see different countries co-operating and working to ensure that any piece of information and intelligence anywhere about cross-border crime is shared. It was also great that we pooled our resources and manpower to make sure that criminals cannot use Irish waters to access Europe. It was good to see we have the systems in place to catch them.

For every ship that is caught I worry how many have made it through. Drugs are an incredibly lucrative business. Criminals probably factor into their calculations that a certain number of their shipments will be seized. They plan to still make money on the nine or ten shipments that get through and land their cargo.

I am concerned about the limited resources that the Irish Naval Service has to police Irish waters, particularly as Ireland is a strategic entry point into the European Union. I ask the Minister to do everything that she can to increase its resources. It is essential when talking about the fight against drugs that we say it is a fight against international drug barons and, therefore, must have procedures in place to tackle them.

While I outlined a good example of international co-operation, the system is clearly lacking in terms of white collar crime. Earlier this year two former Anglo Irish executives were found guilty in the Irish courts for the part they played in transactions that ultimately led to collapsing the Anglo Irish Bank. We all know the disastrous effects that has had on the Irish economy. Mr. David Drumm has been described by the judge in that case as the author of the illegal loan scheme but he has never been questioned by the Garda because he fled to the US after the bank collapsed and put himself beyond reach. I understand that the information that led to the conviction of the other two individuals came about through their questioning; it was information that they gave up when they were being questioned by the Garda. Mr. Drumm was the CEO of the bank. Those individuals referred to him as being their boss and claimed they were just following his orders. He has never been questioned. While Irish people are paying the price for the collapse of the Anglo Irish Bank he is living it up in Boston. Whatever about hiding in a Brazilian jungle or living in a lawless country where one does not expect to be able to co-operate with the authorities and get somebody brought back, many people are flabbergasted that he is living it up in Boston and has been able to put himself beyond the reach of the Irish authorities in that way.

I know I must be careful about what I say. I do not want to make any remarks in this House that might jeopardise any future proceedings. I refer to the remark made by the judge that Mr. Drumm was the author of the scheme referred to. Those are not my words. They are the words of a High Court judge who said that Mr. Drumm was the author of the illegal loans scheme. At the very least, Mr. Drumm needs to be questioned about the matter. He should have volunteered for questioning because it is the decent thing to do. If he feels he has a case to put forward to prove his innocence then he should have volunteered for questioning. That has not happened.

This week there have been reports published in the Irish Independent that perhaps the DPP is getting closer to finally getting Mr. Drumm extradited from the US. It beggars belief that five years have elapsed and we still have not been able to get him extradited to this jurisdiction or even have him returned to answer questions. This situation shows there is something desperately wrong with the procedures we have in place for co-operating with the US. That country is one of Ireland's main trading and diplomatic partners in the world yet we have not been able to have David Drumm returned to this country even for questioning.

I understand that there was talk around the time of the Anglo Irish Bank trial that the offence with which the two executives were found guilty of - the illegal loan scheme - is not illegal, in US legislation in that it is not illegal to sell loans to buy a share in one's own company, as is the case here. There are difficulties in making sure, if somebody is being brought back from another country, that the offence is an offence in both jurisdictions. We need to look at putting systems in place to ensure that people can be brought back for questioning. White collar crime is notoriously complex. That is the reason, in view of all the banking and financial scandals, that we brought in new legislation in this country. We have made it an offence not to provide information, it is an offence not to hand up documents and people can be forced to be subjected to questioning. However, all of that legislation can be avoided by somebody simply taking a one-way flight to Boston, New York or wherever. That shows there is a huge gap in our detection system. The likes of David Drumm are laughing at us because he cannot even be questioned and that all it takes is a one-way flight to put oneself beyond the reach of Irish authorities.

Will the Minister look at that issue? We should be able to co-operate with the US on this and we should use our diplomatic relationship with it in this regard. There would be absolute outrage in the United States if the likes of Bernie Madoff, or anybody else it has held to account, was able to escape justice or even questioning by leaving its jurisdiction. It would not stand for it, nor should we. I urge the Minster to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure we are not waiting around for five years to see if somebody can be brought back. We need to work with the US and our other partners on this issue to ensure that nobody, no matter how wealthy or how influential, or no matter who his or her friends are, can put himself or herself beyond the jurisdiction of the Irish justice system.

While we all fully agree with the sentiments Senator Power expressed, we must be very careful about how we articulate them given that these matters are still before the courts.

This legislation is the second Bill the Minister has initiated in the House in a matter of days, again using a mechanism available to initiate Bills in the Seanad. We are always very happy to take Bills in the Seanad and to facilitate getting good legislation over the line, given that the Dáil's schedule can sometimes be quite full. We are very happy to sit longer, if necessary, in order to take legislation, which is appropriate and beneficial. This legislation is extremely beneficial and important and gives effect to some decisions made at European level.

We all know of people who came to this country, committed simple offences, such as road traffic offences, and were given fines by the Irish courts but who vanished back to their countries. It seems that thousands of fines given to eastern Europeans working here during the Celtic tiger years have never been collected because we were never in a position to do so. This legislation ensures that if somebody is brought before the justice system in this country and receives a fine, he or she will not get away with not paying it by just going back home. Similarly, if an Irish person commits an offence, is fined by a court in some other part of Europe and decides to come home, he or she will certainly not be able to walk away from the justice system which found him or her guilty. It is a simple but very important thing. That is a very simple example of something which is probably much more elaborate and which will have many more benefits in the future.

In many ways, the co-operation between European countries, about which the Minister spoke, already exists but it probably has not had the proper framework to ensure we maximise its efficiencies. If we face a serious criminal situation and require the expertise, whether equipment or personnel, of some of our European colleagues, at least this legislation will ensure there are no barriers to accessing that expertise. This is a small country with a population of 4 million. We are not expected to ensure we have world class expertise in all scenarios, nor do we have the resources to do so. This ensures there is a legal basis for us to accept help from our friends if an unforeseen crisis emerges. It is all very well until the crisis emerges when it is discovered that we do not have a legal framework in place and the Dáil and the Seanad must put through emergency legislation to ensure we can avail of the assistance of our neighbours. This is being proactive as opposed to reactive. That is what I call good legislation. The Eurojust principle, where magistrates and prosecutors share information in order to improve the judicial system internationally, is extremely important. That type of co-operation has existed for many years but the Eurojust project has again brought some formality to it.

There are technical aspects to this legislation but it is fairly self-explanatory. We do not need long-winded debates in this House on the technical nature of legislation but rather debates on the broad principles of what is better law. I wholeheartedly welcome this legislation and hope it will get unanimous support because it makes sense. We all recognise the challenges international crime poses in terms of dealing with it. This legislation ensures the processes are streamlined and that there are no blockages. In terms of the specific example to which Senator Power referred, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples on a smaller scale where this legislation will ensure the channels are clear and there are no blockages. In that sense, I welcome the legislation and look forward to the debates on Committee and Report Stages.

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, agus céad fáilte romhat, a Aire agus ach an oiread le mo chomhghleacaithe tá áthas ormsa bheith anseo le tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bhille ag an staid seo. Aontaímid go bprionsabal leis an méid atá á chur chun cinn ag an Rialtas ar an gceann seo ach measaimid go bhféadfaí b'fhéidir é a leasú ag staid an choiste agus é a láidriú agus a neartú ó thaobh chuid de na rudaí ata istigh ann.

Sinn Féin will support this Bill's passage to Committee Stage but once there, we will seek to amend it in order to strengthen some of the provisions contained therein. Sinn Féin is not opposed in principle to inter-jurisdictional police co-operation on investigation of serious crimes with a cross-border dimension. We want to see a scenario where such co-operation is authorised on a case-by-case basis, limited to the necessary, and where appropriate safeguards and accountability mechanisms are in place. Sinn Féin strongly supports effective action against cross-border organised crime, including trafficking of human beings and drugs. Sinn Féin will examine the Bill closely to ensure it will serve to reinforce justice on a European level rather than undermine it. We will work to strengthen it as best we can.

Information lawfully obtained in the Irish jurisdiction should only be made available to, and used by, the authorities in another state for a legitimate purpose, that is, for the detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences that are analogous to offences within the Irish jurisdiction or for the prevention of an immediate and serious threat to public safety in another state, provided that a criminal investigation is subsequently conducted. These are the circumstances under which we accept it would be reasonable and responsible and in the public interest to share information with other police services. However, the sharing of Garda or police intelligence should not happen for its own sake when there is no criminal investigation or no immediate public threat as this potentially goes against the public good and violates the right to privacy.

Sinn Féin does not support the development of an EU super-state architecture in respect of justice matters and, for this reason, it opposed the EU five-year justice and home affairs harmonisation plan, known as the Hague programme, which ran from 2005 to 2010. The party does not support the creation of a so-called European legal area with a European criminal code and a European public prosecutor. Sovereignty over justice matters must remain firmly in the hands of the people of the EU member states.

Beyond this, however, Sinn Féin has adopted a general policy of critical engagement on EU policies and legislative proposals. This means it is willing to support those it believes would be of benefit to the Irish people and to oppose those it believes would be detrimental. Sinn Féin supports measures that genuinely combat international crime or assist legitimate freedom of movement. However, our MEPs, Deputies, MLAs and Ministers will oppose any EU measures that are not fully human rights-compliant and consistent with international law.

Sinn Féin rejects the federalist trend towards incremental integration and centralisation of policing and judicial powers, ending in the eventual establishment of an EU border guard, EU police and an EU public prosecutor. Sinn Féin believes that these are matters for sovereign states. Further to this, Sinn Féin also rejects the accelerating impetus to harmonise criminal law between EU members because it is being done without first ensuring the harmonisation of rights protections which currently vary widely from state to state.

I wish to briefly mention another concern which relates to data protection issues. Any data collected under the legislation should have to comply with our standards in the Twenty-six Counties and not those of any other member state. We do not want to see a situation in which data shared in good faith leaves the hands of another member state which is no longer under the standard at which it left Ireland. We simply cannot afford to see an abuse of power by governments in this area. As a party, we call not only for international co-operation on matters such as this, but also for a strong all-Ireland and all-island policing policy for these matters.

If the Minister is willing to indulge me, yesterday we had an interesting day with the budget. I noticed an anomaly in the Minister’s budget in the Department of Justice and Equality around equality and integration where there seems to be a cut of 30% with the budget decreasing from €22 million to €15 million. Is there a specific reason for it and how will it affect the equality and integration issues which we have raised with the Minister so often here? Most of my colleagues in the Seanad have supported the recent statements by the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, on direct provision. As the senior Minister in the portfolio, does Deputy Fitzgerald share his views? Will they both work together? This will need to be an all-Government policy if direct provision is to change. It was raised here that President Higgins had hoped to visit a direct provision centre in Athlone. We are told it was blocked by the Department. Is it true?

Could the Senator direct himself to the Bill please?

We do that, but when we raise such issues on the Order of Business the Leader says the Minister will be in attendance and we might as well try to raise it then. It is at the discretion of the Minister whether she will answer me.

To be fair, the Senator always raises very important points.

I will be cheeky and raise the increase in Garda cars in the budget. How many cars are being scrapped and will we be in a net neutral situation or will we have a real increase in Garda cars?

The Senator could put it in a parliamentary question.

I do not see many other people offering to speak.

I will meet the Senator after the session and explain the force of parliamentary questions and matters on the Adjournment debate if he wants to get answers. I welcome the Minister and thank her for taking this debate on the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill 2014. The Bill is very important legislation which will greatly assist in combatting criminality within borders where the protagonist may have absconded and seeks to evade prosecution and arrest for national crimes. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand requests for such assistance must be made by a court or tribunal of the country involved and any other authority, such as ministries, departments of justice, attorneys general and public prosecutors can also make requests.

The purpose of this amendment Bill is to give full legal effect to six international legal instruments which we have already ratified here in the Oireachtas. It will give national legal effect to a number of European Council framework decisions. The first of these decisions is that member states recognise and execute financial penalty orders issued by a court in another member state. Once this Bill becomes law it will mean fines in excess of €70 imposed in other countries can be collected here in Ireland and vice versa. The Bill will also give effect to a decision to recognise and execute confiscation orders issued by a court. This is an important aspect of the legislation. Many of us in Ireland would be well informed particularly by the media of convicted drug dealers living it up on the proceeds of their crimes in various parts of Europe. This framework decision will allow confiscation orders take effect in other member states to which the proceeds of crime have been trafficked for the criminals’ use and benefit.

The Bill will improve co-operation between member states in man-made crisis situations, such as terrorism incidents, only when a single member state may not have the means to deal with it alone. Given the increasing threat of attack from various factions in recent years, it is clear that all member states could mutually benefit from increased co-operation in this regard. While some countries are to the forefront of staving off these threats and have the knowledge, intelligence and capacity to deal with them, others have not built up the same intelligence over the years. As a consequence, this framework decision will bolster operations in these countries for the good of Europe and the western world. This is very welcome. The Bill will allow increased co-operation between Eurojust, which deals with judicial co-operation in criminal matters and other agencies, for example the European Anti-fraud Office, OLAF, which investigates fraud against the EU budget, and Europol, which handles criminal intelligence. The effect of this council decision will be strengthened Eurojust operational capabilities with far reaching ability to deal with threats.

The Bill will also give full legal effect to enhanced procedural rights for persons where decisions are rendered in the absence of that person concerned at the trial. This is an important provision given the numbers who are a flight risk when criminal proceedings have been issued or may be issued. Senator Power mentioned an incident in which a person evaded the possibility of criminal proceedings being brought against him. It is in the public interest that, irrespective of where someone of such largesse has escaped to, there are mechanisms to prevent the person from evading justice on any such issue as the law provides. Finally, the Bill will give full effect to an agreement between Japan and EU member states for mutual legal assistance based on existing provisions of the 2008 Act which is in force here.

The main thrust of the Bill is to ensure closer co-operation between the legal systems of the countries signed up to the process so that issues pertaining to the investigation of serious international crime can be assisted in the wider public interest. For instance, the Bill will increase citizens' and sovereign security in that it will allow for the facilitation of the gathering of evidence for use in jurisdictions abroad, freezing or confiscation of the proceeds of crime, and will assist with the service of legal documents. Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity among its members, the adoption of common rules in the field of mutual assistance in criminal matters will not only contribute to the attainment of this aim but will make criminality without borders, whereby a criminal can become immune to prosecution by moving to another country, a thing of the past within the EU member states and Japan. It is great to see that becoming something that is outdated and outmoded. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister. The Bill deals with the mutual assistance of international co-operation in criminal matters. Mutual legal assistance is how countries formally request and provide assistance on criminal investigations or proceedings in another country. The Bill amends the Criminal justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, the principal Act, and gives effect to a number of EU framework decisions, which the Minister mentioned, and European Council decisions on mutual assistance. These changes aim to increase co-operation with other EU member states and Japan in tackling crime. The Minister published the Criminal justice (Mutual Assistance) (Amendment) Bill in August. In announcing the proposals, the Minister stated:

Crime does not recognise international borders. It is important, therefore, that the reach of our laws can also extend beyond our own borders. I expect that this Bill will be particularly useful in targeting cross-border offenders who commit offences and in confiscating proceeds of crime.

As one who lives on the Border, and one of the closest Senators to the Border, I have been subjected to crime. Within four minutes, a criminal can cross the Border and it is very difficult. I am glad the Bill will give us the legal framework to follow up and enhance co-operation between both police forces. Crime happens in many of our Border counties, and the criminals escape. Hopefully, co-operation will increase and we will apprehend those involved.

Criminals repeat crimes. Recently, I heard of a man who was travelling on a boat to Scotland. He saw the registration of a jeep and, assuming the owner of the jeep was on board, had an announcement made to ask the owner of the jeep to meet him.

The jeep had been stolen and was on its way to Scotland for whatever reason. The Bill will enhance the possibility of bringing such perpetrators to justice. I welcome and support the Bill.

I thank all of the Senators who made contributions to this Bill here today for the thoughtful nature of them. Everybody recognised the importance of these directives in tackling crime.

Certainly, the question of borders does not apply to a lot of crime, as Senator Brennan stated. So much crime is now cross-border and international, and needs to be dealt with by international mechanisms. We need to strengthen all our international mechanisms, within and, as Senator Power referenced, outside of the EU. This is an ongoing issue that we will have to monitor carefully and on which we will have to continue to develop our legislation.

I attended the Global Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse Online which was held recently between the US and the EU. The only way that we will be able to deal effectively with that crime, and the crimes of human trafficking, drugs, criminal laundering, is by international co-operation between our states and by, as I stated already, police forces co-operating in more intelligence-led operations, following the money and sharing police intelligence. That is increasingly necessary. We need more sophisticated legislation in order to deal effectively with this criminal activity.

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. Senator Power spoke about the importance of working internationally in this way and the international co-operation that is needed. She referenced the recent successful operation of the coast of Cork which resulted in €80 million worth of drugs, which were being attempted to be imported illegally, being found. That was a perfect example of the kind of international co-operation that is being carried out. In fact, a lot of it goes unnoticed. When we see that sort of successful operation, it is important to recognise it.

Senator Power spoke about the importance of the Naval Service, and I agree with her. Many years ago, as a spokesperson on Defence for Fine Gael, I wrote a paper on the importance of the Naval Service. I am pleased to see in yesterday's budget from the Department of Defence that yet another naval ship has been commissioned. It will help in the kind of operations at sea about which she spoke. Senator Conway, likewise, commented on the importance of this legislation and the need to have more instruments that we can use in order to be effective in tackling cross-border crime.

Senator Ó Clochartaigh made a number of points. I thank him for supporting this legislation. I take his point that it is important that legislation that impacts across borders between countries respects fundamental human rights. I certainly would not disagree with that. In particular, he mentioned data protection. I would say that the balance is between the right to privacy and the right to have intelligence information that will help in dealing with criminal activity. We must strike that balance, and it is quite difficult to get it right because we must ensure in data protection that there is also access to necessary information that will help law enforcement. Equally, the right to privacy must be respected. That is something that is very much on the minds of the Justice Ministers from across the EU. This was discussed last week in Luxembourg at the most recent Justice and Home Affairs meeting.

In answer to Senator Ó Clochartaigh's question on the Equality Vote, the only reason the Vote is down is because we have made provision for an independent Vote for the new commission of €6 million. The new commission is being given its own budget to deal with its own affairs and it has come out of the Equality Vote in the Department of Justice and Equality. There is no reduction other than that.

On the role of the President in this area, the President is independent and makes his own decisions. I would just make that comment.

As far as the Garda fleet is concerned, urgent investment was needed in the Garda fleet. I was pleased to be able to announce that there will be 400 new vehicles because the fleet is old. This will make a difference and will add to the fleet that is there. Every year there is a proportion of cars that go off the road because of the amount of mileage on them and they are beyond the date on which they should be used.

I thank Senator Higgins for her support and the points she made on the Bill. She asked specifically about the decisions and whether they must be made by a court. The definition section of the Bill deals with that. What it states is that if the decision, for example, in relation to a fine, is being pursued, it must have gone through court proceedings. The Bill states, "an authority of the issuing State other than a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of the issuing State, provided that the person concerned has had an opportunity to have the case tried by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters". The conditions under which various bodies can send on the fine are laid down under the definition section of the Bill. There are those safeguards.

I thank Senator Brennan for his comments about cross-border crime. That is an issue of concern in a number of areas. I recently met the British-Irish Parliamentary Body, co-chaired by Deputy Feighan, which is dealing with this and we had a useful discussion on fuel smuggling, cigarette smuggling and the various issues which are of particular North-South relevance. That is an ongoing challenge for both the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. I am pleased to tell the House that there is good co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda. Such co-operation is probably at an all time high.

I thank the Members of the House for their contribution to the Second Stage of this important legislation here today.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

On Tuesday next.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21 October 2014.
Barr
Roinn