Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 16, to delete lines 33 and 34, and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following: “(b) in section 8—

(i) in subsection (6A)—

(I) in paragraph (a), by the deletion of “or”,

(II) in paragraph (b), by the substitution of “of that Act), or” for “of that Act),”, and

(III) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

“(c) section 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007,”,

(ii) in subsection (7)—

(I) in paragraph (d), by the deletion of “or”,

(II) by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (e):

“(f) the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, or

(g) where a relevant body is prescribed by the Minister under subsection (7A), that body for the purposes of that body performing its functions,”,

(iii) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (7):

“(7A) The Minister may, having regard to the functions of a relevant body, prescribe by regulations a relevant body for the purposes of subsection (7)(g).”,

and

(iv) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (10):

“(11) In this section—

‘Act of 2014’ means the Companies Act 2014;

‘company’ means a company formed and registered under the Act of 2014 or an existing company within the meaning of that Act;

‘relevant body’ means—

(a) a body established by or under an enactment (other than the Act of 2014 or a former enactment relating to companies within the meaning of section 5 of that Act),

(b) a company in which all the shares are held by, or on behalf of, or by directors appointed by, a Minister of the Government, or

(c) a company in which all the shares are held by—

(i) a body referred to in paragraph (a), or

(ii) a company referred to in paragraph (b).”,”.

The amendments that I am proposing introduce targeted but significant enhancements of section 8 of the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996. The purpose of these changes is to modernise and strengthen the operational capacity of the bureau, ensuring it has the necessary powers to collaborate effectively and bring all available expertise to bear in its investigations. The amendments can be summarised under two main headings: expanding the scope for specialist non-Garda bureau officers to participate in the questioning of detained persons; and broadening the legal gateways for the bureau officers to share vital information with other key State agencies.

To deal with the first issue, at present, section 8(6)(a) of the 1996 Act allows bureau officers who are tax and social welfare experts to attend and participate in interviews of persons detained for certain drug trafficking and other serious offences. This is a valuable tool. The amendment proposes to extend this capability by including detentions for offences under section 50 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007. The effect of this is to allow those specialist bureau officers to bring their financial and social welfare expertise directly into the interview room for an even wider range of very serious organised crime offences, including the significant firearms offences specified in that Act. This is a practical and important change. It ensures that from the earliest stages of an investigation into the most serious forms of criminality, the multi-agency expertise of the bureau can be deployed to maximum effect.

In terms of broader and more flexible information sharing, it is worth pointing out that section 8(7) of the 1996 Act currently provides a list of people and bodies to whom a bureau officer may disclose information obtained during the course of their work. My amendment proposes to amend this section to enhance interagency co-operation. First, it will explicitly add the DPP and the Chief State Solicitor's office to the list. This formalises an existing information-sharing pathway, ensuring that information gathered by CAB can be seamlessly and lawfully provided for the purposes of criminal prosecutions and court proceedings. Second, it creates a new flexible power for me to prescribe other relevant bodies by regulation. A new subsection 7A will empower me to make these regulations, while the new subsection (11) will provide a clear and robust definition of a “relevant body”. This is confined to statutory bodies, State-owned companies or their subsidiaries.

These amendments are practical, necessary and proportionate. They enhance CAB’s ability to investigate serious crime by bringing specialist expertise to bear at the earliest stage. They also create clearer channels for sharing vital information with key justice agencies and other State bodies. These changes will bolster the operational effectiveness of CAB in its vital work of disrupting criminal organisations and depriving them of their illicit wealth. For that reason, I propose the amendment.