Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Members for the constructive debate on this Bill and the suggestions made.

It is a good thing that many Deputies have reacted in a positive way and share the view that this is an important Bill which will strengthen our hand in the fight against terrorism and transnational crime. Effective co-operation between member states of the European Union and between states worldwide is of increased importance in recent times. Organised criminal groups exploit modern-day phenomena such as globalisation, an increasingly border-free world and rapid technological advances in computers and communications. Organised criminals have become increasingly sophisticated and regularly use international networks to carry out their activities. Faced with this reality, organised crime can no longer be effectively tackled on a national level. As Deputy Coveney noted in his remarks in June, crime does not respect borders. In this context, it is important that Ireland takes its place on the international stage as a partner for mutual legal assistance purposes.

Reference was made during the debate to the amendments to be brought forward on Committee Stage to give effect to the mutual assistance aspects of the UN Convention against Corruption and the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. The reason for this is that the advice of the Attorney General on the legislative measures required to give effect to the instruments was received since this Bill was published. The Bill provides an ideal vehicle for dealing with mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, which are limited.

Concerns were raised by Deputy Gerard Murphy and Deputy Catherine Murphy concerning the technological resources available to the Garda to implement this legislation. It is intended that the Garda will have at its disposal the latest state-of-the-art information technology and telecommunications systems to compare with the most modern police forces throughout the world. This is demonstrated by a significant increase in the information technology and communications budgets for this year. The capital allocation for IT in 2006 is over €33 million, representing an increase of 18%, or over €5 million, compared to 2005. There is a particular commitment to replace the current radio systems with a state-of-the-art digital radio system as quickly as possible. The strength of the force on 7 September was 12,770, representing an increase of 2,068, or 19%, since June 1997. The commitment to increase the strength of the Garda to 14,000 by the end of this year is fully on target.

Deputy Howlin queried the enforceability of the provision in section 14(2)(b)(i) that material supplied in response to a request may not be used for any other purpose without prior consent. This provision also features at section 60(5)(a). In fact, it is nothing new and mirrors section 52(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, which has been in operation for some considerable time. With regard to Deputy Howlin's query on how the judicial oversight of interception authorisations would actually operate, I refer him to the provisions of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993. Section 28 of this Bill merely extends the review provisions of section 8 of that Act to cover interception authorisations carried out under this Bill. That review is generally retrospective and is carried out by a judge of the High Court.

Questions have been raised about Parts 5 and 6 of the Bill. In effect, they are a re-enactment of sections of Parts 3 and 7 and of the 1994 Act, with some amendments in the light of operational experience and they take account of the provisions in the instruments encompassed by the Bill. Sections 51(3) and 52(2) provide for the written consent of the prisoner to the transfer to another state to give evidence or assist in investigations, and these are new provisions. It is necessary to give effect to provisions in the 2000 convention and in the second additional protocol. Provision for the taking of evidence by television and telephone link is also new. Deputy Howlin also referred to the fact that "requesting authority" is not defined in Part 6. He is correct, but a definition is not required here as section 2 of the Bill contains general definitions applicable throughout the Bill, and that section clearly defines "requesting authority".

Deputy Howlin also mentioned sections 69 and 70, dealing with restitution. The Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 deals in section 56 with restitution within the State only. Section 69 of this Bill enables restitution orders to be made with respect to property in a designated state and section 70 makes this reciprocal. In regard to the examples the Deputy used, restitution of property can only be made where there is a criminal conviction, and a court must order such restitution. The Deputy raised a scenario of artifacts in an Irish museum allegedly stolen from their rightful owners by the Nazis. In order for this section to operate in such a context, it would need to be proven that an offence had been committed and that the property had been obtained by criminal means. It is not as simple as merely asking for objects to be returned. The Deputy is correct, however, in his interpretation that no specific time limit is in place with regard to applications for restitution. Article 8 of the 2000 convention and article 12 of the second additional protocol, on which this section is based, do not contain time limits.

With regard to the Ireland-US Agreement, in addition to the Oireachtas scrutiny of this measure which has already taken place, motions under Articles 29.5 and 29.4.6 of the Constitution will be brought before this agreement can be ratified. This will be done following enactment of this Bill. Deputy Howlin also mentioned joint investigation teams. Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Act 2004 detail the circumstances in which a joint investigation team may be established.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned the obligation to transpose EU instruments into law and noted that such instruments only come before the Houses following negotiation. This has indeed been so in the case, but following the introduction of EU Oireachtas scrutiny measures, Oireachtas Members now have ample opportunity to examine proposed measures in advance and make inputs if they wish. Deputy Ó Snodaigh made a suggestion that judicial oversight take place before interception of telecommunications messages is made. However, this is not possible under the terms provided for in Article 20.2(b) of the 2000 convention or under the existing arrangements provided for in the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993.

Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to section 4, which empowers the Minister for Foreign Affairs to designate certain states. The terms of section 4 are not new. Precedent may be found in section 3 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 and section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. Deputy Murphy also queried certain provisions of the Ireland-US Agreement. A resolution approving the terms of the Ireland-US Treaty to which she referred was passed by Dáil Éireann on 29 November 2001.

In today's debate, Deputy Gregory spoke about the recent drug seizures. As there are ongoing investigations, it is not appropriate to make comments here. The full resources of the various enforcement agencies are being applied to the investigation. Any lessons that can be learned will be taken on board and I agree with his comments about the extent to which these drug barons are prepared to go to get heroin into this country. When we see the growth of heroin use in places like Galway, it is becoming a major source of concern. There is a growth in heroin use, which has major social effects including an increase in crime, at a time when vast resources are being used to deal with the problem in Dublin.

I assure Deputy Higgins the Bill is not temporary legislation. It will build on existing mutual assistance co-operation and will enable us to comply with our international obligations.

While the issue of unaccompanied minors comes under the remit of the Office of the Minister for Children under the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Health Service Executive, I will convey the Deputy's concerns to the Minister. The Deputy mentioned the UN Convention against Corruption. At present, its provisions are under examination in the Department to ascertain any further legislative requirements.

Deputy Finian McGrath expressed concern on human rights. The Irish Human Rights Commission received an early draft of the Bill for its consideration and responded in May 2005 with a number of recommendations. The great majority of them required no amendments to the Bill, as the suggested changes had already been incorporated in the Bill during drafting. A number of further amendments were included on foot of the Irish Human Rights Commission's recommendations. As for the new criminal court complex, proposals are already under way within the Department in this respect.

Unfortunately, during a Second Stage debate it is not possible to go into significant detail about all measures in a Bill, particularly in the case of one as lengthy as the proposed legislation. Undoubtedly, detailed discussions on this legislative measure will take place on Committee Stage. I again thank all Members who contributed to this debate and I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context