Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. First, like Deputies on all sides of the House, I understand the growing international aspect of crime. It is obvious that crime does not confine itself behind borders. As legislators, it is our job to be aware of such dynamics and play our part in making sure that such crime is combatted so that our communities are safe. Sinn Féin will support this Bill's passage to Committee Stage.

International mutual assistance is an important part of tackling the growth in cross-border crime. We must be able to rely on other states to help us ensure that criminals are brought to justice. The same is true in reverse. Other member states must be able to seek our help, where possible, to achieve justice. However, we must be mindful of how such information is passed on and how the practical application of mutual assistance in such matters is balanced with the human rights of citizens.

This Bill seeks to amend the Act of 2008 to provide for the enactment of outstanding instruments that the Oireachtas has previously ratified. This amending Bill, as the Minister has already pointed out, has many technical aspects. There is no need for a debate on these technical aspects; rather, it is important to focus on the broader principles of law that the Bill seeks to amend and the implications of such amendments for citizens. In this regard, it is appropriate to outline Sinn Féin's view on international justice co-operation. Sinn Féin supports, in principle, inter-jurisdictional police co-operation on investigation of serious crimes with a cross-border dimension. We want to see a scenario in which such co-operation is authorised on a case-by-case basis, limited to the necessary, and with appropriate safeguards and accountability mechanisms in place. Sinn Féin strongly supports effective action against cross-border organised criminal activity, such as the trafficking of human beings and drugs, evasion of the Revenue Commissioners in respect of fuel and tobacco, and offences involving the trafficking of children. However, we believe it is equally essential to safeguard against the creation of further victims through human rights violations. Judicial and legal harmonisation, such as the mutual assistance aspects of this Bill, must only be to the extent that it advances human rights standards.

It is important to point out that Sinn Féin believes that the people of Ireland should have full sovereignty over justice matters. The Irish people alone have the right to determine policy questions and set the law regarding the administration of justice in Ireland. Although we recognise the merit of this particular Bill, Sinn Féin does not support the development of an EU super-state architecture in respect of justice matters. We do 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.

Sinn Féin rejects the federalist trend towards incremental integration and the centralisation of policing and judicial powers, ending in the eventual establishment of an EU border guard, EU police and an EU public prosecutor. We believe these are matters for sovereign states. We also reject the accelerating impetus to harmonise criminal law between EU member states, because it is being done without first ensuring the harmonisation of rights protections, which currently vary widely from state to state. These are issues that must be debated seriously on Committee Stage. Although the implications of this Bill may be small in the grand scheme of things, it is the grand scheme of things that we need to focus on. We cannot lose sight of where instruments such as those contained in this Bill are leading us.

In turning to the specific provisions contained in this Bill, I note the Minister's comments during the debate in the Seanad. In explaining the term "mutual assistance", the Minister stated that this enabled "a state to provide, within its own jurisdiction, a service to another state related to the administration of justice in the latter". There is no doubt that co-operation of this kind is necessary, but there are a few observations that I would appreciate clarification on. Perhaps this could be done on Committee Stage.

First, the new procedures relating to confiscation orders under section 7 to section 23 would mean the creation of a third way by which confiscation orders could be dealt with. We already have a system whereby a domestic confiscation can be granted or an international confiscation order can be transposed and a domestic co-operation order issued. Under this new Bill, the way in which an international confiscation order is dealt with will now be split in two. Provision will be made to deal with EU member state confiscation orders, and there will be a separate way of dealing with non-member-state confiscation orders. It does not appear that this Bill makes the system any more efficient or any clearer. In fact, it appears to create more bureaucracy. Why is this third method of dealing with confiscation orders necessary? What does this measure achieve that cannot be achieved through the processes currently in place?

I also have a number of queries on the recovery of fines from other member states on which I would like the Minister to comment. I understand the need for fines to be collected on a cross-border basis, and indeed I support this. However, this is one of the areas of the Bill that may have human rights implications. How does the Minister envisage the appeal process working for an Irish citizen who has been fined abroad and wishes to challenge the fine?

I will briefly mention another concern regarding data protection issues. Any data collected under the legislation should have to comply with our standards in this State and not those of any other member state. It goes back to the principle that sovereignty on justice issues must lie with the Irish people themselves. We do not want to see a situation whereby data shared in good faith, when it leaves the hands of another member state, is no longer under the standard under 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.

The amendments being put forward in this Bill raise the same issues that were raised in 2008, particularly regarding human rights. The Irish Commission on Human Rights raised the issue of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in its submissions on the scheme of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill, and I believe the same issues apply to this Bill. In respect of the passing of data between member states relating to a person's alleged involvement in crime, we must always be mindful of how a balance is struck with a person's human rights under Article 8. We know from European case law that the storing of data relating to the private life of an individual in a register and the release of such information falls within the application of Article 8(1) of the ECHR. Therefore, in order for disclosure through mutual assistance to be considered necessary in a democratic society, the disclosure of such data must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In most criminal cases, I accept that this will be the case. However, there have been a number of cases in the past in which this was not the case, and a person's good name has been tarnished where that person was not guilty in the first instance. This is something of which we must be mindful.

Sinn Féin supports the need to tackle cross-border crime, and for that reason we will support this Bill on Second Stage. I have outlined the concerns we have. We must always ensure that the provisions we adopt are fully compliant with human rights, and for that reason I look forward to the Minister's response to the issues I have raised.

See this speech in context