Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Connolly. The purpose of this Bill is to transpose EU Directive No. 2017/137, also known as the PIF directive. It will amend the 1994 and 2011 Criminal Justice Acts, the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 and other enactments. In his opening speech last week the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, told us that the European Commission has been on to Ireland already with a "reasoned opinion" because the transposition is overdue. The Minister of State said, "This reasoned opinion is the final step before Ireland can be referred to the European Court of Justice, ECJ, where a fine will be imposed." Is it not amazing that the Dáil’s work schedule is being dictated by the threat of fines?

The PIF directive was issued on 5 July 2017 and some of its elements were already transposed into Irish legislation by way of the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018. The directive’s aim is to strengthen the systems for fighting crime affecting the EU budget, fraud, and other offences against the financial interests of the EU. The deadline for transposition of the PIF directive was 6 July 2019. The Bill before us today belatedly deals with the outstanding matters mentioned and also provides for the creation of a new offence of misappropriation.

As usual, the Oireachtas Library and Research Service produced a very useful Bill digest. The section on the policy background highlights that there are varying estimates of the cost or damage of fraud to the EU’s budget annually. The European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, gives estimates of more than €500 million whereas there have been far higher estimates of up to €5 billion, including €1 billion in VAT fraud.

The PIF directive also provides for the new European Public Prosecutor's Office, EPPO. Under protocol 21, Ireland has opted out of participating in the EPPO for the time being. In January 2020, there was a regulatory impact analysis, RIA, on this Bill and two policy options were considered. One of the options was to introduce legislation and the other was, hilariously, to do nothing. The Bill digest states, "The RIA notes that the potential impact of doing nothing would include, 'costs to the State from the possible imposition of fines and potential reputation damage.'" The option to do nothing was only being considered six months after the deadline for transposition. We are already being fined for our tardiness regarding this EU directive, so the option of doing nothing is actually costing us money. How many times has the Cabinet sat around and said one of its options is do to nothing? I would say it happens quite often by the looks of things.

I often wonder what the Government is doing at all. There has been indecision around Covid-19 measures and roadmaps for reopening but no consideration of the preferred zero Covid approach and a full campaign around survivors accessing their testimonies to the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes without the Government telling any of us, or the survivors, that the recorded testimonies had been deleted. Years of Brexit negotiations and aspects of negotiations around fisheries do not seem to have been considered at all. It was up to the fishermen themselves to campaign and raise awareness. Why is it always up to the affected groups and sectors to raise the Government's consciousness on important matters? Why is it always the many fighting for their rights, their livelihoods and their safety? Why is the Government squandering much needed Exchequer funds paying EU fines? Surely the Minister of State would agree there are services and projects to serve the people that would be a much better use of that money. It seems the EU is the only one that is responded to in time as well.

See this speech in context