Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím i gcónaí roimh an deis díospóireacht a bheith againn ar mholtaí ón Aontas Eorpach, má tá gá leo, ach go háirithe nuair a táimid ag déileáil le ceisteanna maidir le dlí agus cirt. Tá difríocht ann idir muidne agus na tíortha eile san Aontas Eorpach ó thaobh an cóid ar atá an dlí bunaithe sa tír seo, i gcomparáid leis an tslí a dhéanann siad dlí i dtíortha na hEorpa. Den chuid is mó is ag caint ar tíortha san Aontas Eorpach atá mé seachas an Eoraip. Sin an fáth nach raibh muid agus nár chóir dúinn a bheith go hiomlán isteach sa chóras Schengen ach gur féidir linn dul isteach nó amach mar is gá.

Sa chás seo táimid ag déileáil le ceist maidir le rialacha a bhaineann le bréagairgead atá á chruthú nó á úsáid san Aontas Eorpach. Roimhe seo bhí an tAontas ag déanamh cinnte go raibh taifead iomlán ar na slite difriúla a bhí an bréagairgead seo ag tarlú, na cúiseanna a bhí tógtha i leith daoine sna ballstáit difriúla agus an cur chuige ina dhiadh sin. Tá gá leis mar sin. Níor thuig mé, ón méid a bhí agam, cad go díreach a bhí sa doiciméad seo. Ghlac mé leis nach rud mór a bhí i gceist agus tá an ceart ag an Aire Stáit sa mhéid a dúirt sé linn; nach ceist mór é. Fós féin, is ceart go mbeadh an díospóireacht ann.

The debates are welcome to discuss EU proposals in certain areas. This is an important topic, albeit quite a minor amendment in the scale of things and I will come back to that point in a minute. According to the briefing, the primary objective of Directive 2014/62/EU (Appendix 2) is to protect the euro and other currencies within the European Union - and other currencies to which we are tied as a world currency - against counterfeiting by criminal law. It establishes minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of counterfeiting of the euro and other currencies as well as common provisions to strengthen the fight against those offences and to improve investigation of them, and to ensure better cooperation against counterfeiting.

The directive covers production, distribution and preparation of counterfeit currencies. It also enables the relevant authorities to analyse relevant materials during ongoing trials. Counterfeiting currency on a massive scale is of course increasingly complex, with the introduction of many new security features. It makes it a lot more difficult for those counterfeiters to carry out their actions. The idea always has been to thwart them and to make it more difficult and less beneficial to them to carry out their criminal acts.

At the same time, it has been said that more quick and opportunistic crimes, involving counterfeit money circulating into retail, is happening across the European Union, although from what I can gather from the notes supplied, it is not at a scale we need to report. Perhaps it is not at a scale that needs to be reported in the fashion that was expected in 2014 when that provision was put in to the directive.

I found the following statement from the Canadian Department of Justice to be useful on recent developments in terms of counterfeiting. It states:

During the last two decades, with the spread of new digital print technologies, counterfeiting has again shifted. Although the quality of the end-product is highly variable, the use of scanners, colour printers, and colour copiers mean that counterfeiting is once more a crime of opportunity. Of course, sophisticated groups still do get involved from time to time. As before, they use expensive equipment to simulate intaglio printing, and employ long-distance wholesale distribution networks to move large batches of bills away from the point of production. But more and more instances of counterfeiting are the work of amateurs who print small sums using easy-to-access technology, and directly distribute them into retail trade. So far, although not enough to threaten the integrity of national currencies, at least of the major countries, opportunistic counterfeiting is sufficient of a problem to force governments to engage in an ever-more expensive technological arms race against counterfeiters.

The directive mentions the national analysis centres which examine currency and our Central Bank hosts such a centre. The website contains guidance on counterfeiting and how to check for fake notes, and it seems a lot of this will likely be caught at retail outlets, especially if our retail staff are trained and understand what they are looking for. The Central Bank and local banks have a role in complying with what the directive, passed in 2014, intends.

I find this odd. This proposal seeks to abolish the obligation for member states' competent authorities to transmit statistical data to the Commission. In this day and age, I cannot understand why that would be a burden. It is simply a matter of pressing a button and sending. Yes, it has to be collected but I presume that An Garda Síochána and the analysis centre of the Central Bank would be collecting that information anyway and I presume the same would apply for all countries. Deleting it as a compulsory action that all of these analysis centres would have to take is odd, given the likelihood that the work of amateurs seems to be increasing. There is a need to keep an eye across the European Union, especially given that we have shared currencies. Many people know one side of the euro notes, but they might not know what is on the euro notes of other countries of the EU, given how widespread the euro is. There is a challenge for us. For the sake of gathering of this information and sharing it to make sure that other countries would be aware of it at least once a year, I just find it odd. However, I am not opposing this measure, if it removes an unnecessary burden, as the Minister said. No overlap was mentioned in the presentation to show that this material might be transmitted by An Garda Síochána to Europol. Perhaps that is the overlap. The statistical information here would not be necessarily information that An Garda Síochána had to hand because it is to do with convictions and evidence, so it would not come directly from An Garda Síochána but rather from the DPP.

As I said, I am not going to oppose it. It is a minor amendment. As with all of these opt-ins, it is important that we and the officials take the time to discuss them. It has been mentioned that the Attorney General did not see any problems with it. It is important that we as a State in the European Union cast our own eyes on this and as a parliament that we assert our independence in this field and take a vote, if needs be, on these issues.

See this speech in context