Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach leis an Bhille seo a phlé. Molaim an tAire as ucht scríbhinne as Gaeilge a léamh ar maidin. Tá dualgas againn mar Bhaill Oireachtais iarracht a dhéanamh an teanga a chur chun cinn agus úsáid a bhaint as an méid atá againn.

Bille tábhachtach é seo, Bille teicniúil le héifeacht a thabhairt do seacht n-ionstraim idirnáisiúnta atá ann cheana féin le cúnamh dlíthiúil frithpháirteach. Cuireann an Bille cumas do stát amháin laistigh dá dlínse féin seirbhís a chur ar fáil do stát eile maidir le riarachán an cheartais sa stát sin agus is ceart sin a dhéanamh.

As has been pointed out by the Minister, the Bill gives effect to seven legal mutual assistance instruments. The case for mutual assistance in the provision of police activities is essential. It is right that within a more unified Europe, where there is harmonisation within the legal framework, we should assist each other, because criminals do not have regard or respect for frontiers and boundaries. They often regard them as a means to escape or delay detection. Therefore, as organised crime and terrorism become much more sophisticated, it is essential that every technique and support is given to police across the Union to enable them to apprehend and bring to justice those responsible.

There are some parallels between the way we have been developing within the European Union over the past 30 years and what happens in the United States, which is probably a reasonable model to examine. While we have agreed in the past that there should be joint investigation teams, including Interpol — no doubt they will be a very useful instrument in detecting crime — perhaps community policing could play a more central role. In the United States, federal detection agencies play a role as well as state police forces. This approach facilitates the apprehension of criminals, which is something that might be examined.

The main forms of mutual assistance in the Bill are clearly identified. Sensible and practical arrangements such as the provision of financial information, access to bank accounts and making available that information on request, with certain safeguards, is highly desirable. I note that we provide indemnity to financial institutions, which is necessary. It is a useful provision in that we have seen how effectively CAB operates by having access to the resources and assets of various people who cannot be brought to justice for criminal offences, but can be caught on related activities and evidence. On a number of occasions, Senators have drawn an analogy with Al Capone who was never brought to justice in the United States other than for tax offences.

Certain safeguards are built into the legislation whereby the Minister need not accede to a request based on specific grounds relating to sovereignty, security and other interests of the State, and also where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the request was made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing someone based on their sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, political opinion or sexual orientation. These are good precautions which are in line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

It is also possible to refuse a request on the basis of prejudicing a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings in the State. Would that relate specifically to the same offence or to a different offence? In the event of it being a different offence, would the seriousness of crime be taken into consideration in making the decision? For example, if this State was investigating a crime of larceny, could the request be refused if it related to the much more serious offence of murder? Perhaps we can examine the implications of this on Committee Stage.

I note that witnesses can be heard through video link or teleconferencing, which we dealt with previously in other legislation and which is sensible. It would be foolish not to avail of the technology which facilitates due process within the courts system. The video taping of evidence was introduced to try to eliminate the waste of Garda time, in particular, where gardaí may have to wait in court for a whole day even though the case may not even be called. There is a need to streamline the justice system while not in any way prejudicing the rights of the accused.

The enforcement of orders for freezing property is a practical and sensible arrangement, which works effectively for CAB. Obtaining identification evidence for criminal investigations, both inside and outside the State, is interesting and perhaps poses questions. I note there is an issue of privilege whereby persons cannot be compelled to give evidence to assist in criminal investigations where they would not be compelled to give such evidence here in regard to a similar crime.

We also have within our system the right to silence, which has been debated here on many occasions. In the aftermath of the Omagh bombing, for example, we introduced legislation which removed the right to silence in certain situations or, at least, allowed a judge to make an inference in this regard. I wonder if we are at a stage where we should examine the right to silence in regard to other crimes. Considering it from a practical point of view, if a person is innocent, why should he or she not take the stand and assist the case? There may be instances where innocent people could prejudice their own position but, in the main, the right to silence is exercised in order to avoid being put on the spot in the hope that some bright barrister will get one off the hook. Perhaps we should examine the issue as I am not sure it serves the administration of justice.

Given that there are general discretions for the exclusion of evidence, should there be more harmonisation across the European Union of the various legislation adopted, including our court systems, in dealing with the prosecution of offences? I agree with the right of a person to be represented and cross-examined but, during inquiries in the justice committee, we have come across instances whereby statements taken outside the jurisdiction, allegedly by people involved in the police force, might not stand up in court. It is important that, within a more united Europe, there are no technical deficiencies that would allow people who are guilty of offences to avail of such technicalities. I am aware that the manner in which the statement is taken is paramount.

The Bill includes sections dealing with the position of prisoners and the temporary transfer of prisoners held in custody for the purposes of an investigation elsewhere. These sections provide that no warrant shall be issued unless a prisoner consents in writing to be transferred. What is the purpose of this provision? In addition, prisoners may not be prosecuted or otherwise restricted in terms of their personal freedom in respect of any offence committed before their arrival in the State. I assume "arrival in the State" refers to the time at which the prisoner was transferred to assist in prosecuting the particular offence. The Bill also provides that an assurance will be given by a requesting state that a prisoner will not be prosecuted, sentenced, detained or otherwise restricted in his or her personal freedom in respect of any offence under the law of that state committed before the prisoner's departure from this State.

I take a simple view on these matters. If there is sufficient evidence to indicate a person has a case to answer, the matter should proceed to court and if the person is guilty, he or she should pay the necessary dues to society. The provisions for mutual assistance are a start. Although some precautions are necessary, we should allow for the utmost level of co-operation to ensure those who are guilty are brought to justice.

I welcome provisions in regard to the extension of joint investigation teams, particularly those relating to the United States. There has historically been, and continues to be, much co-operation between Ireland and the United States and it is eminently sensible to introduce joint investigation teams as part of our legal and policing co-operation. Organised crime, in particular, which is very sophisticated, and terrorism, which is a major threat to society, are areas that must be tacked with the greatest diligence and the greatest level of global co-operation.

We must examine the issue of drugs. So much of crime evolves from direct involvement in drugs or from something peripherally related to drugs. When one considers the difficulty alcoholism poses, are we absolutely correct in making drugs illegal or should there be some controlled way of dealing with them? It is politically incorrect to suggest it but common sense tells us the present arrangement simply does not work and is leading to all types of additional serious crime, including murder. This is an area that must be examined.

Cabhróidh an Bille seo go mór chun coirpigh a bhraith agus chun coirpigh imchúiseaibh. Tá súil agam go leanfaimid ar aghaidh ag feabhsú i gcúrsaí comhoibrithe agus go gcabhródh leis na forálacha seo tras-náisiúnta san obair sin.