Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Silim gurb é seo a chéad seal ag plé ábhair linn ina ról nua. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis.

Before I speak to the Bill, I touch on an issue that may appear a bit awkward. I am sure it will not be lost on people that today the Government is bringing through legislation that aims to protect the EU's financial interest while we still have the ongoing saga of Apple's tax affairs. The Government's attitude towards the Commission was to fight it in the courts instead of doing the right thing in that regard. I know this Bill is not related to the Apple tax issue, but it should not be lost on anybody here that the EU directive which we are beginning to transpose into law here comes from the belief that the EU's finances must be protected in the same way that we must protect our own financial interests. The tax loopholes here have contributed to the EU's frustration with tax avoidance. It is embarrassing that the State is involved in legal disputes that allow Apple to run away with €13 billion that should have been taxed, ach mar a duairt mé, sin scéal eile. That said, Sinn Féin will support the Bill.

It is welcome that the Bill tackles further aspects of white-collar crime, corruption, fraud and tax evasion even though it is more specific to offences against the EU's financial interests. The Bill aims to tackle fraud that affects the EU's financial interests. We know the complex VAT fraud and what are known as carousel fraud operations have used shell companies and Irish banks. Of course, they have been unwittingly involved, but criminal enterprises have used Irish banks to commit serious offences. Therefore, it is right that Ireland plays its part as a member state and implements the legislation to give effect to this EU directive. We know that these types of crimes cost EU taxpayers billions of euro each year.

Criminal liability for corporate bodies is very welcome, particularly the failure-to-prevent model, notwithstanding the difficulties highlighted in the court cases with proving intent. I hope it will provide another aspect of liability should a corporate body be negligent in preventing the offence. However, I note that the specific type of corporate criminal liability only applies to offences that affect the EU's financial interests. The clear aim of Article 10.2 of the 2013 directive and section 9(1) and (2) of the 2017 Act is to drive corporate bodies to ensure that they have mechanisms in place to ensure that their managements prevent employees and subsidiaries from committing offences under the Act and the failure-to-prevent model is considered appropriate.The Law Reform Commission has suggested that this approach could give rise to difficulties and could potentially be unfair. The commission also stated that other legislation has "overcome this particular potential difficulty by requiring that the contingent offence be committed for the benefit of the corporate body as an express proof of the corporate liability mechanism." It further indicated that it is considered one of the toughest approaches to corporate crime. Can the Minister of State tell me why, in this instance, we did not take the tougher approach to corporate offences?

I want to mention a couple of concerns that I am sure the Minister of State will engage with me on as the debate on legislation proceeds. I agree with other colleagues who have welcomed the fact that we are getting a regular, proper approach in terms of this legislation's journey through the parliamentary process.

The EU directive failed to create a harmonisation of penalties for these offences across member states. I know that the Council has its reasons for that. However, this type of criminality is generally carried out across borders where a problem arises. I mean if the penalties differ across member states it could give rise to issues of legal uncertainty for defendants and concerns about the fundamental rights of defence and entitlement to a fair trial. Does the Minister of State have any thoughts on mitigating the issues that might arise in terms of those fundamental rights? While these crimes are serious, we must still ensure that defendants are treated with their right to justice in mind. I hope that the Minister of State or the Taoiseach have engaged at EU level to ensure that this is not going to be a major issue of concern for us as we move forward.

Other parts of the directive improve harmonisation across member states by actually recognising that fraud and tax evasion affect EU finances under criminal law, which is welcome. What concerns me deeply is that part of this island, with Brexit, is being dragged out of the EU and, therefore, these measures will only have effect on one part of Ireland. I would like to hear from the Minister of State, if he is in a position to provide the information at this stage, on what he thinks the implications will be for the people of the North and, indeed, of the whole of the island in terms of preventing cross-Border fraud, as well what will be the consequences for fundamental rights, in the context of the EU, as a result of Brexit. How will Ministers engage with their colleagues north of the Border?

Sinn Féin supports the Bill at this point. I am sure that, like others, we will seek to amend it at on Committee Stage. At the moment, however, we are content. I look forward to working with the Minister of State, his officials and other colleagues across the House.