Seanad debates

Thursday, 5 November 2020

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2020: Second Stage

 

10:30 am

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I support this Bill. It is technical legislation that transposes a directive and replaces a range of existing EU directives and regulations. The directive and this Bill are aimed at stamping out crimes against the EU budget and specifically mentions fraud that affects the financial interests of the European Union. To be clear, we are talking not just about, for example, the misappropriation of funds that might be obtained under the EU budget but also fraud or wrongdoing concerning money from national budgets that could contribute to EU resources. I mean the EU budget being made up of the EU's own resources, as they are called, namely, its share of customs duties collected by member states, a portion of the VAT collected by member states and a fixed percentage of the gross national income.

Is this legislation about crimes against member states which would affect those areas of national income-gathering that would indirectly impact on the portion of their national incomes contributed to the EU? Is that what we are talking about? So it is not just the misappropriation of funds obtained from the EU, for whatever purpose, but clearly applies to broader areas of activity such as VAT, fraud or whatever, which affects member states. Is it our understanding that that is also fraud as it affects the financial interests of the European Union because it affects the moneys available to member states from which a portion is given to the European Union? In that context, I am conscious of the role of the EPPO which will only begin its operations this month. That is probably why the Bill is before the House now.The EPPO investigates and prosecutes crimes against the EU's financial interests, including fraud concerning EU funds of over €10,000 and cross-border VAT fraud cases involving damages above €10 million. It is targeted at particularly high-end fraud, with small issues being handled domestically. Up to now, only national authorities could investigate and prosecute these crimes and they cannot act beyond their borders. The EPPO will have a European delegated prosecutor in each member state. Ireland has opted-out of participating in the EPPO, as did the UK originally. Obviously, the UK will not be opting-out of anything any longer. Ireland opted-out on the grounds that the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, is independent of Government and of the police and it being part of an EPPO might undermine its independence. We are a common law jurisdiction. Is it the ongoing position of the Government that we will be opting out of the EPPO? Is there any intention to opt-in in the future? How is it envisaged the DPP will handle cases covered by this legislation in the absence of having an official delegated prosecutor within its ranks?

In 2016, the EU's fight against fraud annual report found 1,410 instances of fraud involving some €391 million. I recently read the regulatory impact analysis on this Bill, published by the Department of Justice, arising out of which I have a question. It states that the EU Commission estimates that implementing the directive would result in a saving of €477 million across the EU. The Department's analysis is that it is not possible to quantify what portion of that €477 million would result from Ireland's transposition of the instrument. I ask the Minister of State to address that point. On what basis did the Commission reach the figure of €477 million and why can a country-by-country breakdown not be given, even in very general terms? The Commission's fight against fraud report gives a national breakdown. If it has a means of estimating an overall figure, surely it would be able to estimate a breakdown by country. It would be of benefit to know what kind of money could be saved by the passage of this Bill into law. I am wondering why there is no country-by-country breakdown by the Commission or Ireland. Is it about protecting the reputations of certain countries? Is it the case that the further east one goes the further into the wild west one goes and so on? I would be grateful if the Minister of State could address that issue as well.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.