I thank the Deputy very much for his amendment. I understand his concerns in relation to fundamental rights and countries not adhering to the rule of law as we might in Ireland. However, I regret that we cannot accept his proposed amendment. The e-evidence package provides for co-operation between member states of the EU. It does not allow any member state to unilaterally suspend its operation, and the proposed amendment would be in clear breach of our legal obligations under EU law. On a point of principle, giving a member of the Executive the power to interfere with the exercise of judicial functions by a judicial authority within the EU would be a breach of the democratic principles of the separation of powers under the rule of law. The director is being made independent specifically to prevent any suggestion that a director might be subject to influence or direction from a member of the Executive as regards the implementation of judicial orders. That would not be right. The EU regulation already contains certain safeguards, including the provision in paragraph 3 of Article 1, which states that the regulation shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and legal principles as enshrined in the charter and in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. The regulation also has specific safeguards. Under Article 8, the Irish enforcing authority must be notified of incoming European production orders unless they relate to an offence in the issuing state committed by a person who resides in that state, and execution can be refused. Article 12 sets out the grounds for refusal. Article 10 provides a channel through which the service provider may alert the Irish enforcing authority when it considers the order would interfere with freedom of expression. The Deputy might ask what happens after the director has been notified of a production order under Article 8 of the e-evidence measure. What are the practical steps? Where a director, as an enforcing authority, is notified by the issuing authority of a European production order, the director must assess the order and, where appropriate, raise one of several grounds for refusal. Following an assessment, the director can raise the following grounds for refusal. The director can state that the data requested are protected by immunities or privileges under Irish law; that the data requested are covered by rules on the determination or limitation of criminal liability that relate to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and other media; that execution of the order would entail a manifest breach of relevant fundamental rights, as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and in the charter, which speaks to the points the Deputy is raising on fundamental rights; that the execution of the order would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem, the double jeopardy concept; and that the conduct for which the order has been issued does not constitute an offence under Irish law, unless it concerns an offence listed within the categories of offences set out in Annex IV, all of which are offences under Irish law, if it is punishable in the issuing state by a custodial sentence or detention order for a maximum period of at least three years. Before raising any of the above refusal grounds, the director, as enforcing authority, has to contact the issuing authority to discuss the matter. The issuing authority may decide to withdraw, adapt or maintain the order. If there is no solution, the director may raise one of the grounds for refusal. If the director, as enforcing authority, raises one of the refusal grounds, they must inform the addressee and the issuing authority. The addressee then must stop the execution of the European production order and not transfer the data, and the issuing authority has to withdraw the order. I hope that helps the Deputy regarding his amendment and gives him some comfort.

Sentiment score: 0.14

As we all know, we are members of the European Union and the Members opposite know well that we cannot include this provision. It is in breach of the treaties and our obligations as a member of the European Union. We all know that we have legal obligations in relation to this regulation and we simply cannot ignore that. If we were to enact the amendment, service providers would still remain obligated to execute orders. That would be without oversight from directors. For the reasons I have stated, I simply cannot accept the Deputies' amendment. We cannot rewrite the regulation. There is no legal basis for Ireland to include such a provision. The Irish Executive cannot unilaterally decide to suspend legal co-operation entirely with another EU member state that is party to this instrument. To do so would place us in breach of our legal obligations under EU law. There are safeguards in the regulation to address instances with the execution of a specific order that might be in breach of fundamental rights. I set out in detail in my initial contribution these safeguards. This regulation shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and legal principles enshrined in the Charter and in Article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union. The regulation also has specific safeguards whereby under Article 8, the Irish enforcing authority must be notified of incoming European production orders unless they relate to an offence in the issuing state committed by a person who resides in that state. Execution can be refused. Article 12 sets out the grounds on which they may be refused and Article 10 provides a channel through which the service provider may alert the Irish enforcing authority when it considers the order would interfere with the freedom of expression. At this stage, I have nothing more to add.

Sentiment score: 0.15

I thank the Deputy for his amendment. He sought information on the e-portal. Connection to the decentralised IT system for SMEs will be via a web portal and access will be provided to their nominated addressee. If the data being returned is less than 25 Mb it will be sent via the system, but if it is greater it will be sent via another secure means and the cost associated with this will be minimal. Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The language of amendment No. 2 is quite vague and it would be effectively meaningless in practice. The legal obligations on service providers are determined by EU regulation and directive. It is not open to the director to alter them. If there is a case for non-compliance, there will be an administrative burden on service providers who are subject to investigation but that cannot be avoided if a proper, fair and impartial investigation is to be carried out. Amendment No. 3 seeks to introduce a double criminality provision. However, the question of double criminality is determined by the EU regulation. It is addressed in Article 12(1)(d) of the regulation, which provides one of the grounds for refusal of a European production order by an enforcing authority such as a director. It states: the conduct for which the order has been issued does not constitute an offence under the law of the enforcing State, unless it concerns an offence listed within the categories of offences set out in Annex IV, as indicated by the issuing authority in the EPOC, if it is punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years. Annex IV contains a list of 32 categories of serious offences, all of which constitute offences under Irish law. It is not open to us to vary this EU provision, which is legally binding on the director. In the case of Irish law, the regulation is not in conflict with the intention behind the amendment, so the amendment is redundant.

Sentiment score: 0.02

The Department is not unsympathetic to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our economy. That is very much acknowledged. The web portal that will be used will have a minimal cost. The vast majority of orders in these cases will be directed to a small number of large service providers. However, where a small to medium-sized service provider is subject to an e-evidence order and holds electronic evidence related to the investigation of serious crime, it will have obligations under this regulation. That will be the cost of doing business in this industry. To relieve service providers of these obligations would likely create a gap criminals would exploit by moving to services offered by SMEs and would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the evidence package. That said, the provisions in sections 38 and 40 are specifically designed to allow the director to remedy breaches by service providers without the need to proceed to investigation or the imposition of fines. In particular, the director can seek a compliance report to clarify the issues and may enter into an agreement with the service provider setting out the steps to be taken to remedy any issues identified. Furthermore, there is a legal obligation on the legal officers under section 50(2)(f) to give special consideration to small and medium-sized enterprises when considering the imposition of fines.

Sentiment score: 0.03

I thank Deputy Carthy for his amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I thank Deputy Ward for his comments on my appointment. Regretfully, I cannot accept the amendments. The definition of "public authority" in section 17(4) is intended to cover those Irish public authorities that have a law enforcement role and that may need to seek a European production order in the context of a criminal investigation into serious crime. The director in the role of central authority responsible for administration and transmission of such orders to other jurisdictions, and the receipt of data under Article 4.6 of the EU regulation, may have a role in assisting those bodies in the transmission of such orders and to pass on data received from service providers. That is provided for in section 17(1)(f). Given that there could be a flow of data between the office of the director and those public authorities, provision is made in section 19 for information-sharing agreements to ensure the proper safeguarding of such data. The Data Protection Commission will not have a role in the issuing of European production orders and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to include a reference to the commission in sections 17 or 19. The Data Protection Commission does have a role in ensuring data is processed and the rights of data subjects are respected, and extensive powers to investigate any potential wrongdoing lie therein. The office of the director is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018. The Data Protection Commission was consulted about this legislation and did not seek to have any special information-sharing agreements with the office. I hope that answers the Deputies' concerns.

Sentiment score: 0.16

On the Deputy's specific question about the format of the liaison with the Data Protection Commission, there was a lot of interaction with it about the scheme of the Bill. I advise Deputies that my Department, in accordance with Article 36.4 of the GDPR and section 84(12) of the Data Protection Act 2018, the Data Protection Commission was consulted about the specifics of the drafting of the Bill throughout. This was done in writing, not orally. The Data Protection Commission has carefully examined all data protection-related measures in the Bill and the related European measures at a very high level, and it did not identify a need for any such amendments or explicit provisions allowing for information-sharing agreements between the office and the Data Protection Commission. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

Sentiment score: 0.16

As I said, this legislation applies to criminal law enforcement bodies. We know that the Data Protection Commission is not one such body. We consulted the DPC about the general scheme and it commented on the benefit of information sharing with listed public authorities. An expert team from the DPC would have been in touch with my Department for detailed engagement on a written basis, which is not unusual. At this stage, I have nothing further to add about the matter.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I know that time is sometimes very precious in this House. Section 20 of the legislation requires the publication of an annual report. That is set out very clearly in the legislation.

Sentiment score: 0.36

The annual report shall provide information as the director considers appropriate or as the director may direct. The section deliberately did not prescribe in detail exactly what statistical data should be included, as we are setting up a new entity. Until we have some experience of how it operates, it would be premature to determine what statistical information is most relevant and available. My Department believes that we should maintain a flexible approach at this stage but I will put on the record that I see no reason for the information referred to in the amendment not to be included in future in an annual report. I also remind Deputies that the Freedom of Information Act will apply, so there will be no question of hiding information. In any case, most of the statistical information will be provided by the director to the Minister under section 21. Also under section 21, the director must submit to the Minister information on the number of notifications made under Article 8 and the number of production orders refused. This must be done by type of data requested, address and grounds for refusal. Deputies were looking for further information on the impact on our court system. I assure Deputies that this impact will be minimal. For the purposes of this Bill, our courts will principally be involved in confirming compliance decisions, the imposition of fines and appeals. Our courts will otherwise not have a significant role in incoming orders issued by courts based in other member states. In relation to the costs, the potential number of cases that will be going through the office and the number of requests made to the office, current estimates suggest that approximately 300,000 orders will be sent to service providers based in the State each year. This is based on the number of law enforcement requests currently received by the largest service providers based here. However, as only certain types of data request require a notification to be sent to the enforcing authority, the office of the director of criminal justice international co-operation will receive only a subset of those orders for review. Current estimates suggest that the office could receive around 24,000 notifications each year and as the e-evidence package represents a new legal framework for obtaining electronic evidence across the EU, the exact number of orders that will be issued and, consequently, the number of notifications sent to the office will only be known once the regulation comes into effect. Deputies were also interested in the proposed cost of the office. An allocation of €2.8 million was secured in budget 2026 to establish the new office of the director of criminal justice international co-operation. The figure of €2.8 million reflects both pay and non-pay costs associated with setting up the office in 2026. This is a part-year cost. The approach to establishing the office as agreed by the Government has always been that it will do so on a phased basis. The Department has been focused on the progression of the legislation and the recruitment of the director, which is nearing completion. The process of recruitment of staff of the office is under way and my officials are engaging with the Public Appointments Service on that matter. It is expected that 20 staff will be recruited to the office by the end of the year and the recruitment process will continue as and when required on a phased basis. I hope that answers the Deputies’ questions.

Sentiment score: 0.12

In relation to the annual report, Deputy Carthy was curious as to whether it would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 20(4) provides that it would be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas. As to what the contents of the report would be and what would form part of the report, that would be at the discretion of the Minister. Under section 20(3), the annual report "shall be in such form, and include such information in respect of the performance by the Director of his or her functions, as the Director considers appropriate or as the Minister may direct." As I outlined, under section 21, the director must submit to the Minister information on the number of notifications under article 8, the number of production orders refused and the type of data requested, the addressees and the grounds for refusal, etc. In relation to Deputy Gannon’s point on why not be prescriptive at this stage or why state we are not being prescriptive, this is a new body and office and it was the considered thought of the Minister that the section would deliberately not be prescriptive so that we can take into account the experience and how the body is operating. It was the Minister’s view that it would be premature to determine what statistical information is most relevant at this point, and he came to that decision having considered the matter with his officials and having put a lot of thought into it. I hope that answers some of the Deputies’ questions.

Sentiment score: 0.14

Orders must be processed in ten days or 96 hours.

Sentiment score: 0.00

In relation to the Deputy’s question on the number of service providers that will be affected, 420 have been identified but the Department believes it may affect up to 600 service providers. I hope that provides clarification. I propose to address amendments Nos. 7 and 12 together. Regretfully, I cannot accept either of these amendments. The purpose of establishing an independent office is to ensure that the Minister, as a member of the Executive, does not have any direct role in the enforcement of the obligations by service providers under this Bill. It would be neither desirable nor practical for the Minister to publish guidance notes when he or she has no role in determining compliance with the provisions. That is why section 22 provides that the director may issue guidance notes. I will not agree to an amendment that would undermine the role of the director in this regard, and neither can I agree to give service providers a free pass to breach their obligations under the e-evidence package pending the issue of guidance notes. I point out that the provisions of sections 38 and 40 are specifically designed to allow the director to remedy breaches by service providers without the need to proceed to investigations and the imposition of fines. In particular, the director can seek a compliance report to clarify what the issues are and may enter into an agreement with the service provider setting out the steps to be taken to remedy any issues. Furthermore, there is a legal obligation on adjudication officers under section 50(2)(f) to give special consideration to small and medium-sized enterprises when considering the imposition of fines. The purpose is to ensure compliance with the legislation and the imposition of fines is very much a last resort.

Sentiment score: 0.08

Regretfully, I must oppose both amendments. Section 32 is intended to deal with a situation where an investigation is under way by an authorised officer into a possible contravention by a service provider of a relevant obligation under the directive - notification of designated establishment or legal representative or failure to provide same with the necessary powers and resources. It could also apply where an adjudication is being made as to whether to impose a fine for a breach of certain provisions of the e-evidence regulation by a service provider. In the course of such an investigation or adjudication, the service provider may have to provide certain material. Section 32, which is a standard provision on the Statute Book that functions well, addresses the situation where a question of privilege arises. The intention is that in such cases, the material shall be handed over subject to its being held in safe-keeping by the authorised officer or adjudication officer, who must make an application to the High Court within 30 days. The High Court then decides what to do with it. If I understand the Deputy correctly, his concern is about what happens to the material between the handing over the material and the application to the High Court. I agree with the Deputy that the material should be kept securely but I do not believe that his amendment is required. Subsection (3) of section 32 already provides that an officer can only compel the disclosure of the record or take possession of the record provided that the privilege asserted can be maintained. This provision is already quite sufficient to achieve the end sought by the Deputy's amendment - the preservation of privilege asserted over the record until such time as the court has ruled on the matter. An authorised officer or adjudication officer may only access material for the purpose of an investigation or adjudication and clearly cannot use material if privilege is claimed until and unless the High Court judge issues a direction or rules on the matter. Furthermore, under section 33(1), an authorised officer may not disclose any confidential information. To do so is a criminal offence under section 33(3). There are similar provisions for adjudication officers in section 33(2). In summary, I agree with the sentiment underlying these amendments but I believe they are unnecessary and may be too restrictive as to means of preserving privilege. I am confident that the existing provisions and the High Court will ensure that there is no such abuse.

Sentiment score: 0.10