Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire freisin as ucht an luais a bhí leis. Nuair atáimid ag labhairt faoin dlí ag an leibhéal Eorpach, is gá dúinn na rialacha mar sin a chur sa dlí sa tír seo. Déanaim comhghairdeas leis maidir leis sin. Ag an am céanna, bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht anseo freisin. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil daoine sa Teach seo a bhfuil imní orthu faoi rudaí atá sa Bhille agus ceisteanna atá fós le freagairt ag an Aire. Labhróidh mé fúthu siúd ar feadh tamaillín. While it is obviously very important to implement this legislation and to give legal effect to the European regulations and directives in law in this country, it is important that we do so in a way that is effective, above challenge and is going to work. I note what the Minister said about the likelihood that many of the companies that will be affected by the EU e-evidence package will give their addressee in this State. This will possibly result in hundreds of thousands of requests, under the package, being brought to companies in this State and therefore being subject to regulation within this State. That is a significant administrative burden, so I would certainly welcome an assurance from the Minister that resources will be given to the office to ensure it can carry out its function. That is what I mean when I say it must be effective. If we are to give legal meaning to this legislation, it must be something where the CJICO to be established here will be able to do the work it has to do. However, let me say this on co-operation with our European colleagues: I cannot think of a single example where it was not absolutely in Ireland's interest to be part of exercises and co-operation agreements exactly like this. As a small country in Europe, albeit one in which digital and technological regulation has come to the fore for us because so many companies have been headquartered here, it nonetheless serves us at every head's turn to be part of co-operation agreements with our European colleagues so that we can share information with them and will also be the beneficiaries of access to information across the European Union. Looking specifically at law enforcement, I have listened to colleagues who have said crime does not respect borders, and they are absolutely correct in that regard. When we look at European law enforcement, we should be moving, to the greatest extent possible, to a single jurisdiction on this Continent so that we can accelerate the enforcement of law and the prosecution of those responsible for breaking the law. That said, we also need to build safeguards into all legislation. I listened to what was said about concerns relating to potential discrepancies between law in one member state and this member state and the idea that Irish addressees or companies based in this jurisdiction would therefore be aiding another jurisdiction to prosecute an offence that is not known to law in this jurisdiction. Safeguards are important. I know reference was made to Article 12(1)(d). I must say I am satisfied this gives the assurance required. In this context, for example, with the European arrest warrant framework that came into law over 20 years ago, at that time, if I remember correctly, during the debates there were also concerns regarding offences in other countries that were not offences here. The concern was that people would be extradited or surrendered all the time to other European countries for matters we do not recognise as against the law here. Again, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by Members at that time, that framework specifically addressed that, and in a similar way to what Article 12 does in the e-evidence package with a view to saying, "Actually, no, you cannot do that." We have seen in the European arrest warrant framework, for example, that it is something the High Court must establish here before the extradition or surrender ever takes place. The High Court here must be satisfied that the offence complained of by the jurisdiction seeking to have a person surrendered is a matter known to Irish law. I would say the same must be true in terms of the operation of the CJICO and it satisfying itself. Article 12 gives that but, again, I would be grateful to hear confirmation from the Minister that he is also satisfied Article 12 does this. The reality is that we are not just a geographic island but also, in many ways, a legal island within the European Union. The common law jurisdiction that operates here has benefited us hugely from the point of view of continuity over time in the interpretation of the law by our judges. It has also benefited us in the sense that international businesses and individuals coming to this State can rely on a rule of law that is consistently applied and the direction of which can be visibly seen. They can have confidence that our system applies the law in a way that they can predict and therefore they can abide by. There are other technical common law jurisdictions in the European Union - Cyprus and Malta, for example. They are more hybrid than we are. We are essentially the last pure common law jurisdiction left in the European Union after Brexit. We have to be mindful that different legal systems create different ways in which crime is prosecuted. In many respects, I have concerns about the way certain matters are addressed by courts under civil law jurisdiction and the rights that we take for granted in this jurisdiction may not be as openly available to citizens in other European countries. That is not to call into question the effectiveness or the fairness of their legal systems; it is just different. However, because of that difference, we have to create that balancing act between the two to ensure that there is not an injustice perpetrated because of a request made from one country to an addressee in this country in relation to something that may be at variance with our laws. I would be grateful to the Minister for confirmation that there is not an issue under Article 12 and that that satisfies any concerns that might exist in that regard. I come back to the efficiency issue in relation to the operation of the CJICO. I ask the Minister to address the question of resources that will be made available to it. If, for example, hundreds of addressees who are based in this jurisdiction are nominated by companies in the digital space in Europe and we find hundreds of thousands of requests being made from across the European Union to this jurisdiction, will the resources to be available to the CJICO to deal with those requests? Has provision been made or consideration given to how that will happen? Again, I refer to the European arrest warrant framework in this regard. Countries have applied it differently without any criticism. For example, Poland identified the European arrest warrant framework as a very effective way of getting citizens, particularly from Ireland, to go back to Poland. There has been criticism in the Supreme Court of the minor nature of some offences on which the return of a Polish citizen from Ireland was sought by Poland. Again, that is something that had to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. If, for example, the CJICO feels that a request is frivolous - in using that word I do so without any criticism - or more minor than may have been envisaged initially in this Bill or in the package generally, is that something that CJICO will be empowered to deal with itself? Will it have recourse to the courts? What will the ultimate arbiter be if addressees in this jurisdiction are receiving requests from other European countries that are just beyond the pale or beyond what we envisaged when this package was put together? At the end of the day this e-evidence package makes perfect sense. The notion that we would be delaying criminal prosecutions because of administrative difficulties in transferring e-evidence from one entity to another or across borders is nonsense. We should not tolerate that. We should not encourage it. We should be doing everything we can in a legislative context to avoid that happening. That is what this Bill does as I understand it. It does not mean that it is perfect. It does not mean that it is not worth looking at the possible pitfalls that we may have experienced in transposing similar applications of European legislation into national legislation. Has consideration been given to the possibility that one country might be very zealous - I will not say overzealous - in its pursuit of requests to addressees who might actually be resident in this jurisdiction? How will we deal with that? Is it sufficient for the CJICO or is it something that will require recourse to the Irish courts? If there is recourse to the Irish courts to solve those issues, what about the capacity of the courts to deal with those questions as they arise? We already have a criminal justice system and a court system generally that is under strain. We do not have enough judges. We do not have enough frequency of cases travelling through the courts. Will there be a dedicated court? Is that something that will create a blockage in the system? Has consideration been given to this? All of this comes back to the basic point of this. We are a small entity within the European Union. We have had a universally positive experience of being part of the European Union and we have benefited enormously from co-operation with other European Union states whether through international co-operation on criminal justice matters, trade, travel or the free movement of ideas, goods and services, and all of the principles that we have come to take for granted as being part of the European Union. These are all good things for us. I welcome the Bill from the point of view that it transposes the EU e-evidence package. It is important and it will benefit us. In the final analysis, our job in this House is to look at this Bill and the manner in which it transposes that package. Does it do it in a way that still serves us? More importantly, does it do it in a way that avoids pitfalls that will sometimes emerge from transposing complex legislation that is meant to apply to 27 states - hopefully in the near future more - by narrowing that into our jurisdiction and fitting it, like the peg that goes into a hole, into our specific common law jurisdiction. Does it work? Are there pitfalls and have all possible unintended consequences been considered? I am quite sure the Minister thinks they have but I would be very grateful to hear what specific considerations in that area have been given. Maidir leis an mBille féin, tá mé thar a bheith i bhfabhar an Bhille agus an mhéid a dhéanfaidh sé maidir leis an dlí agus an dlí Eorpach atá ag teacht go hÉirinn. Is maith an rud é. Is maith dúinn é mar mhuintir na hÉireann. Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille agus tá súil agam go rachaidh sé trí Thithe an Oireachtais leis an luas céanna lenar tháinig sé go dtí an Teach seo.

Sentiment score: 0.13