I welcome this opportunity to discuss the EU e-evidence package and this legislation, which seeks to transpose it into Irish law. The broad purpose of this package and legislation is evidently worthy. With an estimated up to 80% of court cases involving electronic evidence in some format and relevant companies often being headquartered outside the jurisdictions where the crime is alleged to have been committed, we should, of course, seek to introduce efficiencies where existing processes may struggle with scale. The question then is whether the Minister has got the approach right. I remain unconvinced he has for various reasons. Another week has passed in which the Minister has engaged in poor parliamentary practice. Here we are again debating a Bill on Second Stage when the deadline for Committee Stage amendments has already passed. If something were to come up in this debate, I would not be able to table an amendment on it because the deadline has already passed. That is bad practice. This follows a number of instances where Bills have been similarly rushed and, especially in recent weeks, we have had motions to extend the purpose of other Bills - some multiple times - to introduce various unrelated subject matters to legislation already in process. All this means is that legislation passes through these Houses with the bare minimum of scrutiny, and in some cases virtually no scrutiny at all. The reason the Minister will give that this legislation must be rushed is that the transposition deadline was last February and with the directive due to come into force in August. I put on record Sinn Féin's utter disgust that the Dáil is seeing its constitutional mandate limited by the Minister, arising from his failure to meet his obligation to process legislation in a timely and competent manner. That needs to change. Taking such an approach to the Dáil plays a role in undermining public confidence in our political institutions. I invite the Minister to reflect on his role in that. I understand the Department officials considered whether any existing State body or agency could take on the functions of this office but found there is no existing criminal justice body equipped to deal with the task required by the e-evidence package. We also know the majority of orders across the EU are expected to be processed through Ireland, so what we are dealing with is important, substantive and could have a significant impact in Ireland. While the e-evidence package has been presented in terms of efficiencies, it is not at all apparent it will not have the opposite impact in Ireland. The Department seems to think there will be minimal impact on court services but the Courts Service itself seems much more circumspect and has stated there is limited data available on the number of cases that may arise after commencement. It went on to say the Department’s projections may prove optimistic. That is hardly a ringing endorsement. Then there are the efficiencies the office is meant to bring. With the majority of orders expected to be processed here, it will be the Irish taxpayer who picks up the tab for virtually the entire European Union. The Minister will say it is a small price to pay and arises out of foreign direct investment but I would be interested whether he could provide a single example whereby an individual member state was on the hook to such an extent regarding a single directive or regulations. From our engagement with Department officials, it seems the Minister cannot even tell us the scale, the cost or where this new body is going to end up. There is €2.8 million set aside for this year to provide for 29 staff and associated costs. Officials see it moving upwards to 150 staff but there seems little certainty that will be a cap of sorts, especially given indications it is already intended to expand the remit of this new office to include the European investigation orders. Significant concerns also exist about the safeguards in this Bill. Department officials acknowledged at the committee that in theory the regulation is based on the idea of full faith and credit in the member states' legal systems. "Theory" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting here. In the past decade, we have seen democratic backsliding from some European Union states as well as issues with the rule of law. We have seen interference in the judicial system, European governments seeking to deny fundamental rights and the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia due to her journalism exposing major acts of corruption. These are just a few examples. I, therefore, have major concerns with the approach of this Bill and the potential for rogue governments, or elements in governments, to abuse the trust and authority the Minister would vest in them. I appreciate he may say the entire European project might be based on such a theory but in this instance we are talking about fundamental rights. We are talking about political persecution. In that context, that seems designed to minimise judicial and Irish oversight. Sinn Féin is not alone in having a critique of safeguards in the e-evidence package generally. As highlighted by Digital Rights Ireland in its submission to the justice committee, in an article on balancing efficiency and fundamental rights in this package, one academic described the e-evidence package as having minimal fundamental safeguards, so there is an absolute need for any Irish legislation to empower a Minister to suspend co-operation, where necessary. There was also extensive discussion at the Oireachtas justice committee on the issue of dual criminality and in particular how the civil law systems will relate to Ireland’s common law tradition. I do not believe engagement with Department officials answered all the questions raised or left members entirely reassured. Sinn Féin believes there needs to be strong, robust provisions in any Irish legislation that ensure information may only be provided where an alleged offence constitutes and offence under Irish criminal law. Sinn Féin is also concerned about the administrative burden this could place on SMEs. The Government’s SME test identified this will impact SMEs more than larger companies and that they will incur administrative and compliance costs, notably working against ongoing efforts to increase competitiveness and reduce administrative and regulatory business. It would be more useful if the director of this office had an ongoing, explicit mandate to ensure minimal administrative burden for the SME sector specifically. An area of particular concern to me is the ability of smaller SMEs to meet the required timeframes necessitated by this legislation, which could be as little as eight hours in the case of an emergency order. Section 49, as the Minister said, provides that in exceptional circumstances, where a service provider is in breach, an adjudication officer may decide not to impose a financial penalty. The Bill later clarifies such exceptional circumstances may include a micro-enterprise of fewer than ten people not responding to an emergency order. I am not at all confident this is robust enough a safeguard for SMEs. In any small businesses, not just micro-enterprises, it would not be exceptional to not have 24-7 cover, which is in effect what this Bill mandates them to have. Sinn Féin welcomes that it is envisaged a decentralised IT system will be developed to facilitate engagement and reporting to SMEs. It would be of use if the Minister could provide an update on the status of this in his closing remarks. While the Minister's Bill makes provision for engagement and information-sharing with other relevant public bodies like the Garda, Coimisiún na Meán and others, there is nothing in here on the Data Protection Commission. Given the concerns that exist, it would be reassuring for the Minister to, at the very least, similarly facilitate formal engagement between the office and the Data Protection Commission. The proposed legislation is rushed. It leaves too many questions remaining on key provisions, especially about sovereignty, safeguards and the rule of law. Consequently, Sinn Féin cannot support this Bill in its current format.

Sentiment score: 0.12