Barry Ward
Dún Laoghaire · Fine Gael · Ireland
“I acknowledge all of the factors the Minister of State set out. I welcome them all and it is really important that we spread that message. The second part of the Minister of State's response is really important and that is the EU jobs part. I would not necessarily limit it just to the European Union.”
“Let us not abdicate responsibility for politically unpopular decisions, which are still the right decisions, made at European level with the involvement of Irish people.”
“There is little doubt about the positivity we associate with membership of the European Union. Some 82% of Irish people favour membership of the European Union, the highest rate of approval of any European state.”
“It is really important, not from the point of view of influence but from the point of view of presence, that there are Irish people around the table when decisions are being made so that the Irish perspective is understood and heard.”
“To look at it from a purely economic standpoint, the value of being part of the Single Market is enormous. In 1973, we imported €340 million more in goods than we exported. In recent times, we have had an export surplus. We have exported more than €53 billion more than we have imported.”
“As we hold the Presidency of the Council of the EU and are at the heart of Europe, leading the agenda and setting the tone in respect of our priorities during the Presidency, what is the Government doing to communicate to Irish people just how lucky we are to be part of the European Union?”
The complete record
Every one of 997 lines we hold for Barry Ward, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 20.
“However, I recognise the policy objective behind it. There are other aspects of the Bill that I am a little unhappy with. The objections I have primarily relate to drafting. For example, at the end of the Bill, Part 7, section 38, creates a consequential amendment to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. This is something that I say about legislation all the time. If we expect legislation to be readable by ordinary citizens, the amendment should be contained in the amending section. Section 38 states that a section of the 1992 Act is amended by replacing paragraph (b) with the following words, which is no use to anybody reading this Bill when it comes law. They then have to go and get the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and read the two of them together to understand what this legislation is doing.”
“We should be moving towards becoming energy independent. That should the end point of all our energy goals. We have the natural resources to do it. We have the wind, and I am told we have the solar. Even though it might feel like it today, it does not feel like it on a cold Monday in November. The point is that the natural resources exist and if we are to develop wave technology and other renewable technologies, we can do that. I recognise there is a long lead-in to that, which is far too long, in my opinion. The blocking and delays of offshore wind projects, which are even less problematic than onshore wind projects, are unacceptable. That is the kind of thing that we should target. If we are going to use a slot for controversial legislation, let us do it for that instead of creating an LNG terminal.”
“If the LNG terminal is not going to be available until 2030, as I understand it, that in itself creates a problem from the point of view of its real assistance in energy security for this country. I wonder about the efficacy of it in that regard. There is always a balance to be struck to meet the requirements of the State. As bad as this might be, it would be a thousand times worse if, in a couple of years' time, there were rolling blackouts on our electricity grid or people were not able to avail of electricity for their homes and businesses or, worse, for essential services. We must do everything we can, as a Government, State, country and body politic, to ensure we are putting in place resilience measures so that we can compensate if there is a problem in this regard. Security of supply is central.”
“It is, of course, important to build resilience into our system but I wonder if we will have missed the boat by the time we do so in 2030. As of today, there is not a single operational offshore wind farm in this country. The Minister of State will agree that this is not just regrettable; it is disgraceful. I know the Arklow Bank wind farm has been decommissioned but may well come back into service in due course, with further applications and all the rest. I am aware of projects off the coast of my constituency. I welcome those and look forward to their operation but we are years away from seeing those generate electricity. We have other problems, including growing electricity demand.”
“More importantly, the use of nuclear energy as a solution to the security of supply for Ireland would build up enormous problems for future generations, and I simply do not hold with that idea. I am not afraid of the conversation in that regard, but I do not think nuclear is part of the answer. I understand why this Bill is being brought forward. As I said, I consider it to be a necessary evil. The reason for providing for an LNG terminal is to secure a supply of gas, if it is required and the supply of gas from elsewhere ceased. However, I am still not happy about that. For example, I am not happy that there are no guarantees in this legislation regarding fracked gas that might come here as LNG. There are not, and there cannot be, because it would create all kinds of other difficulties.”
“When that is completed, we will have access to the electricity there. That will be an important part of building energy security for this country. Some of the electricity coming through the Celtic interconnector will come from electricity generated by nuclear power stations. I do not have a problem with that but I would distinguish myself from other Government backbenchers who were referred to earlier. I do not think nuclear is part of the solution to our problems here, by any stretch. For a start, the cost involved is enormous. Moreover, the time delivery for it is way beyond what we would need to put in clean solutions such as wind, solar and, hopefully, wave, which is not being used nearly enough.”
“I was going to say I welcome the Bill, but I do not welcome it; it is a necessary evil. Its purpose is to secure the provision of energy to this country in the long term, at a time when the provision of energy and resources to generate energy are tremendously volatile and precipitous in terms of our access to energy. I listened to Deputy O'Gorman say security of supply should be achieved by domestic generation. I would fully agree with that statement, but for the fact that we are not capable of generating everything we need on this island. Thankfully, we have access to the UK electricity market through the North-South interconnector, and I look forward to accessing mainland Europe electricity in 2028, through the Celtic interconnector, a 575 km undersea cable that will connect us to Brittany.”
“In section 2, the interpretation section, it does make reference to the European legislative instruments, but it does not actually say what they say. That is a drafting difficulty that means people will have to look up that stuff elsewhere, which can be quite difficult for them.”
“Reference was made earlier to the fact that anybody who has done a Google search in recent times has used AI, whether they actively consented to it or not. I have an issue with that because nobody asked my consent to enter my search criteria into an AI bot or an AI application. This is the kind of thing for which regulation is needed. If people are to engage with artificial intelligence, they should do so in an informed way and actively consent to doing that. Otherwise they do not really know what is coming back or whether they can rely on the search results that come back. Perhaps what is most important is that, irrespective of what regulations arise from this legislation, people still have to check things themselves. May I make just one point about the drafting? The Bill does not actually define what artificial intelligence is.”
“We can have regulations that protect us, protect our information systems and protect our children from exposure to these things online, but we can also have an environment that allows entrepreneurs, developers and the creators and the creative people in this world to constantly build new technologies. That is a good thing. Many of the criticisms that are made against artificial intelligence were made against the Internet and the computer and, before that, the machine that sliced bread, if proverbs are to be believed. I am not a Luddite. I do not believe we should not be progressing - of course we should - but we need to progress in a way that can ensure the protection of the citizenry's rights and the integrity of what they view, for example, on the Internet.”
“It certainly does not have emotional intelligence or any of those things that we factor into human decision-making. We therefore need to put in place regulation to ensure we do not have a raft of falsehoods being propagated by artificial intelligence. Now, that already happens. It happened with the Internet before artificial intelligence. It happens very often at the nefarious hand of humans with normal intelligence, but artificial intelligence can do it on a scale and at a pace we cannot match, so regulation is hugely important there. I do not believe that regulation stifles innovation necessarily. It can, of course, and over-regulation can hold things back. However, one of the things we can say very proudly in Europe is that innovation and regulation are not mutually exclusive; we can have both.”
“The danger that comes with that is that we do not control how it feeds itself or how it informs itself. We have already seen the many pitfalls where artificial intelligence will throw up results in a search online or through an artificial intelligence app that are patently false. As a lawyer, I can tell the House that I have seen many instances of that happen in the legal world, thankfully not in this jurisdiction but certainly, if the Internet is to be believed, and frequently it is not, quite a lot in America. You see lawyers in legal cases submit legal submissions which cite cases that never actually occurred. The danger is that artificial intelligence does not have the ethical framework that humans have. It does not have the understanding.”
“I welcome the Bill. Regulation in this space is perhaps more important than any other regulatory Bill we will pass in this House this year. Any new technology poses problems, difficulties, challenges and threats and, undoubtedly, that is true of artificial intelligence. It does not mean we cannot regulate to protect ourselves and it does not mean we cannot put measures in place to protect ourselves and our children. There is a concern about the notion of over-regulation, that we will therefore stifle innovation or prevent people from coming up with new ideas or new technologies. In fairness, artificial intelligence represents one of the greatest achievements of mankind from the point of view of creating something that can grow itself, feed itself and inform itself. That in and of itself should not be overlooked.”
“These two issues have been left on the table and we have not dealt with them. The time has come to deal with them. Let us ban conversion therapies and get to grips with hate speech and actions which incite violence and hatred against people once and for all, so that everyone can feel safe and included.”
“It shows a certain political cowardice on the part of these Houses that we cannot address this issue, which we know exists, and put in place measures that protect not just LGBT people but anybody from a set of vulnerable groups listed in the legislation. The fact that we cannot do that is a really poor reflection on the ability of this House to enforce laws that make a difference to people's quality of life. That is what it is really about. It is about the notion that members of the LGBT community or any other minority or vulnerable community would be entitled to enjoy their lives and have space to go about their business, their social lives and their work lives where they live with exactly the same entitlement to peaceable enjoyment as the Minister of State, myself or anybody else in the county has.”
“Again, you would like to think that in a modern Ireland, people who are LGBT or who present with a different gender identity would be safe from incitement to hatred and incitement to violence but they are not. Emily Bolger, who works in my office and who is incredibly valuable to us, tells me that she was abused on the street in town last night. Somebody across the street roared at her because of her sexual orientation. You would think that in 21st-century Ireland we would have moved beyond such absolutely craven nonsense but the reality is that it is still happening. We had a Bill in these Houses that aimed to advance the prohibition of incitement to hatred and incitement to violence. That has fallen by the wayside.”
“It would also make an important statement to members of the LGBT community in this country, particularly young people who might be struggling with their identity or with something that is new to them, that they are as accepted as anybody else in this society by this State, that we stand with them, that they cannot be "fixed" and that they are valuable exactly as they are. I hope the Minister of State will take on board the need to move on that particular subject with a view to moving things along. The second issue I will mention is hate speech. There was hate speech legislation before the previous Dáil with a view to changing the law and updating the prohibition of incitement to hatred Act, which was so ineptly phrased that only 50-odd prosecutions have been taken under it.”
“The then Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, announced research into a ban on conversion therapy in 2022 and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to legislating to ban the practice but it still has not happened. There is a gap there. It is something we need to fix. We need to bring in the legislation we promised we would. As I said, I was surprised. I am aware that it is a big problem in the United States and even elsewhere on this island. I did not think it was something that happened in this jurisdiction but, as I said, there is academic research showing that it does. Such a ban is therefore far more than symbolic. It is a real, practical and forceful measure that would prevent the genuine harm that is done to people who are subjected to this so-called therapy.”
“It has also been banned outright in Germany, France, Greece, Spain, Belgium, Cyprus and Portugal. The Dutch Senate has also recently voted to pass legislation to ban so-called conversion therapy. It is not banned here, however. It is still legal in Ireland. A landmark 2023 study by Trinity College Dublin confirmed that practices aimed at changing or suppressing sexual orientation or gender identity do occur in Ireland. That honestly surprised me. I thought that people's sexual orientation was just accepted in this country and that there were not issues with it. However, I have looked into this and it is still a major issue. Two successive programmes for Government have committed to a ban but it still has not happened.”
“I am very pleased to be able to speak on this issue. It is hugely important. There is so much to be said about Pride and the importance of expressing pride and of facilitating that expression of pride but I will focus on two particular issues. The first is conversion therapy, which is not banned in this jurisdiction. This practice is there to "convert" or "cure" people of their sexual orientation or gender identity, or tell them that it is wrong, and essentially convince them of the opposite. It is appalling. The UN recognises it as a form of torture. It is done in the totally misguided belief that these things are a choice and can be changed when we all know they are inherent in people. Conversion therapy is banned in a number of European Union countries. Malta banned it in 2016.”
“It would involve investing in more judges and more resources for the Courts Service so that people could still have their opportunity to challenge decisions and do so in a real and meaningful way under the Constitution, but it would be done in a faster and more efficient way. I recognise it is a problem but the answer is not to curtail the rights of citizens to challenge the administrative decisions of Departments and agencies. The answer is actually to facilitate it to a much greater extent and I wonder if the constitutionality of those specific provisions has been really thought through from the point of view that they curtail citizens' rights.”
“I understand that judicial review is a pain and that it obstructs things and can delay things but it is also a constitutional right of the citizens of this State to go to the courts to review the administrative decisions of the Government, Departments and other agencies. It is an important right and I do not know about the constitutionality of curtailing that right in the way that it is being curtailed in sections 29 and 30, for example. If we are concerned about the length of time it takes to bring judicial reviews, it would be much better to invest in speeding up the process of the courts, investing in something akin to what was done in the Commercial Court over 20 years ago.”
“Section 29 changes the test for bringing judicial review against any order or any decision made and requires the applicant in judicial review proceedings to establish substantial grounds, which is a much higher bar than is usually required for judicial review. Similarly, section 30(2) removes permission for the applicant to amend the grounds on which leave was granted, which is done as a matter of course in judicial review proceedings. Sometimes circumstances will change or information will become available that will require the change of the grounds on which leave is being granted. This is part of a broader Government attitude to judicial review.”
“It is like what happened when the Child and Family Agency suddenly became Tusla. Nobody actually authorised that in statute. It is the Child and Family agency but is routinely referred to by its marketing name, which is Tusla. That is all very well but I just wonder about that in the context of a statutory piece of legislation going through these Houses. The reference to daa is defined in the Bill as the Dublin Airport Authority - the company, that is - but I do not think it is appropriate to refer to it using lower-case letters in the marketing term. I will now turn to provisions later on in the Bill that relate to judicial review.”
“In principle, I do not have a problem with this but I do have a problem with the notion that we just scrap a realistic attempt to meet our climate ambitions and our emissions reductions. It is a very well put-together Bill but I do have some issues with it. The first is the use of "daa" in lower-case letters. That is a branding function of Dublin Airport. It has created it and trades as daa. In statutory terms, my understanding from looking at section 2 of the State Airports Act 2004 is that it is DAA - Dublin Airport Authority with a capital "D", capital "A" and capital "A". I do not see where that has changed anywhere in legislation - I am open to correction in that regard - but the use of lower-case letters, which is a branding function by Dublin Airport, is replete throughout this Bill.”
“The Minister of State will be aware that there are other sectors where we are not reaching targets or making the emissions reductions we need to make. Let us have that grown-up conversation, recognising the reality, and decide what we are going to do in the other areas to ensure that we do not just let the whole thing get away from us, which is a real danger now. We can see the effects of climate change in real terms, not just with hot weather but also with stormy weather and the effects that global warming generally has on weather systems and the risk we face as a country and as a world in terms of what those emissions are going to do. That is my primary concern.”
“Where are we going to counterbalance the effect of removing this cap to ensure that we do not let the situation with emissions completely run away with itself and leave ourselves and, by extension, everybody else on the planet in a very difficult position? I would love to hear a comprehensive answer to that question. I am not sure it is an easy question to answer, in fairness to the Minister of State, but I do think that we need to keep a check on our progression towards emissions targets and how we are going to manage that. I do not have a difficulty with increasing air traffic in and out of the airport; I think it is a necessity. It is a reflection of the reality but, therefore, we must look at some other sector where we can reduce them.”
“It does not remove our obligations in terms of meeting climate targets or emissions reduction targets. Where is the counterpoint? Where is the point where we are going to enhance our emissions reduction if we are now de facto going to increase emissions from the airport? We know that emissions from the airport have increased with the increased air transport in and out. Again, I recognise it might be a necessity that comes with that but I also recognise that we have a necessity to act in terms of climate change and the level of emissions being produced here in Ireland, so what sector is going to have enhanced work to reduce emissions?”
“You cannot have a situation where the population is getting bigger and bigger and, by extension, the demand for air transport is growing, and not reflect that in terms of the changes that are being made to the cap. I accept the necessity for this. When we look at air transport in other European countries, there is not the same restriction on airports in other European capitals as there might be in Dublin. It does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater or say that there should be no limit or control. I know the Bill does not say there is no control and there are procedures for orders by Minister and all the rest. I am just sounding a note of caution in relation to the complete removal of the restriction. I wonder about where the trade-off is.”
“I say that, however, conscious of the fact that Dublin Airport is the primary route to get people and goods in and out of this country, particularly from further afield. We are an island country and we do rely on air transport to get people on and off the island and to get goods in and out. I recognise the reality of the situation and the fact that steps have to be taken. Reference has been made by many speakers in this debate to the growth of over 40% in terms of passenger accommodation in the airport, and of over 36.4 million people in the airport last year. That is entirely predictable in circumstances where our population has grown by over a million in the past less than ten years. We know the country is growing. It makes sense, therefore, that the cap would also grow.”
“I broadly welcome this Bill. It is, however, correctly contentious and controversial in circumstances where we as a country and as a planet face an extraordinary challenge in terms of reducing emissions and dealing with the consequences of climate change, which we see today as we all schlep around here in suits, sweating. I do have reservations about the de facto setting aside of the climate action legislation in the context of this removal of the cap, and also later this week in the context of the gas reserve Bill. It is problematic to entirely throw out responsibility in that regard. I would like to hear from the Minister what safeguards he has put in place to deal with that. Creating an open-ended situation is not the right answer, either.”
“There might be really good reasons for that and if there are, then let us have them out, but my concern is that because Ireland is a smaller market for these drugs, it disincentivises the company from making what is presumably a costlier application from the point of view putting together material than it might be in another country. For dealing with rare diseases in the longer term, perhaps we should be looking at a single European Union market for these things, which would be a single EU authorisation or application market so that we no longer suffered from being the smaller market within the European Union. We could tell drug companies to apply to the European Union and then they would get to run their drugs in Ireland and get to avail of the schemes in Ireland. In that way, we would solve this problem.”
“It is a case where time is very much against people who are suffering from Duchenne muscular dystrophy and we need to provide that treatment as soon as possible. Another example is eosinophilic esophagitis, EoE, which is a chronic, allergic inflammatory disease of the esophagus from which people suffer and that can be treated by a particular drug produced by Sanofi. Some 50% of its global production is in Waterford, yet that drug is not available for treatment of juveniles in this jurisdiction. My understanding of the reason it is not available is quite simply that Sanofi has not made the application.”
“Since Ireland is a small market, it is not going to be as profitable for a large multinational pharmaceutical company to make the application to have the drugs included in the payment scheme and all the rest of it in this jurisdiction, because there are fewer people here who are going to consume the drug than in somewhere like France, Germany or Italy. That is a particular shame and it reflects very poorly on the pharmaceutical companies that they do not do this. Duchenne muscular dystrophy has been mentioned today. It is a case where the application has been made. I raised the issue this morning with the Minister for Health. My understanding was that she was waiting for the application to be made. It has now been made and we hope it will be accelerated.”
“The hope is that researchers strike upon some drug or treatment that actually solves a problem and, therefore, is marketable, saleable and profitable. If we had a situation where we were spending public money on research and development for pharma companies, the public would rightly be outraged by the amount of money that was spent on programmes that simply came to nothing in the end. Let us not be naive about this. We need private investment and we need the pharma companies, which are expert at this whereas the State is not, to innovate in this space and develop the very treatments that we are relying on them to create, patent and market to solve problems. There is, however, a legitimate criticism to be made of certain pharma companies. We have individual markets on drugs throughout the European Union and I understand why that is.”
“The terrible thing about this subject is that it comes down so much to economics and it should not. It should come down to individuals and everything that we can do for them. I want to echo what many speakers have said in this debate about how we need to accelerate the progress in relation to the provision of treatments for rare diseases. The fact that they are rare diseases should not mean that people do not have access to the treatments they need. I have listened to some of the comments on how we need to have a pharma industry that works for the people. While that is laudable and entirely appropriate, we also have to be mindful that the money spent on research and development comes from private investors, and much of it essentially comes to nothing.”
“For the families the Minister has been dealing with and I have been dealing with, can we give them a particular timeline for when they can hope to be clinically assessed, if that still has to happen, but more importantly to have access to this drug in the same way it is available, for example, to our cousins in the North of Ireland under the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, protocols? Will the drug be available under the same conditions as it is available in the UK under the NHS?”
“For those who are still eligible and those who can still stand up independently or who can stand up, can we give them a timeline for when they might be assessed for that and the conditions under which it will be made available to them? I am conscious of the fact that muscle is time and the fact that this drug is the very best way available to sufferers of Duchenne muscular dystrophy to stop the progress of this disease and to stop the degeneration of their muscles, which is irreversible.”
“I thank the Minister. I join with her in thanking the HSE for the work that has been done and also acknowledge her commitment to this. Anybody who has dealt with families who are suffering with this disease understands both the heartbreaking nature of it and the urgency involved. Listening to what the Minister has said in relation to the progress and the managed access protocol, do we have a timeline for when it will be available? I accept entirely what the Minister has said about the clinical criteria for the application of the drug. That is entirely appropriate and, unfortunately, there will be boys, because of the delay in the application outside our control, who may not be eligible to receive the drug now.”
“What I would really like her to tell us, though, is the progress in relation to givinostat; whether the families can expect that this drug will be available not only to them but on the same terms that it is available in other parts of the island - for example, in Northern Ireland; and if she can tell parents, conscious that time is muscle and conscious that there are kids who need this drug urgently, if this will progress in such a way that it will be available to them in the short term, or when it will be available to them. This heartbreaking disease can be stopped in its tracks for some patients, and we should be doing everything we can to ensure that happens.”
“Again, I am sure the Minister is familiar with these issues. Those parents who have children who suffer from Duchenne's are therefore incredibly anxious that this drug will progress. I know that was a meeting - last week, I think - of the senior management team or that this is progressing through the Minister's Department.”
“Now there is a drug that is available and has been approved, for example, in the United States and provisionally in the European Union and that can treat that specific cause and deal with the enzyme that prevents the muscles from regenerating and being restored. It acts as a pause or a stop on the progress of the disease. There are a couple of difficulties with it, however. The first is that it is not something that can be taken at any stage in a sufferer with Duchenne's. There are boys who are no longer eligible to take givinostat because of the delays in getting the drug approved in this jurisdiction. There are other boys who are approaching the point at which they will not be able to take it. Time is therefore of the essence in this matter. As one parent who wrote to me said, time is muscle when it comes to Duchenne's.”
“The Minister is aware that families were in here last week, a year after they first brought this to our attention, to have a meeting to inform many of the Members of this House about the situation in relation to Duchenne muscular dystrophy and the treatments that are available. Many Members will have attended that briefing in the audiovisual room. The families referred specifically to givinostat, a drug that is available for the treatment of the condition. Givinostat is really important because it is a turning point in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It cancels out some of the enzymes that prevent muscular development and muscular restoration. The muscles of young boys who suffer from Duchenne's are generally wasting away; they cannot restore themselves.”
“Over time, that gets worse and worse until eventually they cannot stand independently or cannot stand up at all. Unfortunately, the nature of this condition is that as it gets worse and worse, boys who suffer from it will often not be able to walk by the age of 12. This is, therefore, a heartbreaking condition for parents as they watch their young children unable to do the things their peers are able to do. That degenerative nature of the disease must be extraordinarily difficult for them. It is a rare disease. I know there are different assessments as to how common it is. Ultimately, it does not affect a huge number of people but those people whom it does affect are deeply affected by it, not only the families and the extended families but also, obviously, the people who suffer from it themselves.”
“I acknowledge that the Minister is here in person. It does not always happen for Topical Issues but I am grateful for the fact that she is here. It is probably a reflection of the fact that she is getting the same emails I am getting from people in our constituency who are affected by Duchenne muscular dystrophy. I am sure the Minister already knows about it but Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a condition that affects muscular restoration and muscular development, mostly in boys although not exclusively. It occurs from about the age of four. It is a degenerative condition. Over time, it restricts the ability of those boys to do things that all our children take for granted, simple things, whether that is getting up after a fall, getting up out of a chair, getting in and out of a car or climbing stairs.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”