I welcome this opportunity to introduce the Criminal Justice (International cooperation on Electronic Evidence and Other Matters) Bill. It recently passed all stages in the Dáil.

Electronic evidence is central to almost every modern criminal investigation. Data now moves rapidly across the globe. As a consequence, the investigation of crime in one member state is often dependent on evidence located in another member state. Electronic data is inherently volatile. It is easily deleted, altered or moved. Of course, the emergence of cloud computing, where the exact physical location of data is transitory and dynamic, brings further jurisdictional difficulties. Law enforcement has increasingly become reliant on voluntary co-operation with service providers. However, this approach lacks enforcement power, does not adequately protect fundamental rights and leaves it up to service providers to determine the legitimacy of requests.

The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to implement the EU e-evidence package. That package provides a clear, legally certain and efficient process for law enforcement in one member state to directly request electronic evidence from service providers established in another member state, while protecting fundamental rights. Ireland's role is central to the implementation of the e-evidence package. It is expected that up to 600 service providers could designate their “addressee” in the State. To date, Department officials have identified over 400 service providers subject to the package. It is important legislation from Ireland’s perspective.

The EU e-evidence package is comprised of two separate but interdependent legislative instruments: the e-evidence regulation and the e-evidence directive. The regulation, which the Oireachtas agreed to opt into in 2018, has direct effect, while the directive is an internal market instrument that is binding on Ireland. The regulation imposes an obligation upon service providers to preserve or produce electronic evidence at the request of a judicial authority of another member state, imposing a legal obligation upon them to do so. The directive requires that member states ensure service providers offering services in the EU designate an addressee to process incoming orders. Both the regulation and the directive require that penalty provisions be put in place to address issues of non-compliance as and when they arise.

Unfortunately, and notwithstanding the significant efforts of both my officials and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the transposition deadline for the e-evidence directive of 18 February 2026 could not be met. It is, therefore, important to enact this and transpose the directive as soon as possible. The e-evidence regulation applies from 18 August next.

The Bill comprises five Parts and a Schedule. Part 1 is comprised of standard provisions concerning the Short Title, commencement and expenses, and the definition of key words. It also addresses matters relating to the designation of the director as the competent authority under Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist regulation. Section 1 of the Bill provides for the Short Title and commencement. Section 2 provides for the definition of terms. Section 3 is a standard provision regarding expenses. Section 4 provides for the designation of the director of criminal justice international co-operation as the competent authority for the purposes of Article 12(1)(b) of the terrorist content regulation. Section 5 is a necessary companion to section 4. Section 6 provides for the service of notices or other documents under this Bill, including by electronic means. Section 7 is a standard provision relating to regulations.

Part 2 of the Bill comprises sections 8 to 22, inclusive. Section 8 provides for the establishment of oifig an stiúrthóra um chomhar idirnáisiúnta ceartais choiriúil, or the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation. The holder of this office shall be known as the director of criminal justice international co-operation, and is referred to in the Bill as “the Director.” Section 8 also provides that the Schedule to the Bill shall have effect in relation to the director. The Schedule details the provisions applicable to the director, providing that the director will be a corporation sole with perpetual succession and official seal, and the power to sue and be sued.

Section 9 provides for the appointment of the director, while section 10 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible or is disqualified. Section 11 is a standard provision providing that a person cannot simultaneously hold office as both the director and as an elected Member of the Oireachtas, the European Parliament or a local authority. Section 12 provides for the resignation and removal of the director. The appointment of members of staff is provided for in section 13, while section 14 provides for the appointment by the director of a deputy director. Section 15 provides that the director may engage consultants. Section 16 provides that the director will be indemnified against legal actions. Section 17 outlines the various functions of the director. Section 18 is a standard provision providing for the delegation of functions. Section 19 provides that the director may enter into an information sharing arrangement. Section 20 provides that the director shall submit an annual report. Section 21 sets out the statistical information that the director must collect. Section 22 provides that the director may issue guidance notes.

Part 3, comprising sections 23 and 24, provides for the designation of the director as the enforcement authority and central authority, respectively, for the purposes of the e-evidence regulation.

Part 4, comprising sections 25 to 30, provides for the designation of the director as the central authority for the e-evidence directive. Section 25 is a standard provision providing for definitions. Section 26 designates the director as the central authority. Section 27 provides that service providers must designate a designated establishment or a legal representative for the receipt of, compliance with and enforcement of decisions. Section 28 acts as a companion provision. Section 29 provides that service providers must notify the director of the addresses and contact details of their designated establishments. Section 30 provides that service providers and their designated establishments or legal representatives shall be jointly and severally liable.

Part 5 comprises sections 31 to 70. Section 31 provides for the definition of terms used in Part 5 of the Bill. Section 32 is a standard provision intended to protect legal privilege. Section 33 creates an offence if certain persons, including staff, make an unauthorised disclosure. Section 34 creates an offence of giving false information. Section 35 provides for the appointment of authorised officers, while section 36 provides for the powers of those officers. Section 37 provides that a judge of the District Court may issue a search warrant. Section 38 provides that the director may request that a service provider provide a compliance report to enable the director to confirm that the service provider is complying. Section 39 provides that the director may either enter into an agreement with the service provider in respect of an alleged contravention or cause a directed investigation to start. Section 40 provides that the director may enter into a written agreement with a service provider. Section 41 provides for definitions of terms used in Chapter 4. Section 42 provides that the director may direct an authorised officer to undertake a directed investigation. Section 43 provides that an authorised officer shall submit a copy of a completed report to the director. Section 44 sets out the actions that may be taken by the director.

Section 45 provides for the definition of terms used in Chapter 5 of Part 5. Section 46 provides that, for the purpose of an undertaking, the chief adjudication officer shall assign an adjudication officer to conduct the adjudication. Section 47 provides that service providers shall not be liable to be penalised twice. Section 48 sets out the actions an adjudication officer shall take. Section 49 provides that an adjudication officer shall make a decision on the balance of probabilities. Section 50 sets out that the maximum financial penalty that can be imposed on a service provider can be no greater than 2% of the total world annual turnover of the service provider in the preceding financial year. Section 51 provides that an adjudication officer must send the director and the service provider concerned a written notice of decision to impose a penalty. Section 52 sets out the circumstances in which a decision of a financial penalty takes effect. Section 53 provides that a service provider may appeal. Section 54 provides that, where no appeal is made, the director shall make an application in a summary manner to the Circuit Court, and section 55 sets out procedural and other matters concerning that.

Section 56 provides that an adjudication officer may, before making a decision as to a contravention or the imposition of a financial penalty under section 49, refer a question of law to the High Court. Section 57 provides that an adjudication officer may award the costs of proceedings against the service provider or director. Section 58 provides that the Minister may make regulations relating to the conduct of proceedings. Section 59 provides that a payment made by a service provider goes to the Exchequer. Section 60 sets out the circumstances in which a person is not eligible for appointment or disqualified from holding office as an adjudication officer. Section 61 provides that a person cannot also be a Member of the Oireachtas or the local authority. Section 62 provides for the nomination by the director of persons for appointment as adjudication officers. Section 63 provides for the appointment by the Minister of adjudication officers. Section 64 provides that an adjudication officer is independent.

Section 65 provides that the Minister can make regulations. Section 66 provides that the director may require staff to assist adjudication officers. Section 67 provides that summary proceedings for an offence may be brought and prosecuted by the director. Section 68 provides that summary proceedings for an offence under this Bill may be instituted at any time within two years. Section 69 provides for liability for a body corporate. Section 70 provides that, where a person is convicted of an offence, the court shall order the person to pay the director any costs incurred.

The provisions of the Bill have been carefully drafted. It is important to enhance Ireland's position as a European hub for digital regulation and as a trusted partner in international justice. Data protection rules and principles will apply to the mechanism of European production orders. The regulation reiterates the requirement of necessity and proportionality, setting out the key safeguards in this area. I look forward to listening to Senators' contributions.

On behalf of my party, I welcome and support this Bill, which will establish a new office of director of criminal justice international co-operation to allow Ireland to meet the requirement of the EU e-evidence package. This package will make it faster and easier for law enforcement and judicial authorities across the EU to obtain electronic evidence from service providers as part of criminal investigations. The establishment of the office of director of criminal justice international co-operation will provide a cohesive approach to digital regulation in the criminal justice space. It will centralise the necessary skills and expertise, providing a single point of contact for cross-border judicial co-operation on e-evidence and ensuring a streamlined regulatory framework. It will also enhance Ireland's ability to ensure effective access to digital evidence in tracking serious crime.

The use of online services to facilitate and perpetuate criminal activity does not respect geographical borders, as we all know. While data flows globally, law enforcement authorities across Europe are often in need of foreign-held evidence for domestic cases, including data held by service providers in this jurisdiction. The existing means of legal co-operation between countries can be slow and complex. As a result, law enforcement and judicial authorities often experience difficulties in accessing electronic evidence relevant to an investigation, rendering prosecutions ineffective. It is to address these deficiencies that the Minister is introducing this Bill, and I welcome that.

The Bill is designed to implement the EU e-evidence package in Ireland and to ensure that the State is prepared for the application of the EU e-evidence regulation from 18 August next. The EU e-evidence package introduces a new framework that allows law enforcement and judicial authorities in one EU member state to obtain electronic evidence directly from service providers located in another member state. It does this through two new legal instruments, European production orders, which require the production of electronic evidence, and European participation orders, which require data to be preserved for future investigations. The objective is to make access to electronic evidence faster and more effective. Under the new system, service providers will generally be required to respond within ten days or within eight hours in emergency situations.

This Bill provides for the establishment of the office of the director of criminal justice international co-operation and the appointment of a director to oversee Ireland's implementation of the e-evidence framework. The director will be responsible for monitoring compliance, enforcing obligations on service providers and administrating penalties where necessary. This Bill will require service providers operating within the scope of the legislation to designate and addressee to receive and respond to electronic evidence orders. This is intended to ensure that authorities have a clear point of contact and that the providers can comply effectively with their obligations. In addition, the Bill assigns to the director responsibility for the scrutiny of certain cross-border removal orders under EU terrorist content online regulations, ensuring that such orders comply with EU law and the fundamental right to protection.

Implementation of the e-evidence package is important for Ireland's criminal justice system and for its position as a major European centre for technology and digital regulation. It is anticipated that a significant number of service providers will fall within the scope of this framework and that large volumes of electronic evidence requests will be processed through Ireland each year.

Ireland is obliged to implement both the directive and the regulations. Timely enactment of this legislation is necessary to fulfil those obligations and support effective cross-border co-operation in criminal investigations. I look forward to this legislation passing through the Oireachtas.

Thar ceann Fhine Gael, cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille um Cheartas Coiriúil (Comhar Idirnáisiúnta maidir le Fianaise Leictreonach agus Nithe Eile), 2026. Mar atá léirithe ag an Aire, is céim dhualgais í seo chun Treoir 2023/1544 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa a chur i bhfeidhm. As has been referenced by both the Minister and Senator Gallagher, the enactment of this Bill will fulfil the commitment made in the programme for Government to implement the e-evidence package in line with Directive 2023/1544. One of the most important provisions of the Bill as outlined by the Minister is the establishment of the office of the director of criminal justice international co-operation and the appointment of the director of criminal justice international co-operation. This is another example of international co-operation in line with EU directives to strengthen the laws and protections that apply in Ireland. On behalf of the Fine Gael Group, I welcome the Bill.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the EU e-evidence package and this legislation, which seeks to transpose the package into Irish law. We support the basic tenets of the Bill, which seeks to make cross-border requests for electronic evidence such as social media posts and emails more efficient. We live in an increasingly globalised and digitalised world. As we know on this island, crime does not respect borders. I understand the necessity of this type of legislation. I support the sharing of e-evidence in the appropriate circumstances, while also respecting people's right to privacy.

There is a number of difficulties with this Bill, one of which has arisen from the manner in which the Minister is seeking to enact it. The rushed nature of the Bill's passage through the Dáil leaves a lot to be desired. The deadline for Dáil Committee Stage amendments was prior to the Bill's Second Stage Reading. That is fairly bad practice and completely undermines the democratic scrutiny function of the Oireachtas. The Minister stated that the date for transposition was 18 February. Despite the significant efforts of his officials and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the deadline could not be met. We are not sure what the exact fault or hold-up was in that regard. We are now faced with the Bill be steamrolled through the Oireachtas in order to try and meet the relevant deadlines. Some explanation of that would be welcome.

There are a number of other concerns. It is significant legislation. The Department of justice has acknowledged that there is no existing criminal justice body equipped to deal with the tasks required by the e-evidence package. Thus, a new office for international co-operation must be established. As the Minister indicated, Ireland is a significant European headquarters for a considerable number of social media platforms, digital companies and regulatory functions. Clearly, he has estimated that, as a consequence of this, the number of requests made to Ireland to deal with this could be in the hundreds of thousands annually.

There are no details provided, apart from the office set-up costs in relation to the office or its ongoing functions beyond the €2.8 million identified. There are projections of up to 150 staff required for that. The Minister has quite rightly said that this will enhance Ireland's reputation, but only if we have sufficient resources to carry out the functions that are being demanded of us. When Department officials appeared before the committee, they were completely unable to outline what the costs of dealing with the majority of requests may come to. No clarity was provided. That is further compounded by indications from Department officials that it is intended that additional roles will be ascribed to the office such as in European investigation orders. There is no real clarity in relation to that.

The Bill will allow foreign authorities to obtain identifying data from Irish-based companies at speed. As the Minister said, Ireland could be processing hundreds of thousands of requests every year. Will he outline what the impact will be on the Garda and the courts? Will they require additional resources, given that we will be the focus of most of the activities relating to this in Europe? While the Government indicated that the impact on the Courts Service, which is already under significant pressure, in the context of dealing with excessive backlogs will be minimal, in reality, the Courts Service has been far more circumspect in its analysis of what this might mean for it. As stated, the service is already stretched beyond capacity.

Additional clarity is also required on safeguards in place to protect citizens' rights. Digital Rights Ireland has described the e-evidence package as having minimal fundamental rights safeguards. Will the Minister outline the safeguards which exist in relation to data requests from member states which have lower democratic protections than those in operation here?

In respect of small businesses, we are concerned about the administrative burden this legislation may introduce. While we welcome the creation of the decentralised IT system to facilitate engagement and reporting by SMEs, will the Minister clarify the status of this and if it will be live by the August compliance deadline?

The proposed legislation is rushed with many questions remaining in terms of key provisions, particularly in terms of sovereignty, safeguards and rule of law and, as such, we will be unable to support the Bill at this Stage.

I thank Senators for their contributions, which I have listened to carefully.

Senator Gallagher spoke about how this legislation is very important for Ireland’s reputation and the position we have as a major European centre for the tech sector. That is correct and it is important that we try to transpose the directive as soon as possible. As we know, the regulation comes into effect from the middle of August, so it is important for Ireland’s reputation. When you look at it objectively, very many other countries in the European Union would give a huge amount to be in Ireland’s position of attracting very large multinational tech companies to the country. We have them here, which is something we should, and I know we do, value. It is something that generates challenges but is a huge advantage for the country, the economy and the taxes we generate from it as well as the services we can support through the taxation that comes with it.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir Kelleher arís as a óráid. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go cúramach.

Senator Murphy also raised a number of points. It is fair to say we are under pressure here with the timeline. There is a legitimate criticism to what he said, that it should have been enacted sooner. He asked why it is being rushed. Part of the reason is because my priority has been other domestic legislation, much of which we saw earlier such as the guardianship of infants legislation or the domestic register of judgements legislation. I will not claim all responsibility for the delay but it is important that we get it enacted. I agree with the Senator that it would be preferable that, when it comes to the transposition of directives, we try to transpose them in a more timely and expedient fashion.

Senator Murphy mentioned that the number of requests to Ireland could be very high. They could be, and the reason for that is because we have so many large tech companies here. The purpose of this is for other member states to request e-evidence, evidence that is relevant to criminal offences in their jurisdiction. Obviously, a lot of tech companies that list their address as Ireland will be the entities that will be subject to those requests and they will come to the new statutory office we are setting up.

Senator Murphy also asked about resources in respect of it. The set-up costs are around €2.8 million, but we believe, in terms of what we are facing from the outset, that we will have enough resources to deal with it. If we need further resources, we are fortunate to be in a financial position where we can devote further resources to it, but we believe the calculation that is given to it at present is sufficient. Senator Murphy is correct in noting there will also be additional roles given to the new statutory agency in respect of European investigation orders.

Senator Murphy also inquired about what will be the impact on the workload on the courts. I am ensuring the courts are resourced fully to administer justice efficiently and effectively. This year saw funding increase by 8% to €216 million. The judges are well resourced. I am introducing further judicial posts, so I believe there will be sufficient judicial resources to deal with this, and that is also the case with An Garda Síochána. However, it is true to say when you are setting up a new statutory entity and it will be reliant on requests coming from other countries, there will be a certain amount of uncertainty as to the level of workload. It is something that will have to be kept under constant review.

Senator Murphy raised the issue of the protection of fundamental rights. I am satisfied fundamental rights are protected in respect of this. There has to be reciprocity in terms of criminality. It is not like we can receive a request for something that is not a crime in Ireland. When you look at all European Union directives and regulations, we will all still be subject to GDPR and the fundamental rights set out in the charter, so I am satisfied that fundamental rights will be protected.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we go to the next item of business, I welcome William C Davis, Professor of History and director of Virginia Tech civil war institute as well as John Dooley and his wife, Lisa. John was vice president of Virginia Tech and CEO of the Virginia Tech Foundation. He is since retired but I am sure it is an active retirement. I also welcome Greg and Susan Beato, Pete D’Amore, Jeanne Stosser and Elizabeth McClanahan. I welcome them and thank them for being in Seanad Éireann. I think William is the author of nearly 20 books on the civil war. I congratulate him. That is a lot of knowledge gathered onto paper, which is more important now than ever.