Criminal Justice (International Cooperation on Electronic Evidence and Other Matters) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-07
============================================================

Catherine Ardagh (FF), Dublin South-Central

Obviously, our Department is aware that the SMEs are the backbone of the Irish economy. Regretfully, I cannot accept any of these amendments. With regard to amendment No. 2, the legal obligations on service providers, including small-to-medium-sized enterprises, are determined by the regulation and directive and it is not open to the director to alter them. Furthermore, even if it were possible for Ireland to exclude SMEs from the scope of the e-evidence package, to do so would create a gap that could easily be exploited by criminals by moving to services offered by SMEs. This would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the e-evidence package.
In terms of measures to reduce the administrative burden, I will point Senators to sections 38 and 40 of the Bill, which 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 identified. That said, if there is a case of non-compliance, there will be an administrative burden on service providers that are subject to investigation. This cannot be avoided if a proper, fair and impartial investigation is to be carried out.
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 on the 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, and I will not agree to an amendment that would undermine the role of the director in that regard. I would again point out that the provisions at 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 on 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 SMEs when considering the imposition of fines. The purpose is to ensure compliance and the imposition of fines is very much a last resort.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-07/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:09+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-07