Okay, of course. I raised the definition of high-risk vendor with the Minister on Committee Stage in the committee room. It had been inserted the night before, so there was not a great deal of time to analyse it, but we were assured it was common in this type of legislation across the EU and that we were implementing an EU framework. When I asked whether there was particular legislation, I was told there was. The Minister of State's officials were kind enough to send me translations from which they were working. I …

I thought so, but I did not want to contradict the Chair.

Yes. On Committee Stage, I asked the Chairman of the committee to ask the Minister of State to provide an explanatory memorandum. The Chairman did not do so but, to be fair to him, he said he was sure the Minister of State would come forward with a detailed explanation of what Ireland was doing, why we were doing it and which other countries were doing the same. While I received a mountain of legislation from other countries, I received very little by way of explanation. One should not rely on rumours in the House,…

I thank the Minister of State for his clarification and explanation regarding the American ambassador. I am aware from responses to parliamentary questions that the ambassador met the Taoiseach several times since. I do not know whether this matter was discussed with the Taoiseach, but I do not wish to go down that rabbit hole. My primary concern has to do with the Minister of State's reference to oversight mechanisms, including the oversight provided by the courts. This is the main problem with the Bill. It does n…

I move amendment No. 12: In page 21, line 11, after “may” to insert “by order”. Basically, this amendment seeks to insert the phrase "by order" in page 21, line 11. Section 20(1) states that, "The Minister may prescribe any component or any class of components as a critical component or critical components." I suppose it is unusual in that it is not clear at all how the Minister will do this. It would seem that an order should set that out. I do not think that order necessarily has issues of national security in it…

Amendment No. 14 seeks to set out a process. It does not delete anything, as was the case with the previous amendment. It merely sets out a process to be followed in making a determination that a component is a critical component, or a class of components are critical components, and requires that the Minister would publish the proposed component or class of components and give reasons for prescribing it or them as critical. It also calls on the Minister to specify a period during which submissions relating to the …

I trust that the purpose of this exercise is to avoid the use of those components, where possible. If we want people to avoid the use of certain components, and the Minister of State has indicated to me that is the purpose of the exercise, but we do not tell companies or persons what components we want them to avoid using, it is entirely counter-productive. It is like saying we are going to proscribe certain substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act because we think it is objectively dangerous for people to take the…

I accept the Minister of State’s differentiation between the component and the security measures necessary to make that component safe, but I respectfully say that is all the more reason for the components to be listed in an objective, transparent way. I do not say the Minister should list the components by order and specify the security measures he requires to be undertaken to make sure they operate safely. That would be a bridge too far because it would enable people to use them in an unsafe way and to figure out…

I welcome the fact the Minister of State intends to remove from the section the reference to "public order", which is a step forward, and every step forward, no matter how small, is to be welcomed. Regarding amendment No. 29, I do not accept the Minister of State’s reasoning. If the vendor is based outside the jurisdiction, it can still be contacted, and if it does not reply in time, that is the problem of the vendor, perhaps because it is precluded by distance and is selling something far away. Nevertheless, I wel…

I move amendment No. 27: In page 23, line 24, to delete “or public order.” and substitute the following: “and whereso occurs the Minister shall certify that the notice was made in the interests of national security.”. If the Minister is taking a measure on the basis of national security, as Ministers and Governments must do, what is wrong with saying a measure is being taken on the basis of national security? That is my only question.

No, it is just this line 24 which I am trying to find. Given that the Minister is taking out the reference to "public order", it follows that a notice can only be made in the interests of national security. Presuming the Minister is going to move amendment No. 30, I think-----

I move amendment No. 31: In page 24, line 22, to delete “or public order” and substitute “and the Minister shall certify the reasons for dispensing with the requirement in subsection (1) ”.

I move amendment No. 34: In page 24, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(2) A person affected by a high-risk vendor measure or a variation of such measure shall be informed of the making of such order as soon as practicable after the making of such an order and in any event within 5 days of the making of such an order.”. Is there a particular reason for this? I have reservations about the fact that the high-risk vendor notice has to remain confidential because it is going to be very strange if a cer…

The other reason relates to the time. If a high-risk offender notice is issued in respect of a vendor, surely the vendor must be told within a particular period.

What about the time period of five days?

If the Minister determines that somebody is a high-risk vendor, they must be informed within five days of the making of that determination.

I proposed that the vendors have to be told within five days.

I move amendment No. 38: In page 26, line 11, to delete “or public order”.

I move amendment No. 39: In page 26, line 21, to delete “or public order”. This, I believe, is one of the instances where the Minister is removing the words "public order".

No, amendment No. 39.