Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Yes, I have a dual mandate. I thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive address. I welcome him and his delegation. A lot of ground has been covered but I have three questions on areas that have not been covered yet and I would be grateful if he could answer them.

First, in March, the office of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity and the EU Commission, quite correctly, supports that work. Ireland has provided an important contribution to this. That is an important road in seeking truth, justice and ultimately accountability. People can run but they cannot hide and we will catch up with the people who have inflicted such horror hopefully sooner rather than later. While that might not resolve the war, it is an important component that is going on on the side. Could that be communicated with greater prominence to member states? Can there be regular updates to remind people that it is very much not just in the background but in the foreground? It is such important work that there should be weekly updates in a prominent, coherent way not just to member states but to every right-thinking person in the world to know that work is happening and Ireland is playing its part.

The second issue is that the Commissioner outlined good progress in respect of sanctions and I welcome that Ireland is among the member states with the highest value of frozen assets, with more than €1.8 billion. However, because of the terror of this war we can never have enough sanctions. Is the Commissioner in a position to say today what the next steps are? I can criticise some of those sanctions but we need to know what is happening tomorrow and the next day and we need to double down and ratchet up on sanctions. I accept that they are biting but it is slow. What are the next plans the Commissioner will lead?

Finally, the Commissioner spoke about data protection. I believe that it is an unintended consequence and he may know that member states now have to follow EU law and destroy vital evidence that could be used in criminal cases of the most serious nature that could help convict dangerous people, after affording fairness and due process. That is being stifled by the necessity to destroy evidence after a short specified period. Member states feel they have to keep in line with EU law and I believe that is an unintended consequence. I am a fervent European but I do not support that law. Surely there is an alternative the Commissioner can lead? For instance, in Ireland can that vital evidence not be stored safe under lock and key and perhaps only opened through the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, under application? The evidence should be locked up but the key should not be thrown away and obstacles, which we have spotted in our country in recent times, without commenting on any particular case, should not be created. That evidence is vital and that is one poor example of where I am not an advocate of the EU as a family and EU law.