Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I can give the Deputy some assurance by reference to the Interpretation Act 2005, which provides at subsection 26 (2) that, where an enactment repeals a former enactment, proceedings taken under the former enactment may be continued under and in conformity with the new enactment in so far as they may be done consistently with the new enactment, which is possible under this legislation.

Subsection 27 (1) deals with the effect of a repeal and provides that it does not prejudice or affect any legal proceedings, civil or criminal, pending at the time of the repeal. Requests for assistance received prior to the commencement of this legislation can, by virtue of subsection 6 (3) of the Bill, fall to be dealt with as if the then Act had not been passed. Therefore, there is in the Interpretation Act a basis for what occurred previously.

In terms of the future, section 32 deals with the transmission of a freezing order from another member state for enforcement and amendment No. 35, proposed by Deputy Rabbitte, seeks to apply the section to an order made before its commencement. As the Deputy stated, this matter was raised on Committee Stage, but the amendment is not necessary to transmit a freezing order under the terms laid out in this section, even if the freezing order was made some time ago. Once this provision is enacted, it may be applied to a freezing order regardless of when the latter was made. If the Deputy's concerns relate to the application of the relevant provisions in the Act to orders made prior to the commencement, the matter is dealt with in the Interpretation Act.

See this speech in context