Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I regret that I have not changed my mind on this issue. When it was raised on Committee Stage, I expressed my concern that the effect of the amendment would be to impose timescales on other states when documents are served here on their behalf. I agreed to take advice on the matter but I reiterate that I am unable for the reasons previously given to accept the amendment. I have been advised there is no legal reason to include the amendment and that the provision could be legally ambiguous.

As I noted on Committee Stage, section 81(7) ensures there is no obligation on the part of the person to attend a hearing if so requested by another state. If the document is served without sufficient notice, the person would be most unlikely to attend. The detriment, therefore, rests entirely with the requesting state. There is no obligation on a person to attend a hearing. Given that the detriment is on the requesting state, it is clearly in the interest of a requesting state seeking service of a document on the state to act in a timely manner. To legislate in the manner proposed would create significant practical difficulties as it could be expected that the definition of "reasonable time" in each state with which we would co-operate under this provision will vary significantly, which would invariably lead to disputes. I am satisfied that the terms of section 81(7), which release a person served under this provision of an obligation to comply with a request, is a sufficient safeguard.

See this speech in context