Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am aware the committee of permanent representatives to the EU is meeting today to discuss the adoption of this proposal, which is a sad and sobering reminder that the input and discussions of national parliaments seem to have little or no effect whatsoever on discussions at EU level. The fact that this proposal will be rushed through no matter what concerns are raised by Deputies today is an unfortunate trend that has been occurring at EU level in the past few years and is something we need to seriously consider in future. The EU is supposed to amplify countries’ voices, not take them away altogether. It is incredibly disappointing to come to the Chamber to discuss EU proposal after EU proposal, when it is clear that not only Opposition Deputies but Government Deputies have no real input to anything at EU level anyway. The fact that discussions are going ahead today regarding the implementation of this proposal, before our national Parliament has even had the opportunity to consider it, is just proof of this. That being said, it is important we voice our concerns regardless and I will continue to do so. I hope we take into consideration that we are being blatantly ignored, however.

I have been very disturbed to read about alleged war crimes that have occurred in Ukraine over the past couple of months. Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office has opened more than 9,300 investigations into alleged war crimes and has identified hundreds of suspects from Russia, with the true number expected to be much higher considering they have yet to access the east, where some of the most violent fighting has occurred. The prosecutor general, along with the EU special representative on sexual violence in war, said this week that dozens of cases of sexual violence by invading forces are already under investigation. In order to properly pursue these investigations, there is no doubt there is a real need for central storage for evidence relating to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which is what this proposal intends to address.

It is clear that the process of holding Vladimir Putin responsible for these alleged war crimes will be very long and complex. Ukrainian and international experts have stated that it will take years, if not decades, to collect evidence, build cases and prosecute people. It is essential then that all evidence found is stored in centrally located, protected storage. Given the incredibly violent situation in Ukraine, it is clear this evidence cannot currently be stored securely there and will have to be kept at a location outside the country. It makes sense for the EU to offer a role in this. There is no doubt a co-ordinated effort will be required by all states collecting evidence and it would not make sense for any one national authority to take on this role. It also makes sense that this role will be given to Eurojust, which has the expertise and experience to support the investigations and prosecutions of such crimes. Eurojust’s current role is in supporting member states’ actions in investigating and prosecuting crime but it does not allow for the collection, preservation and analysis of such evidence, which this proposal intends to address by expanding the remit of Eurojust to allow it to become a central repository for such evidence.

Although I am glad the proposal clearly states the collection of evidence does not amount to providing Eurojust with an executive role as investigating authority, I am wary that it states, "when necessary and appropriate" Eurojust will enable the exchange of evidence "or otherwise make it available to the competent judicial authorities, national or international". Who decides when it is "necessary and appropriate" and who decides on the "competent judicial authorities"? I have often talked of the importance of Ireland’s neutral voice. I believe our neutrality could be of huge importance in making sure that extremely important decisions, such as these, are made fairly. This is where we can most effectively lend our highly respected neutral oversight and input. Although the evidence storage role of Eurojust is suitable in Ukraine’s situation, I have concerns about expanding its remit in general. I would not like it to be the case that Eurojust is allowed to take and store evidence of any state should it be the request of a member state to do so.

Overall, I support this motion in the context of the Ukrainian situation. However, I am always concerned about proposals with an expedited negotiation process, especially at EU level. Member states must ensure that all proposals are scrutinized adequately and concerns must be listened to and addressed.

See this speech in context