Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I do not really agree with the Minister's response. First, he said it came from the pre-legislative scrutiny that there would be a warning system. The whole idea of having an offence dependent on a prior warning came from the Minister's Department, and I think we all struggled to figure out how that would work in practice. I do not think anybody provided a satisfactory answer to us and I do not think any of us was able to visualise how it would work, although we will be discussing that in the context of the next grouping.

What we are saying is there needs to be some system of recording, and my understanding of Deputy Smith's amendments is that, first, that system does not have to be in writing and can be digital, as she said. It could involve having, say, a flag on the PULSE system, or there may be other ways of doing it. Let us hope there will be a satisfactory way of doing it, but amendment No. 1 merely states that the legislation should provide for systems other than a written record. It is about keeping options open.

Amendment No. 3 will allow the Minister, having consulted the Garda on its proposals for a system other than a written one, to provide for that, although it is not saying he will have to come up with the system, which would not be appropriate. That is my understanding of the two amendments. As I said, they make absolute sense and the Minister should be open to accepting them.

See this speech in context