Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

This amendment was proposed on Committee Stage. The Minister indicated then that he did not consider that it served any purpose and that he did not propose to accept it, subject to further consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel. The proposed amendment appears to attempt to ensure that any order made under the 1994 Act prior to the commencement of the section is not nullified in any way by amendments made under this section. Such provision is not necessary as legislation is not retrospective and any order made lawfully under the Act prior to the commencement of this section cannot be altered by this section. As has been previously indicated, the provisions of this section amending the 1994 Act do not on the whole refer to orders. Most of the proposed amendments deal with terminology and the clarification of terms. Subsection (h), which clarifies the empowerment under the section of a member of the gardaí to have access or take away a document, is to be construed as authorisation to do so. Subsection (e) clarifies that orders under the section may relate to property in an EU member state. The changing of the name "restraint order" to "freezing order" will not affect the validity of any restraint order made lawfully under the 1994 Act. The change in terminology is simply to bring our terms into line with those in the relevant international instruments. I can now confirm, following further consultation with the Parliamentary Counsel, that the proposed amendment does not serve any purpose and for this reason I do not propose to accept it.