Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 9 Dec 2003

Vol. 576 No. 5

Order of Business. - European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003: Referral to Select Committee.

A division was challenged last Friday on the question that the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003 be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, pursuant to Standing Order 120(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the committee's Orders of Reference. In accordance with an order of the Dáil of 4 December 2003, that division must be taken now.

Before proceeding with the division, it has been drawn to my attention that there was a breakdown in administrative procedures in the publication of the text of the European Arrest Warrant Bill, which led to two versions being published. First, the printer omitted to include the Schedule from the text that had been supplied to him and, second, a change to the text of section 9 was made when the Bill was republished to rectify the original error.

In the circumstances, I rule that the version as published on the first occasion and which was circulated to members is the valid document, as presented under Standing Orders, and any amendments should be addressed to that version. Accordingly if the Minister wishes to have the Schedule and the change to section 9 included, it must be done by way of amendment. I also rule that since Second Stage procedure relates to the general principles and not the detail of the Bill, which is appropriate for Committee Stage, the proceedings of last Friday are not affected by the difficulties that I have outlined.

I have reviewed procedures, especially in view of the pressures that are experienced at the end of each session, and I have decided that the normal 48-hour rule for publication will be operated except in very exceptional cases for specific operational reasons.

With respect, Sir, is it not expedient that you should rule thus? The Minister was speaking to one Bill last Friday and the Opposition was speaking to a different Bill. We can hardly blame the printer, to whom you advert in your ruling. It was a matter for the Minister to come to the House with the Bill he intended to enact. Are you satisfied in these circumstances how an action would lie if this were tested in court since this House thought it was enacting one Bill and ended up enacting a different Bill?

I am surprised that one of the greatest legal minds on the Government benches ought to have fallen into this trap. It is highly unusual. I do not recall any set of circumstances where the Minister proceeded with one kind of Bill in the one hand and a different version of the Bill in the other hand and the House was supposed to address it in those terms.

I do not believe there is a precedent for this. I hope, Sir, you are satisfied there is no infirmity in your ruling that we now proceed as if it were a minor and not substantial difference in the Bill, when the entire Schedule of approximately 50 pages was omitted. I do not know where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is. He is probably making a speech on the economy somewhere.

There will be a camera there for sure.

If he attended to the processing of his own legislation it would be more appropriate.

The Minister is in the Seanad.

Given that this was pointed out to you by the Labour Party—

(Interruptions).

Deputy Kenny should be allowed to continue without interruption.

The printer seems to have been blamed. In your investigation, were you informed as to who made the change in the text, which was submitted with the second printing to rectify the situation? If there was a change in the text, was that on the instructions of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The consequence is that the members of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights will be faced with a huge raft of amendments tabled by the Minister on Committee Stage to comply with your ruling.

Given that we are dealing with a Bill that had a truncated Second Stage and given that the Green Party opposed the guillotining of that stage, it is appropriate that we should re-open Second Stage and have the matter dealt with in the full knowledge of what has happened. Otherwise it would not be fair and it would not be correct to say we had a valid Second Stage.

Sinn Féin also takes this view. The debate on Second Stage was guillotined, which we opposed. We believe Second Stage should be re-opened. When we consider what has already taken place here this afternoon in terms of scrutiny of EU motions and legislation, this is a very embarrassing incident concerning domestic legislation. There is a clear dichotomy between the documentation presented on two different occasions.

It is imperative that we re-open the Second Stage debate, allow the opportunity for each Member to address the same text and those Members who were not accommodated on the first opportunity should also have the chance to participate directly. Any other decision will not meet the needs of this House.

I intended to allow one Member from each party. However, as Deputy Costello indicated before his leader I will allow him to speak also.

On Friday we debated the very serious matter of the European Arrest Warrant Bill, which abolishes all extradition arrangements we have with all other countries in the European Union and introduces a warrant mechanism. This has a fundamental impact and if we do not get it right, there could be legal and constitutional challenges and we could end up in a constitutional quagmire over this.

The Bill that I debated was the larger 84-page one, which has now been withdrawn. The Bill now in circulation is the 34-page one. I was not debating the Bill that has now been placed in my pigeonhole, as the version that you have said will go on to Committee Stage. It is inappropriate that those of us who debated the Bill did so on the basis of a version of the Bill that we will not now address on Committee Stage. It is a very serious matter and the only way to rectify it transparently is to take Second Stage again.

In this instance, two possibilities arise. We can follow normal practice, withdraw the Bill and start ab initio. An alternative course would be to adopt the suggestion that we take Second Stage again once we know what it is we are debating.

Having considered overnight this matter and the points Deputies have made, the Chair has ruled that the first Bill circulated was the only valid Bill before the House, despite the fact that it contained an error.

I understand the Schedule was circulated subsequently and that Members were aware of it. The Second Stage debate was held in accordance with an order of the House made on Thursday morning. The principle of the Bill was not infringed upon by the particular amendment which was included in the third draft of the legislation which was circulated. The Chair ruled in accordance with a great deal of precedent. Second Stage debate is confined to the general principle of a Bill.

The general principle of which Bill?

In this instance, the general principle of the legislation was not infringed upon by the amendment which was made. This amendment will be the subject of debate on Committee Stage.

Of which text?

The Chair has ruled on two issues. First, the copy of the Bill originally circulated was the valid Bill before the House.

Members did not know it was before the House.

It was circulated to Members.

I submit that the Ceann Comhairle ought to allow the Government, whose duty it is to bring legislation before the House, to comment on whether it is satisfied with the ruling of the Chair. This matter concerns us all. The argument that making an 85 page submission to a Bill is purely a matter of detail is difficult to accept.

My understanding was that the Schedule, which was 50 pages in length, reproduced in Irish and English the text of the Council framework decision of 13 June 2002 and of the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states on which the Bill is based and which are referred to in its text.

Would it not be better before disposing of the matter to seek the advice of the Attorney General? Did the Office of the Ceann Comhairle have resort to that calibre of legal advice before it arrived at its decision?

In accordance with many past rulings, the Chair takes the view that knowledge of rules or other legal experience or qualifications needed to interpret statutes in a court of law are not necessary to interpret Standing Orders correctly. The Chair is guided by Standing Orders rather than by legal opinion outside Standing Orders. I am citing in this regard two rulings by predecessors of mine which go back over a long number of years.

Can the House be provided with an account of the Government's legal advice?

The Schedule to the Bill was not the only part of it which was missing. A substantial amendment to section 9 was also missing.

The Chair has already referred to the matter and dealt with it.

Will the Minister not come to the House to explain?

Question put: "That the Bill be referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in accordance with Standing Order 120(1) and paragraph 1(a)(i) of the Orders of Reference of that committee.”

Ahern, Bertie.Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Browne, John.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel.Dempsey, Noel.Dennehy, John.

Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Fox, Mildred.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McDaid, James.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál. Moloney, John.

Tá–continued

Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M.J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.

Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Crowe, Seán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gormley, John.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.

McGrath, Finian.McGrath, Paul.McHugh, Paddy.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Murphy, Gerard.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Perry, John.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share