I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, and the students of Holy Child Secondary School, Killiney. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann today and I am sure Senators Barry Ward and Victor Boyhan and the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, also welcome them. I make particular mention of Ciara O'Kelly, who is the daughter of a friend of mine from our days at Bolton Street College of Technology. Caitriona O'Kelly would know all the stories of our time in Bolton Street but, thankfully, it was a time before social media so there is no evidence of anything that ever actually happened. They are all just rumours and none of them are facts. Ciara, who plays hockey for Holy Child Secondary School, and her classmates are most welcome, and I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, for bringing them here today. There is an unwritten rule in Seanad Éireann that there is no homework for any visiting school for the rest of the week, so I hope they abide by the ruling of the Seanad.
European Arrest Warrant (Amendment) Bill 2022: Committee Stage
Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, 8 to 11, inclusive, 51, 58 and 61 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, to delete line 16 and substitute the following:
“(i) by the deletion of “against”, and”.
Fáiltím freisin roimh na páistí ó Holy Child. It is great to see the interest of students to come to Leinster House because, at the end of the day, this is a building that belongs to them, and everything we do here is with the aim of improving lives for them, their families and everybody else. It is wonderful to see students who are interested in coming in. I know Holy Child Secondary School very well and have been there on a number of occasions. I am delighted to see the students here and they are very welcome.
The amendments I have brought forward are largely technical and even grammatical in many respects. One of the things I would say generally about this legislation is that it is amending legislation and the European arrest warrant legislation has been amended before. It is very difficult to read this Bill without also having the Bill it is amending alongside it. One of the points I always make in the context of amending legislation is that for anybody coming to read a Bill, even when it is an Act, it is impossible to read it without the other one.
I would much rather see the Government bring forward legislation that essentially consolidated the amended legislation and repealed it so that we have a Act that could be read easily by anybody coming to it rather than legislation that makes reference to subsections and paragraphs in the amended legislation and makes it absolutely illegible for anybody who does not have access to all the legislation. That said, however, the amendments I have brought forward essentially make what I consider to be appropriate corrections either to the format, grammar or syntax of a paragraph, including punctuation, which make it more legible and correct in some instances. I do not propose to go into the details of each one of them. They are technical in nature and I am submitting them. I will withdraw amendment No. 2 on the basis that it might be resubmitted on Report Stage.
Does the Minister wish to speak to the grouping?
I do not propose to speak to amendment No. 2.
The purpose of amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, is to delete the words "in that state" in section 4. The need for the amendment arises from the decision of the High Court in the case of the Minister for Justice and Equality v. Giedrius Gustas 2021. It was subject to an Article 267 reference in the Court of Justice of the European Union, ECJ. The High Court ultimately held that section 2(d) of the 2003 Act obliged it to refuse surrender on foot of a European arrest warrant, EAW, issued by Lithuania where Norway had originally handed down the criminal conviction and sentence, even though that conviction was recognised in Lithuania on foot of a bilateral agreement with Norway. This relates to a rewording of the section to a sentence reading imposed "in that state", so it did not cover a sentence imposed in another state that was then transferred. This limitation is not necessary from a policy perspective and the proposed amendment will remedy this.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 from Senator Ward are typographical in nature. His view is that it is a subject drafting matter. I will defer to the draftsperson on this matter.
I understand where the Senator is coming from with amendments Nos. 9 and 10 but, again, I do not think there is genuine ambiguity here.
I thank the Senator for his comments on amendment No. 11. Section 7(b) confirms that the position that the release of an arrested person where an EAW is not produced in time does not afford any immunity in respect of surrender and that application may be made to endorse an EAW for execution. I am satisfied that the wording "is received by" is consistent with section 13 of the 2003 Act, which provides for such endorsements.
Amendment No. 51 inserts a new section into the Bill, which will amend section 38 of the 2003 Act in respect of refusal of surrender under that section. It will provide the High Court with discretion to refuse surrender where previously it would have been obliged to refuse surrender. This arises in a number of these amendments. I will, therefore, speak to the general point briefly. The framework decision provides for mandatory refusal grounds in Article 3 and the option of refusal grounds in Article 4. The interpretation taken at the time of transposition was that where the grounds were optional, that was a member state option. Member states could decide that wherever those circumstances arose, surrender would be refused. Subsequent case law of the ECJ held that where grounds are optional, the option must be available for the judicial authority to consider in each case. Accordingly, based on detailed legal advice received, the approach taken in the Act to several grounds for refusal under Article 4 is that the framework decision needs to be changed. In this amendment and, indeed, several others, we are reframing what is currently an obligation to refuse to surrender as an option to do so. It will be for the court to decide whether surrender should be granted, notwithstanding the existence of Article 4 grounds for refusal and under what circumstances justify refusal. This will have regard to the body of EU case law that has emerged in these areas.
Along similar lines, amendment No. 58 amends section 4 of the 2003 Act to provide for an optional rather than a mandatory ground for refusing surrender in respect of certain offences committed outside the issuing state, while amendment No. 61 is a technical drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, line 26, to delete “by or on behalf of the Central Authority” and substitute “by, or on behalf of, the Central Authority”.
The amendment provides for people who are arrested on foot of a trade and co-operation agreement arrest warrant issued by the United Kingdom. They are advised of their right to legal advice in the issuing state for the purpose of assisting their legal representatives here.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 3, to delete “custody” and substitute “custody,”.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, line 7, after “her” where it firstly occurs to insert “subsequent”.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, line 7, to delete “a European arrest warrant” and substitute “another European arrest warrant”.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, inclusive, 24 to 27, inclusive, 29 to 32, inclusive, and 57 and 60 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment No. 14 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 13, amendment No. 16 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 15, amendment No. 26 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 25 and amendment No. 31 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 30.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, inclusive, 24 to 27, inclusive, 29 to 32, inclusive, and 57 and 60 are grouped for discussion. They are amendments relating to optional grounds for refusal and the repeal of section 21A of the 2003 Act.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 amend section 9, which amends section 15 of the 2003 Act. These amendments reflect the fact that there are not only mandatory grounds for refusal in Part 2 of the 2003 Act but also optional or discretionary grounds.
Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 29 and 31 are administrative textual amendments to section 10 arising from the insertion of a new section 10(a)(4), while amendments Nos. 27 and 32 insert new sections 10(a)(iv) and 10(b)(iv) in the Bill, which amend section 16(1) and 16(2) of the 2003 Act. As with amendments Nos. 13 and 15, these amendments reflect the fact that there are not only mandatory grounds for refusal in Part 2 of the 2003 Act but also optional or discretionary grounds.
Amendment No. 57 amends section 23, which amends section 42 of the 2003 Act. It provides the High Court with the discretion to refuse to order the surrender where such a discretion is required under the framework decision.
With regard to Senator Ward's amendments, the commission's position is that section 21A of the 2003 Act provides an additional mandatory ground for non-execution of an EAW based on the absence of a decision in the issuing member state to charge and try the person concerned, which is not provided in Article 3 of the framework decision. The ECJ has held that the list of grounds for non-execution of an EAW, as provided in the framework decision, is exhaustive. For those reasons, I cannot accept those amendments. I will also take the opportunity to flag certain amendments that I am considering for Report Stage. These are primarily of a technical nature to address potential ambiguities and minor technical drafting issues and concern sections 10 and 13.
I accept what the Minister of State is saying. The reason I tabled amendments Nos. 14 and 16, for example, regarding the deletion of reference to section 21A is that I am not sure it is wise for us to be putting into this legislation where a decision has not been made to prosecute. The de facto implication of that, and I am absolutely open to correction here, is that member states could seek the extradition of a person from this country to theirs for the purpose of investigation of a crime. I hear what the Minister of State said with regard to pronouncements from the ECJ on this subject and, therefore, the criteria and the framework are exhaustive. I absolutely agree with that. However, are we willing to go down the road to the point where we are essentially saying it is okay for another member state to seek the surrender of a person from this state purely for the investigation of a crime? If I have misread it, I am absolutely open to correction in that regard. However, my concern is that this is what this amending section does and I am not sure that is a wise course of action. Other perhaps unintended consequences might flow from that. We have seen in much of the jurisprudence in this jurisdiction how particular member states can seek the surrender of an individual for very minor offences.
Where the evidence in relation to a matter might not be strong, the danger is that one is encouraging such a state to use the framework, if I could go so far as to say, irresponsibly, to bolster its investigative powers rather than to actually seek someone's surrender, either to serve a sentence or to face a prosecution where a decision had already been rendered in that space.
In this instance, if we do not allow these amendments then we have a situation where they do not have to have made the decision to prosecute. They can merely be wishing to help the police with their inquiries, to use that euphemism that is so often used in the news here. I do not think that is an appropriate reason for somebody to be taken out of this jurisdiction and surrendered to another in circumstances where they might be entirely innocent and unconnected with the crime because there is not sufficient evidence to ground the prosecution or a decision has not been made in that space. I think the decision has to be have made before surrender can be sought.
I certainly hear the Senator's concerns. What we have sought to do is amend section 10 to tighten up the wording in order that the relevant arrest warrant relates to the state which intends to prosecute for offences. We probably feel it is as far as we can go considering the CJEU decisions. We have certainly sought to tighten it up as much as possible to address the Senator's genuine concerns.
I accept the Minister of State's bona fides on it. On that basis, I intend to move the amendments-----
We are not there yet.
I know, but that is what I intend to do, so that I can resubmit them. Perhaps they could be considered in the meantime.
Amendment No. 14 cannot be moved because it is a physical alternative to amendment No. 13.
Very good. That being the case, perhaps you could advise me, a Chathaoirligh, if there is any point in my continuing? Is it correct that a number of amendments will fall on the basis of No. 13 being agreed? I refer to amendments Nos. 14 and 16, for example.
We will deal with the amendments as we get to them. Is that okay?
Very good.
As amendment No. 15 has been agreed, amendment No. 16 cannot be moved.
I acknowledge that.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 21 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, to delete lines 28 to 38 and substitute the following:
“(e) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (4):
“(4) Where the High Court makes an order under subsection (1) or (2), it shall—
(a) inform the person to whom the order relates of his or her right to make a complaint under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution , within the period of 10 days referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), as applicable, of subsection (3),
and, unless it orders postponement of surrender under section 18,
(b) record in writing that the person concerned has consented to his or her being surrendered to the issuing state concerned and, where appropriate, that the person has renounced his or her entitlement not to be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered,
(c) order that that person be detained in a prison (or, if the person is not more than 18 years of age, in a remand centre) for a period not exceeding 20 days pending the carrying out of the terms of the order, and
(d) direct that the person be again brought before the High Court—
(i) if he or she is not surrendered before the expiration of the time for surrender under subsection (3A), as soon as practicable after that expiration, or
(ii) if it appears to the Central Authority in the State that, because of circumstances beyond the control of the State or the issuing state concerned, that person will not be surrendered on the expiration referred to in subparagraph (i), before that expiration.”.”.
Essentially what I propose is to replace the proposed subsection (4) with a number of provisions. I wonder if in fact I could just hear the Minister of State's view on the amendments before I explain them.
I understand the point of the Senator's amendment is to formally inform the person concerned of their relevant rights after a section 18 postponement, as that is when they are most likely be at issue. There is a danger here of being overly prescriptive. The courts routinely provide this information at the point that is relevant to the person. Of course, the person is also almost always legally represented and advised that legal aid is available. In these circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.
While I am on my feet, I will refer to amendment No. 21. In essence, it seeks to amend the Bill as proposed so that proceedings referred to in section 15(6) may not be determined after expiration of 40 days from the person's consent. This 40-day period in section 15 comes from Article 17 of the framework decision and that article speaks in terms of exceptional circumstances where an EAW cannot be executed within a 40-day limit. I think the Bill is accurately transposing the requirements of the framework decision.
I again accept what the Minister of State says, but I just wonder about amendment No. 18 where I propose-----
We are not there yet. We are dealing with amendments Nos. 17 and 21.
Can they not be discussed together?
Nos. 17 and 21 are being discussed together.
I thought it was amendments Nos. 17 to 21. I beg your pardon, Acting Chair. Very good. I accept what the Minister of State said. I think there is very thin paper between what we are saying. I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 18, 20, 22, 33, 35, 36, 43, 44, 49 and 59 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, line 8, to delete “without delay”.
At a number of points in the amending Bill, it is proposed to amend the 2003 Act to require judicial authorities and others to do things "without delay",which is the phrase that is used. The reason I seek to remove that is not by any means to encourage delay, but to acknowledge the fact that I think it is a slightly nebulous term insofar as what constitutes delay is not entirely clear to me. My concern is that we are, to an extent, hamstringing the issue of proceedings or whatever it might be because there are a number of instances that exist throughout the Bill. I wonder if there is a need to include the "without delay" provision. It should be understood. Obviously there should not be delay but I am not clear what is meant by "without delay". There is not a specific timeframe defined. My concern is that if we include the term "without delay", it could potentially give a ground on which proceedings that are quite legitimate and done expeditiously might ultimately fail because it might be submitted in the High Court that they had been done with delay or that there had been an absence of "without delay", if I could put it in those terms. That is why I have tabled the amendment.
These amendments would have the effect of deleting the words "without delay" in places where they appear in the Bill. As the Senator will be aware, the EAW framework decision imposes certain time limits on where it has not been possible for Ireland, as the executing judicial authority, to comply with those time limits. In EAW proceedings the framework decision provides that the executing judicial authority shall inform the issuing judicial authority immediately of certain matters. It is clear to me that there must be a sense of urgency, and therefore the words "without delay" are appropriate in these particular provisions and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
The same issue runs throughout all of these amendments. It is not with a view to promoting delay or anything like that. The Minister of State is absolutely right that these things need to be done expeditiously. We have to remember that in the context of the surrender of a person, it is often a hugely traumatic event for that person. Very often we are dealing with somebody who might have been in this jurisdiction for a decade or even 20 years. The person might have been living here, have married here and have a family here and to be uprooted out of that would be hugely disruptive to them. They might be working here. I myself have dealt in the courts with a number of people who have established lives here, have perfectly functional jobs and may have to return to another country to face what in the scheme of things is a relatively minor matter. The disruption that comes with that is huge, in particular a custodial removal where the person is denied bail here and then surrendered in custody to the issuing authority.
I agree entirely with the need for expedition in relation to this matter. These things should not take long. The reality is sometimes they do, in particular when the respondents to the action fight it, essentially and, by extension, delay it for whatever reason. My concern is that the inclusion of the term "without delay" might have other unseen consequences in terms of points of objection that might be raised by a respondent, for example, against a judicial authority that might be seen to have exercised some delay even where there is a legitimate explanation for that delay for whatever reason it might be.
I again accept the bona fides of the Minister of State on this point. Undoubtedly, his officials who are behind him know a great deal more about this than I do, so I will keep my powder dry.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 34 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 34 provide for amendment to section 9, which amends section 15 of the 2003 Act, and for the amendment of section 10, which amends section 16 of the 2003 Act. Where a member state is unable to surrender a person within the time limits required, and that failure is due to circumstances beyond the control of that member or the issuing state, the 2003 Act provides that a new date for surrender is agreed and the requested person is detained in custody pending that surrender.
Where the failure to effect surrender on time is for reasons other than these force majeure circumstances, however, Article 23.5 of the framework decision requires that the requested person, if in custody, must be released. Ireland's obligation to surrender the requested person remains extant and the CJEU has held that where the requested person must be released under Article 23.5, the executing member state is obliged to take any measures it deems necessary to prevent that person from absconding, with the exception of measures involving their provision of liberty. These amendments will provide that the requested person be admitted to bail on such terms and conditions as the court deems necessary to ensure they are available for surrender.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 10, line 3, to delete “shall, without delay,” and substitute “shall”.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 10, line 11, to delete “If, in exceptional circumstances, the proceedings” and substitute “If the proceedings”
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 10, line 15, to delete “without delay”.
Amendments Nos. 23, 28 and 47 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 10, to delete line 31.
I want to ask the Minister of State his view on the groupings because these are amendments that seek to delete specific provisions relating to whether there is a discretion involved.
On amendment No. 23, the Commission has noted that the lack of a mandatory observance of certain time limits in the framework decision is particularly evident from "may" provisions in sections of the 2003 Act which discretion for the High Court not otherwise required in the framework decision. As the Senator will be aware, this legislation transposing the framework decision is the subject of ongoing infringement proceedings in which the observance of time limits has been raised and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment No. 23 deals with the amendment to section 16(i) of the 2003 Act. The reason I raise this issue is that I think it is at variance with what the Minister of State said regarding other aspects. I do not dispute his bona fides in this regard but section 16(1) states:
Where a person does not consent to his or her surrender to the issuing state or has withdrawn his or her consent under section 15 (9), the High Court may, upon such date as is fixed under section 13 , make an order directing that the person be surrendered to such other person as is duly authorised by the issuing state to receive him or her provided that—
It then sets out in the following five paragraphs the conditions attached to that. At the moment it states that the High Court may make such an order. The amendment in the Bill in section 10(a)(i) is essentially removing that discretion from the High Court. I understand where the Minister of State is coming from insofar as he is quite rightly approaching this from the point of view that they are infringement proceedings. I completely understand that. However, I have been a consistent proponent of judicial discretion in this Chamber. We can trust judges to make the appropriate decision in these circumstances. I am not in favour of removing that discretion by replacing "may" with "shall". That is true of the other amendments in this grouping as well. I am speaking on amendment No. 23 now but I am acknowledging that this applies equally to amendments Nos. 28 and 47. On that basis, it is inconsistent with the approach the Minister of State is taking to other amendments where he is, for example, rejecting my amendments that would remove certain discretions but is now rejecting my amendment that would retain certain discretions. There is inconsistency in the Government's approach to it in that regard. As I have said, I do not dispute the Minister of State's bona fides. I also acknowledge that there is a greater understanding within the Department of where this lies in the context of the framework, its application and its transposition into Irish law. It is something I might think about so on that basis, I will withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 10, to delete line 36.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 11, line 10, to delete “shall, without delay,” and substitute “shall”.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 12, line 23, to delete "without delay,".
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 12, line 37, to delete, "without delay".
Amendments Nos. 37 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendments Nos. 37 to 42, inclusive, amend this section, which inserts a new section16(a) into the 2003 Act. This new section provides that where the prescribed time limits are not met, that failure does not constitute a ground to refuse surrender, does not prejudice the requirement for the court to make a decision as to whether to endorse an arrest warrant for execution and does not preclude the continued detention of the person under the 2003 Act.
Following legal advice, the two provisions to be inserted in section 16(a) by section 11 of this Bill that provide that failure does not prejudice the requirement for the court to make a decision as to whether to endorse an arrest warrant for execution are not now required. Amendments Nos. 39 and 42 delete these provisions and amendments Nos. 37, 38, 40 and 41 are administrative, textual amendments arising from that deletion.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 13, line 26, to delete "without delay".
I move amendment No 44:
In page 13, line 31, to delete "without delay".
Amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive, and 52 to 56, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment No. 45 relates to section 15. Where a person who has been surrendered to an issuing state and the issuing state wishes to prosecute the person for other offences, the consent of the High Court is required. If the conditions of the EAW framework decision are met and no grounds for non-execution apply, the High Court is obliged to give its consent. Section 15(a) substitutes section 22(7) of the 2003 Act to provide for this obligation, while amendment No. 46 would substitute section 16 of the Bill, which amends section 23 of the 2003 Act. Where a person has been surrendered by Ireland to an issuing state and that state wishes to surrender the person to another state, the consent of the High Court is required. If the conditions of the EAW framework decision are met and no grounds for non-execution apply, the High Court is required to provide its consent within 30 days. This amendment clarifies this requirement.
On amendment No. 47, Article 28(3) of the EAW framework decision provides that where the conditions of the EAW framework decision are met and no grounds for non-execution apply, the High Court is obliged to give its consent in respect of onward surrender to another member state. The High Court does not have discretion in those circumstances and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 52 to 54, inclusive, and amendment No. 56 provide for administrative and textual amendments to section 22 of the Bill, which amends section 41 of the 2003 Act arising from the insertion of a new paragraph in amendment No. 45, while amendment No. 55 also amends section 22 of the Bill, which amends section 41 of the 2003 Act.
Section 41 of the 2003 Act deals with the legal principle of double jeopardy. This amendment inserts a new paragraph (c) in section 41(2), and provides that a person will not be surrendered to an issuing state if that person has been sentenced by a third country in respect of an act or admission for which surrender is sought and is currently serving that sentence.
Amendment No. 56 provides for further administrative and textual amendments to section 22 of the Bill, which amends section 41 of the 2003 Act, clarifying the language around detention being a "period of detention".
I hope I did not bore the young people too much with all of that.
I think it was agreed to discuss amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive. Amendment No. 47 has already been discussed with amendments Nos. 23 and 28. The issue involved is, again, related to judicial discretion and I have already discussed that. I am happy to move the amendment but I do not think it needs to be gone into any further.
This amendment transposes a provision of the Schengen information system regulation in the field of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Article 26(4)(b) of that regulation requires that prior authorisation to make an alert temporarily unavailable be granted by the competent judicial authority. The amendment sets out a procedure to do this.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 17, line 9, to delete “without delay”.
This amendment comes on foot of consultation with key stakeholders and is included with a view to ensuring that conditional surrender is fully reciprocal between the State and other states across Europe. The amendment provides that conditional surrender operates when the State makes such a request of another state, just as it already does where it is requested of the State under section 19.
On this section, I will make only a small point. On a number occasions in the course of this Committee Stage, sections have been replaced. Again, I understand why that happens. It denies Senators the opportunity to amend the section that is being inserted by way of an amendment because we do not see it until the amendments are published. As a broad statement of policy, I think it is undesirable that this would happen but I understand why it is happening in the context of this Bill.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 18, line 28, to delete “without delay”.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 19, to delete line 18.
When is it proposed to take the next Stage?
Dé Céadaoin seo chugainn, is dóigh.
Next Tuesday?
I think it is for Wednesday but next Tuesday it is.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wonder if I could make a brief comment. I did not want to interrupt the Acting Chair's reading of the Long Title.
We have finished but I will let the Senator comment.
The European arrest warrant framework is hugely important. It should not at any point be underestimated how complex it is and how much jurisprudence there is on it. Consolidating this Bill with the existing 2003 legislation is important. I ask the Minister of State and the Department to give consideration to passing a consolidated Act where everything is in the one place.
I put on record my admiration for the Department for dealing with the level of interchange between the courts and European Union member states in putting together legislation that is actually operable. It is hugely important. Lest it be forgotten, the framework decision is there to allow for the very easy and straightforward administrative transfer of people from one state to another for the purposes of making good on the criminal justice system. Without it, and before it, the system was absolutely untenable. It has massively improved since the beginning of this millennium.
This legislation is important and I welcome the fact it has passed this Stage because it does good work and makes a system that is for the benefit of everyone.
I thank Senator Ward and the Minister of State.