The committee will now consider the Extradition Act, 1965 (Application of Part II) Order, 2000. I welcome the Minister of State and her officials. I understand that the order, when made, will consolidate existing orders made under Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to update the list of State parties to the convention dealt with in the previous orders and give effect in domestic law to international obligations already undertaken by the State pursuant to other international agreements dealing with extradition. I understand an urgent extradition request has been received which makes it necessary to make this draft order as soon as possible.
Happily, I have had the opportunity to look at this order. Last week I insisted on getting a copy and eventually got one. The order is formidable. It runs to 202 pages of important information couched in technical language. I know something about extradition, having been frequently involved in it. I find it difficult to undertake a study of an order this length. I telephoned Mr. Kingston, legal adviser to the Department, and happily he was able to explain rapidly and clearly the background to the order, its nature and what it does.
I thought the attention of the committee should be drawn to what is new in the order, which is a consolidation order, that was not in a whole range of existing orders which will be repealed and consolidated into one like this. As it was explained to me, the main new element is a list of states which have acceded to the European Convention and which had not acceded at the time we made the last main order in 1987. We do not, therefore, have reciprocal arrangements with them until we make this new order. One of these states has submitted an urgent request, which this State is anxious to facilitate before Christmas. I do not want the committee to seek identification of the state involved because it could only alert the individual concerned.
I understand all the new states involved are European states. I also understand that Ireland has bilateral treaties only with two states, the US and Australia, and that discussions are taking place with a view to finalising a bilateral treaty with Canada. I am sure there are other countries throughout the world outside the Council of Europe where it may well be advisable to have bilateral treaties.
I emphasise that this applies only to Part II of the 1965 Act and that the main part of the 1965 Act relates to the UK, but the arrangements with the UK are different and are not carried out by way of treaty but by a different system of "backing of warrants", as it is called in the Act. Over the years most of our concern with extradition has tended to be with the UK and the different parts of it and not so much with the other countries, but increasingly extradition to and from other countries has become very important, not least in the drugs context. Perhaps the Minister of State will make a statement on the matter and we will then have questions.
