European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003: Committee Stage.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials, to the meeting to consider the European Arrest Warrant Bill 2003. The amendment list and the lists of substitute and additional amendments have been circulated to members. Is it agreed to suspend for the Order of Business and resume immediately thereafter? Agreed.

Before we go to section 1, Deputy Deasy has other important business and has asked if the Minister would allow some of the amendments he has tabled on Committee Stage to be tabled on Report Stage.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) This Act in so far as it relates to extradition and the Extradition Acts 1965 to 2001 may be cited together as the Extradition Acts 1965 to 2003.".

I welcome the Minister and his officials. This is important legislation on extradition. It will have the effect of abolishing all Ireland's extradition arrangements with the member states and putting in place a different administrative mechanism to effect the surrender of citizens in this jurisdiction. My amendment provides that this Act in so far as it relates to extradition and the Extradition Acts 1965 to 2001 should be cited together as the Extradition Acts 1965 to 2003 because effectively that is what we are dealing with. Effectively we will be establishing a mechanism for citizens to be extradited from this country, a common law jurisdiction underpinned by a Constitution, to other jurisdictions which are, by and large, civil law jurisdictions and which in a number of cases are not underpinned by a constitution. It is a fundamental issue and I would appreciate it if the Minister could accept this amendment.

I propose to oppose section 1 in its entirety. If you wish, Chairman, I will go through my opening remarks so that I cover some of the other points arising.

One of my questions relates to the Minister's statement that we have international obligations to ensure that this is delivered by the end of the year. What are the consequences for Ireland of refusing to incorporate the enabling legislation in this case? My understanding is that Third Pillar measures do not currently come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Therefore there can be no proceedings against Ireland for claiming that on reconsideration of the framework directives our national Parliament considers there are inadequate safeguards and that it would require the undermining of our constitutional rights, and on this basis it is unacceptable to us.

What will happen to the other countries who will not have passed this or similar legislation by the deadline? As far as I am aware, only four other countries have passed similar legislation to give effect to this arrest warrant. France and Germany recently demonstrated that one can ignore such directives. They are not abiding by the Stability and Growth Pact. If such an agreement can be ignored, what is the position in this case where the national Parliament could state that, on reflection, we do not agree to participate in the European arrest warrant provisions?

When this measure was first proposed at the Tampere Summit in 1999, it was discussed in the context of an EU legal system harmonisation over a period of a decade or more. The Minister has frequently defended the superiority of our constitutional guarantees over European systems and has argued the need to protect the integrity of the Constitution. I do not know how he can justify the measures proposed in this document in the absence of harmonised safeguards.

The Human Rights Commission has pointed out that the framework decision itself was based on a flawed presumption of the effective and equivalent protections between member states, but that does not necessarily exist, as the Minister knows. How could he justify measures that will reduce judicial scrutiny in Irish courts? Does he not see that this is a broader drive towards the integration of the EU legal systems and ultimately what some believe to be the creation of an EU super state? What is the difference between this proposal and the slippery slope of harmonisation?

I congratulate DeputyÓ Snodaigh on his sterling defence of the British legal system and his support for the maintenance of a British legal system rather than the introduction of a rational European system which is more in line with my views of the future of this country.

I have come here to support this good legislation. I strongly support the idea of a European arrest warrant. The reality is that the origin, directly or indirectly, of the majority of the crimes we face in this jurisdiction is within the operations of international drug networks and networks of other forms of crime which are organised on a Europe-wide basis. It has been estimated by Europol that there are in the region of 30,000 people engaged in international organised crime in Europe. These are gathered together in about 300 to 400 separate organised gangs, of whom about 31 originate in Ireland, but there is considerable interdependence. They are as sophisticated as any multinational company in the legitimate economy. They engage in subcontracting, in specialisation and in co-operation, even across language barriers. Many think the Albanian gangs operate only with other Albanians. The fact is that these groups have the capacity to operate multi-ethnically.

The only way such groups can be combated is by a Europe-wide attempt to deal with them. That obviously requires that there should be a European arrest warrant in the case of the comparatively limited number of offences to which the European arrest warrant applies and to which the Minister's predecessor agreed. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, was then the Attorney General who wisely advised the Government in this matter and I compliment him.

The Minister is blushing.

For different reasons, praise from this quarter is almost as embarrassing for the Minister as praise from Deputy Ó Snodaigh would be.

I am not so sure of the import of Deputy Costello's amendment. If it is, as I understand it to be, one which would effectively remove the notion of a common European arrest warrant and bring us back to a system of traditional extradition, then I would not agree with it. If it is merely a slight change in the citation for explanatory purposes, I would have no difficulty with it. I regret that I was not present to hear him explain the amendment and I am commenting on it in ignorance.

The Minister's response will inform you on it.

The Minister's responses are always informative and I look forward to being informed. I want to let him know that I am wholeheartedly behind him on this legislation.

I have looked at Deputy Costello's amendment and I want to think about it. I will deal with it, one way or the other, on Report Stage if he resubmits it. This is not an extradition Bill. It is a Bill to do with a rendition which is not extradition in the classical sense. It is a European arrest warrant. It is more or less on the same lines as the rendition that existed between Ireland and the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Therefore we will have to think about whether we want to have it cited jointly with our extradition law or have it as separate free-standing legislation. I will think about that between now and Report Stage.

On the broader issue, at this stage the UK, Spain, Portugal and Denmark have implemented in legislation the European arrest warrant. Belgium, Ireland, Finland and Sweden expect to be in a position to do so. Effectively eight of the 15 countries will have implemented it.

Deputy Bruton will see the irony in that Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and other states have not done so and are not expected to do so by 1 January, but I will not comment further on that save to say that there is a pattern.

They do not have Ministers for Justice as efficient as ours and that is obviously the problem.

Returning to DeputyÓ Snodaigh's fundamental proposition, this measure is the result of a fundamental strategic decision made by the European Union at Tampere, which was that they would not go down the road of approximation and a single law for the whole of Europe but would make all the systems interoperable and mutually recognitive. They decided that they would avoid the creating of a super state with a single law, and that is what this is all about. The strategic direction at that time was that member states would continue to have autonomy in their own criminal justice systems but that the price of that, in effect, would be to make them interoperable and mutually recognitive.

We are now in the position where the implementation of this system is an international obligation and in my view it would be embarrassing for Ireland, having taken the stance we have taken on our own autonomy in criminal justice matters, to say that we want to do a U-turn on this, tear up this strategy and go back to where we were in the first place. In a Europe where there is freedom of movement, freedom of travel and freedom of establishment, and all the opportunities for criminality to which Deputy Bruton referred, it seems to me that there must be some system which is adequate to respond to the opportunities which that provides for criminality.

There are two broad strategies available: a uniform harmonised system of law right across Europe, which is something I believe the Irish do not want; or, alternatively, a system which effectively deals fairly and squarely - while maintaining, on the principle of subsidiarity, each member state's capacity to deal with these matters itself - with the issues of criminal law posed by all of these freedoms and which also accepts the proposition set down at Tampere that there must be an area of freedom, security and justice within the European Union.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh then states - this is the point where I cross swords with him seriously - that this should be delayed until we have put in place safeguards for everybody. He should be very careful to look around the particular corner towards which he is heading. He is saying that it should be a competence of the European Union to set out safeguards and to determine what is and is not an appropriate system. I am saying to him at this stage there is a set of proposals which are coming down the tracks on minimum standards and we will see what they are and judge them when we come to them. However, I am not going to say that I will not agree to this European arrest warrant unless and until we have created a competence for the European Union to impose on member states what Deputy Ó Snodaigh calls minimum safeguards or whatever. If, in the last analysis, one accords to the European Union member states, acting either collectively with qualified majority or unanimously, the function of determining how our system of safeguards should or should not operate over and above what is in the European Convention on Human Rights by which all member states are bound, one is actually walking down the exact path that Deputy Ó Snodaigh accuses me of taking, that is, centralising in the European Union very far-reaching constitutional competencies.

The correct path is for Ireland to honour its international obligation under European law by bringing this into effect, to do so on 1 January, and to be in a position throughout our Presidency to encourage, and use some leverage on, the other member states to get on with the job. It would be very wounding to our Presidency of the European Union if, on this central pillar of the area of freedom, security and justice, we were found effectively to have abandoned, had second thoughts on or had cold feet about the project.

It is important that there are safeguards and that the Union has the capacity to introduce safeguards and minimum standards. One of the ways in which this can be done is by accepting the draft constitution which provides for qualified majority voting in this area. If people are rendered from Ireland to another jurisdiction which involves them appearing before a judge whose first language is not the defendant's language, this will ensure that there will be rights to translation of all documents, rights to access to a lawyer and rights to various other minimum protections. The only way that will happen is by the adoption of the European Union constitution. I look forward to DeputyÓ Snodaigh's support for the constitution, given that it will provide the protections he seeks. I am glad that on this issue we are both in favour of greater European integration.

The Minister replied monosyllabically, as he promised, and I accept his offer to re-examine the issue on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 is an alternative to amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are related. All may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 17, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.".

I am withdrawing the amendment. It was tabled because there was a danger the Bill would not be reached before the end of the session.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

A formulation of words should be inserted to provide that the Act should not come into operation until all European Union member states have enacted similar legislation and until equivalent bodies to the Human Rights Commission in each member state have certified, according to procedures of the respective national parliaments, that the safeguards provided are acceptable and the protections available are equivalent between member states. The Minister and Deputy John Bruton suggest that national parliaments should still retain power so that they will not agree to the EAW unless the safeguards live up to the standards they seek. The larger states within Europe are slow to adopt this legislation but one would expect them to be the fore.

Even though our judicial system was originally a British system, since the foundation of the State it has been adapted and changed so that it is an Irish system. It is no worse and no better than the imperialistic Napoleonic code on which the judicial systems of most other member states are based. We must make do with what we have until the Minister changes the entire system but that will not happen for a while. I oppose the section.

I was pleased the Minister proposed the amendment because it was not until the conclusion of Second Stage that we were informed eight of the 15 member states would fail to meet the deadline of 1 January 2004. Given the impending accession of ten new member states, that means less than one third of all member states will have adopted the legislation. I thought the Minister was standing up to the larger member states such as Germany and France, which feel they are subject to a different law, as was the case under the stability pact in regard to the basic matter of the marketplace. They have flouted the deadline with impunity, even though they should be taking the lead. As Deputy Bruton stated, the EU constitution has not been adopted but it contains other safeguards.

Ireland is accepting the legislation at an earlier stage than the larger member states, yet we engaged in tortuous negotiations with various member states regarding extradition arrangements. There was a great deal of angst and the entire nation was worked up about it. The legislation will commence from 1 January 2004 but I hoped the Minister would continue to use his discretion in this regard. I thought the reason he was going down that road was that he would have flexibility regarding the appropriate time to sign the Bill into law and begin the process.

This is not the appropriate time, even though there are pressures on the Minister given that Ireland will hold the EU Presidency from 1 January 2004. He may say this is the appropriate time and Ireland has committed itself to the Framework Document and cannot go back on that legally, but nevertheless this would have been a useful flexibility mechanism.

I refer to amendment No. 8, which inserts a new section 3 and allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by order, to designate a member state that has given effect to the framework decision on the European arrest warrant. The effect of the amendment is that Ireland will be able to operate the EAW on a reciprocal basis with other member states that are in a position to do so. The amendment takes into account that not all member states will give effect to the framework decision on 1 January 2004. Furthermore, it takes account of the position of the accession states, which are due to sign up to the arrest warrant upon their accession on 1 May 2004.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, subsection (1), line 13, to delete "performance" and substitute "carrying out".

I propose this change for textual clarification.

Is this because of the Minister's preference for Anglo-Saxon rather than Latin language?

This is what I am advised to do by the Parliamentary Counsel and does not reflect a personal stance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 is related to amendment No. 5 and both may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 18 to 20 and substitute the following:

" 'issuing state' means, in relation to a European arrest warrant, a Member State designated undersection 3*, a judicial authority of which has issued that European arrest warrant;”.

Amendment No. 5 contains a new definition of the term "issuing state" and is consequential on the new section 3 being inserted, as provided for in amendment No. 8, which allows the Minister for Foreign Affairs to designate a member state that has given the effect to the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.

I am not satisfied "other person" is a sufficiently clear definition of a "judicial authority". I want to add "another person exercising judicial functions". If left as it is, it could be open to an administrative rather than a judicial authority, such as a public official or the Minister.

I hope the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is presented for clarification purposes. I believe it would be a useful protection in the definition.

The judicial authority means the judge, magistrate or other person authorised under the law of the member state concerned. I am not in a position to authorise people. The member state itself must authorise people to carry out the functions similar to those required to be performed under section 27 by a court in the Irish State. I am providing for flexibility so that other member states do not have to have simply one category or another category of persons. They are free to amend their law as long as they provide in their law somebody who carries out the functions equivalent to those performed under section 27 by our courts. It may be examining magistrates or different species of tribunals. That is not really relevant as far as I am concerned.

I am recognising the law of the other member states of the European Union. Whoever they nominate to carry out the section 27 functions is the person I want to designate as a judicial authority for the purposes of this legislation.

The Minister is being very generous to an issuing state. There will be ten new member states on 1 June 2004. The definition covers a magistrate. We are discussing a judicial authority and I think the word "judicial" should be included in respect of every person. The terms "judge" and "magistrate" have judicial connotations but "person" does not.

Perhaps I can be of some assistance to the Deputy. There is a rule of construction called aiustum generis rule which states that if a reference is to A, B, or other thing, other thing is construed as being of the same type as A and B. We do not wish to say because the person is not described as a judge or a magistrate under their law, because those titles are not used, that they are not covered by the law. The phrase “or other person authorised by law” means on ordinary rules of construction in Ireland someone similar, having a similar function in their system.

All it says is "authorised under the law of the member state". That gives them the freedom to appoint somebody——

What I am saying to Deputy Costello is that in the construction of Irish statutes, if one says, "A TD, Senator or other person", it is usually construed as being another similar type of person, not just any person. Otherwise it would just state "any person" in the first place. That is the rule of construction. This provision is designed to make it the case that whoever carries out the function may not be described as a judge or a magistrate; it could be a member of some tribunal of criminal justice in some European country.

God bless the mark.

They do not need to be described as a judge or a magistrate because they can carry out the functions, even if they are not a judge or magistrate by title. That is the purpose of mutual recognition. We recognise each other's systems and we are not saying we will only recognise them if they have the following labels attached.

It may assist the Minister and Deputy Costello if the word "such" were to be included after "other", a judge, magistrate or other such person authorised under law. That would put into the text the maxim of interpretation that the Minister has just cited.

I will consider that between now and Report Stage if I can. If some European Union country has a procurator or aprocureur who carries out these functions and they have divided their functions in that way, I do not want to knock somebody out of the system accidentally. Other countries are being asked to recognise our distinctions between the DPP and the Judiciary, which is very strange in most countries. Many civil law systems do not understand a system whereby there is a constitutional officer who is wholly separate from the court system and merely appears as an equal party in it. The DPP will have functions under this law in Ireland. We do not wish to use straitjacket terminology which imposes on other countries the obligation to have particular labels attached to their judicial authorities.

It must be a judicial authority under the law of that country. It may be a judge or a magistrate and it could be some kind of procurator or investigative tribunal, but I am not prepared to pick labels in our law and then say that other countries must follow those labels in their law.

A judicial function can only be exercised by a judicial authority.

The Deputy might think that but most of the European Union would believe that the Director of Public Prosecutions' or the Attorney General's functions in Irish criminal law are ones which they would say can only be carried out by judges. Most of their systems operate that way.

They might have other functions but they have judicial functions.

What they regard as judicial and what we regard as judicial are fundamentally different. An inquisitorial system does not make the same distinction as we do between judicial and non-judicial.

Rather than prolong this discussion since it is a somewhat philosophical debate, I will consider the matter between now and Report Stage. Deputy John Bruton suggested the word "such" and the word "similar" could be used also, but I want to consider carefully before I commit myself to the proposition.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.

Deputy Deasy will table amendment No. 7 on Report Stage.

Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I am opposed to the Bill in its entirety. I will oppose section 2 in its entirety. Will the Minister state why Gibraltar appears on line 26, page 6 and not other small principalities or occupied territories? The Isle of Man and Jersey are not mentioned. The Six Counties has an Assembly. It is preferable to delete Gibraltar. It is supposed to be a law governing member states and to my knowledge Gibraltar has not declared independence.

The framework decision applies to Gibraltar; it does not apply to Sark, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and other places. They have to be dealt with separately.

Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 8 has been already discussed with amendment No. 2.

I move amendment No. 8

In page 7, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.-(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister for Foreign Affairs may, by order, designate a Member State that has, under its national law, given effect to the Framework Decision.

(2) The Minister for Foreign Affairs may, by order, amend or revoke an order under this section, including an order under this subsection.".

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 3.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 have already been discussed with amendment No. 2.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 7, to delete "12" and substitute "7".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 7, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) This Act shall not apply in relation to a European arrest warrant issued by a Member State before the commencement ofParts 1, 2 and 3.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I am curious about the exemptions for Austria. I understand the reason Italy does not include offences committed prior to 12 August 2002 may have to do with concerns about prosecutions and legal issues affecting certain persons in that country who are highly placed. I am not sure if this is the case. Perhaps it is not.

What is the reason Austria will not allow this legislation to have retroactive effect? What is the significance of the establishment by the Republic of France of the date 1 November 1993?

Under Article 52 of the framework decision, individual states were given the liberty to make statements about the degree of retrospectivity for which they would provide. The Italians have said that Italy will continue to deal, in accordance with the extradition rules in force, with all requests relating to acts before the date of entry into force of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant as provided for in Article 32 thereof. Pursuant to Article 32 of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states, Austria states that, as executing state, it will continue to deal with requests relating to punishable acts committed before the date of entry into force of the framework decision in accordance with the extradition system applicable before that date.

France, Italy and Austria have availed of the provisions of Article 32. It is not for me to second guess why they did so. We could have done it too, but we did not.

I am opposed to the retrospective nature of the legislation. If and when it comes into effect, it should apply from the date all countries sign off. It should not be retrospective. I suggest the deletion of the words "before or" in line 3 of page 7 and the deletion thereafter of the next two subparagraphs. I also suggest the inclusion of a section to ensure there is no risk to the rule of equal treatment of people who are subject to arrest warrants. This provision should be included instead of subparagraphs (2) and (3). That would be in line with recommendations made by the Human Rights Commission in its submission to the Minister and the committee in respect of equality before the law, differences in extradition standards and equality between persons charged with the same offence.

If we had made a statement, it would be open to me now to start making amendments of the sort to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh refers. Since Ireland, my predecessor and I, did not make a statement under Article 32, it follows that I cannot make such an amendment. To do so would be to breach Ireland's obligations under the framework decision.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

I oppose the section on the grounds I have outlined previously.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, subsection (3), lines 30 and 31, to delete all words from and including "Where" in line 30, down to and including "being" in line 31 and substitute "For so long as an order under subsection (2) remains in force".

This amendment involves a drafting change.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 is an alternative to amendment No. 11a. The amendments may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 11a:

In page 7, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) The Central Authority in the State shall, in each year, prepare a report on the operation, in the preceding year, of Part 2, and shall cause copies of each such report to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is so prepared.".

This amendment seeks to insert a new subsection in section 5 to provide that the central authority, which is defined in subsection 1 as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, shall prepare a report on the operation of Part 2 of the European Arrest Warrant Act. Such a report will have to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Labour Party has suggested an amendment of this nature.

In view of the Minister's amendment, I will not move my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Can the Minister tell me in respect of what sort of matter is it likely that regulations will be made through this section?

A number of matters can be specified by regulation through the provisions of the Bill. I will have to come back to the Deputy. I do not have an exhaustive list of them at this stage.

I ask this to raise the matter of whether this procedure of laying an order before the House which, if not annulled before 21 days, becomes law, is appropriate in matters of such seriousness. I have great reservations about the way in which this section operates in other legislation. When I first came to the House a long time ago, there was an understanding that if an Opposition party put down a motion to annul a regulation within 21 days, there was an obligation on the Government to provide time to debate the matter. Given the 21 day restraint, the Opposition party would not be required to have the matter considered during Private Members' time. At some point during the 1970s the practice was abandoned. Successive Governments have adopted the position that motions to annul will not be entertained during Government time. In effect, this means the procedure of annulment of such orders is ineffective. Unless it is a matter of great political moment, the Opposition party will not be willing to forgo its Private Members' time and the matter will not be discussed within 21 days.

While Deputy McDowell is not responsible for a practice which has grown up over the years, I ask him to consider whether or not some of the areas he identifies should not be more appropriately dealt with by means of affirmative motion. The Government would then have to table a motion which could be debated and approved in the Dáil. Some matters to be dealt with through this procedure may involve the implementation of policy in which case the procedure would be appropriate. Other matters might be of a more substantive nature, in which case an affirmative approval motion might be a more appropriate mechanism.

If we were to require an affirmative motion in respect of all these matters, the time involved in each could be up to three months. It would hugely burden the business of the House to put in place such an obligation. There is enough for us to do at the moment. If either House wished to do so, it could establish a secondary legislation scrutiny committee and sit in constant session examining documents and issuing reports about whether time might be made available. Although I have been here far less time than Deputy Bruton, I have found there is no appetite for that kind of thing. It is a point that is easily made, but if it were put in place there would be no desire to participate.

In support of this I must cite our experience of the constitutional obligation to consult the Houses of the Oireachtas about options and discretions. There is a limited appetite for that consultation process, even under European law as things stand. The broader point made by Deputy Bruton can only be met with the unworthy reply that if he really believed that he should have done something about it when he was in a position to.

That is indeed quite an unworthy reply, given the relatively brief period in which I have been in Government over the last number of years.

It was not totally unexpected, though.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Does Deputy Ó Snodaigh oppose the section?

Question put and declared carried.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 8, before section 8, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:

"8.-For the purposes of the Framework Decision, the High Court shall be the executing judicial authority in the State.".

This amendment inserts a new section before section 8 which specifies the High Court as the executing authority in the State.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 8.

Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, line 9, after "person" to insert "in the State".

When a judicial authority in the issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person it should specify the state concerned. It should only be addressed to Ireland in respect of a person who is in Ireland. There is a lack of clarity in terms of a person's location.

It would be nice if we lived in that kind of world but unfortunately, when arrest warrants are issued for a fugitive offender the issuing state frequently has no idea where in the EU that person is. In effect, this will be done on a trial and error basis. We will receive many more warrants than we have fugitive offenders in our jurisdiction. It is possible that it will become standard practice, for example if somebody wanted for murder in Ireland suddenly disappears, for the Irish State to issue warrants to all EU member states so the person can be apprehended as soon as possible.

That is a departure from the existing extradition rules in that respect. Extradition must be specific to a state.

That is the difference between rendition and a warrant. We still have a rendition system with the UK under the relevant part of the 1965 Act. Under this, a warrant issued in England is executable in Scotland or the Republic of Ireland and vice versa. We did not issue a warrant which depended on the person being in the place to which we intended to send it.

Does the Minister envisage a plethora of warrants coming from the issuing state, scattered among the member states in the hope that at some stage the person sought will turn up?

I hope not, because there will be much bureaucracy involved, but I cannot rule out the possibility that if somebody being sought goes missing from Germany, the Germans will issue a warrant to both the UK and Ireland if he is spotted going in a north westerly direction. Other states will not wait for positive evidence that the person has arrived in Ireland before they issue warrants to Ireland.

Is this a situation of hot pursuit?

I support this. It is a good thing to have economies of scale in the issuing of warrants for the arrest of fugitives. Could the Minister explain his reference to there being much bureaucracy if warrants are issued to several jurisdictions? If people from this jurisdiction become fugitives, given that there is free movement across the whole Continent, we would presumably issue warrants to all continental states within the EU.

A Deputy

What about the island states?

I will include Gibraltar. The Treaty of Utrecht was a valuable one. I am sure some of the Deputy's ancestors were involved in the siege of Gibraltar.

Not Germany or France.

Deputy Bruton is being very flúirseach with our resources. These warrants will need to be accompanied by translations. I imagine the Irish will be selective with their warrants - they will not simply bang them out and fax them off all over Europe with translations.

In practice, most of the language in these warrants will be standard. Once we have translated a warrant into Latvian once we will be able to use the same Latvian text for future warrants. It will not be that much of a problem.

This demonstrates the inadequate nature of the implementation of the Framework Document. If somebody comes to Ireland and a warrant is issued for his arrest, he knows that Germany, France and about 18 other countries have not signed up to this mechanism and will head directly to one of those countries.

That is a good reason for us to bring this in on 1 January.

It is a good reason for all countries to sign up at the same time if it is to be done at all. It should not be tolerated that larger countries can say they will not sign up to this until they are ready.

To deal with Deputy Bruton's point——

Obviously, if anybody wishes to escape justice and there is a valid warrant out for his arrest he will head for a jurisdiction in which he is not touchable under this system. We will only be able to issue the warrant to eight jurisdictions.

As Deputy Bruton said, the form is a standard one. However, there are exceptions. For example, distinctive marks in the description of the requested person are provided for. I do not know the Latvian for a tattoo of a ship on the right shoulder so I do not know whether that will be easily done.

There are many people around this town who would be glad to help the Minister.

I thank the Deputy. Under the Schengen information system, to which Ireland is not yet party, there will effectively be electronic dissemination of information about people who are sought. It may not be as bureaucratic as one would imagine in the long-term.

Amendment No. 16 changes the wording of section 8 so that it refers to criminal proceedings. It is a technical amendment to ensure that the section only deals with criminal activities. No. 17 amends paragraph (b) to ensure that a warrant can only be issued in respect of a person on whom an immediately enforceable sentence of imprisonment or detention has been imposed, on the basis that somebody could be appealing their sentence at the time the warrant is issued, which would make a difference. Would the procedures operate if there was an appeal, in which case the person effectively would be entitled to be at large?

The right of appeal is a matter for the issuing state rather than for us. There are all sorts of complexities involved. Sometimes people can serve notice of appeal outside the period, which invalidates the original order under our law. Therefore, I do not want to go down that road.

In respect of the use of the word "criminal" in amendment No. 16, the arrest warrant only refers to arrest and surrender in conducting criminal prosecution or for executing a custodial sentence. Therefore, the Deputy's amendment is unnecessary. Civil forms of arrest do not arise in this instance.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.

I move amendment No. 17a:

In page 9, subsection (3), lines 15 and 16, to delete all words from and including "unless" in line 15 down to and including "directs," in line 16.

The word "unless" is being deleted to avoid any doubts about the vires of the powers being granted to the Minister under the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, subsection (3)(a), line 20, after “concerned,” to insert “and that the person will be afforded full credit for time spent in custody in the State, in accordance with the Framework Decision, on a basis equivalent to that afforded by the State pursuant to section 28,”.

The amendment is self-explanatory. Full credit should be granted for time spent in custody in the state prior to the execution of the order.

I will have to check on that. Off the top of my head, I do not believe it is provided in the framework decision that credit for time spent in custody must be given. We are undertaking that ourselves.

The document makes provision to allow us to give credit to anybody who is sent here.

I accept that. We are willing to make such provision unilaterally, but I am not sure we can demand of other states that they must do the same. There may be cases in which such a provision would be sensible. There may also be cases in which it would not. If a person is found wrongfully to have been resisting extradition at great length, it may be that they should carry some risk. There would be a huge incentive to fight every case no matter how specious the grounds if a person thought they would always get credit for time served. One might as well serve time in Ireland as elsewhere. On policy grounds, we should leave the provision for the receiving rather than the executing state to decide.

As the Minister explained earlier, this process is based on mutual recognition of the legal systems of other countries. For those reasons, the arguments the Minister has advanced are persuasive.

I can understand what the Minister is saying. However, it makes a considerable difference if we are to insist that anybody who comes into our jurisdiction will recieve full credit for the period in custody in the other jurisdiction while we are not in a position to have that provision reciprocated. I do not know what period of time would be served where an examining magistrate is involved and bail is not as readily available as it is here. It is a flaw in the legislation that we are willing to give credit while we cannot demand that credit be given for anybody who is sent out of this country by order. The legislation imposes an obligation on us while failing to impose it on any of the other member states. A person could serve an extra six months or even two years in prison on top of their sentence than they would if they were in this jurisdiction.

Does one have to give credit for time served in prison in another state?

Maybe I can clarify this. Under Article 26 of a Schedule which is not attached to the Bill being debated, though it was attached to the last Bill Deputy Costello thought he was considering——

It will be debated shortly.

It will be considered again. Article 26 of that Schedule provides that the issuing member state shall deduct all periods of detention arising from the execution of a European arrest warrant from the total period of detention to be served in the issuing member state as a result of a custodial sentence or detention order being passed. Reading that, it may be that a distinction must be drawn in the case of a fugitive offender. In that instance, one would not wish to reward the fugitive for time spent in custody in Ireland on return to another country. On the other hand, if a sentence is passed, it would be fair to make that provision de novo. In any event, the obligation is made under Article 26 of the framework decision.

In section 28 of the Bill I was working on, reference is made to the deduction of the period of detention in executing states from sentences.

All I can say is that in section 28 we impose on our courts the obligation to comply with Article 26.

Should we not insist on a reciprocal arrangement?

States are obliged in their implementing legislation to make an equivalent provision to our section 28. I was wrong about that earlier. They are obliged to make the provision.

They are obliged, then, to make reciprocal arrangements.

What is the case if some of the countries which enact this legislation fail to make the provision?

The European Commission will hold them accountable before the European Court of Justice.

I do not know about that. We have the provision in our legislation and whatever we pass is passed.

Member states are obliged to make the provision. That is why we are making it.

Will the warrant issued be valid if member states fail to comply with the terms on which authority is given?

That is a good point. If member states do not have the provision in their law, there might be some argument in respect of whether we are obliged to give effect to an order.

The Minister is far too trusting.

Will Deputy Costello withdraw his amendment for the time being?

I would like the Minister to look again at the provision.

I will look at it again but there is not much I can do unilaterally to impose it. The purpose of the European arrest warrant is to put in place a fairly automatic procedure. A state will be required to respect the piece of paper. Already, we are requiring evidence that people are intended to be prosecuted rather than interrogated. I do not wish to create a whole heap of extra-curricular assurances on top of every warrant unless it is necessary to do it.

This relates to detention and time in custody. It would be very interesting to see if the seven or eight states which have already passed this into law have put in place the reciprocal arrangements.

I will check that between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 9, subsection (3), line 26, after "or" to insert "relevant".

This is simply a drafting amendment. It is an attempt to be helpful.

I have been told there is no need for this amendment, that the meaning is quite clear. The court would have no difficulty in interpreting it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I am curious about sub-paragraph 1(e) which refers to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time and place of the commission of the offence. I wonder how this will apply with regard, for example, to frauds committed over the Internet. In the commission of such an offence, is the place of the offence clear? Increasingly we hear of offences involving conspiracy. The conspiracy occurs in one country and the offence takesplace in another. I am not sure it is entirely clear where exactly the offence is deemed to have occurred.

The same argument could arise regarding the time of an offence, though I am not sufficiently familiar with such situations arising. Why is it necessary to specify the place in which an offence takes place if otherwise there is sufficient evidence that there was an offence and that a certain person was involved?

I refer Deputy Bruton to Article 8 of the framework decision which lays out paragraphs (a) and (f) in more or less the same form. The phraseology of the framework decision is: "The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the annex." The Irish draftsman has said that a European arrest warrant "shall, in so far as it is practicable, be in the form set out in the annex." We have left a little flexibility there. Going back to classic indictments for conspiracy in Ireland, it was that they be between two dates at a place unknown, and sometimes even with persons unknown. I recall that on one occasion during the Arms Trial a person came into court and claimed to represent the persons unknown, and ask for a right of audience. That was in 1970. I do not think he succeeded.

Deputy Bruton is correct. There will be difficulties in certain kinds of inchoate crimes and fraud, in highly sophisticated crimes. There will be difficulties in saying where the offence actually took place. It is for that reason that the Irish draftsman has been slightly more pragmatic than the framework draftsperson and has left a little room for manoeuvre regarding practicability.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Amendments Nos. 20 to 24 inclusive are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 32, to delete "or the English language" and substitute ",the English language or such other languages as the Minister may by order prescribe".

Currently, the Bill provides that the European arrest warrants are to be received in English or in Irish. Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, allow for the possibility of Ireland accepting European arrest warrants in other languages if the Minister makes an order specifying another language. The possibility is that there may be an agreement at EU level that EAWs could be transmitted in a limited number of languages, for example English and French. If that is introduced, I want our law to allow us to be flexible, rather than having to battle with every language every time a warrant comes in.

Hear, hear.

I want to clarify whether the Minister has accepted the substance of amendment No. 24, that the Central Authority shall ensure that a copy of a European arrest warrant and of any undertaking required to be given under this Act is made available to a person named in the European arrest warrant in a language he or she understands. This is more to the point.

Some people do not understand any language.

In so far as people understand any language, it is better that it should be a language the person understands.

The current provisions of the Bill address the matter adequately. When a person is arrested, and also at his or her first appearance before the court, the person must be informed of his or her right to obtain or be provided, where appropriate, with the services of an interpreter. That is as good as it gets.

We expect reciprocal arrangements there too.

Yes. The framework decision requires these.

These areas involving the need for interpreters and proper understanding are areas on which the law has fallen down in the past. We have many nationalities represented in Ireland today.

Article 11 of the framework decision provides that a requested person arrested for the purposes of the execution of an EAW shall have the right to be assisted by a legal counsel and by an interpreter in accordance with the national law of the executing member state.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 9, subsection (1), line 32, to delete "one of those languages" and substitute "the Irish language or the English language".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 9, subsection (2), lines 38 and 39, to delete "or the English language" and substitute ", the English language or such other languages as the Minister may by order prescribe".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 9, subsection (2), lines 39 and 40, to delete "one of those languages" and substitute "the Irish language or the English language".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 25 to 32, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 26, 29 and 31 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are alternatives. Amendments Nos. 25 to 32, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 10, subsection (4), line 6, after "regulations" to insert "(if any)".

This amendment allows for the possibility of documents being transmitted by fax, notwithstanding that regulations may not have been made under the section. It is not necessary that there should be a set of regulations in being. The amendment involves inserting the words "if any" after regulations so that the absence of regulations would not prevent a warrant being sent by fax.

That amendment is fine. My amendment No. 28, referring to page 10, subsection (8), line 45, suggests that after "proof" the words "unless the Court sees good reason to the contrary" be inserted. The Minister might respond to that.

Subsection (8) refers to certain documents that can be received in evidence without having to give further proof. It does not say the documents shall be evidence of anything. It is merely that they be received in evidence. The court has to give a document the weight it deserves. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

It is a departure from the type of language used in the extradition legislation.

This is rendition, not extradition.

The Minister might remind me of that again. This is at the heart of things. The Minister is merely determining——

Seeking evidence without further proof does not mean that everything in it must be accepted. The point is that it should be received in evidence without further proof. It means that one need not prove that the person whose signature appears on it is the person in question and that that is his or her signature. It does not mean that is conclusively determined. For instance, if a totally fraudulent document were presented in court, it would be quite open to someone to say that the signature is not the signature of the judge, and that a con job was being perpetrated. The effect of this provision is to allow it to be received in evidence. A document that purports to be one of these documents is allowed to be received in evidence and it is subject to the right of anyone to contradict any of its contents if someone wants to do that. Otherwise one would have to prove each individual proposition, that the person in question was duly appointed as a judge in the foreign country, that that was the judge's signature, that on a particular day in Bratislava, for example, that judge made the order in question. That kind of thing would be an unreasonable obligation.

It highlights that it is a true copy of a document, so it is merely an administrative order. As long as it is an accurate document, coming from the person and the state it is supposed to come from, that is all right. Is the Minister saying it is possible to make an argument as to why a document might not be submitted, despite the provision "shall be received in evidence without further proof". This is fairly strong. There is a presumption that a document presented by an issuing state, once submitted, is to be followed by the High Court.

It does not have that meaning, in my view. It merely means that no further preliminary proof has to be tendered before it can be received in evidence. Once it is received in evidence it can then be contradicted, rejected or whatever. Our laws on admissibility of evidence provide that documents are not normally admissible unless there is other evidence which makes them admissible. One cannot simply hand up to a court half way through a case a page purporting to be somebody's diary unless one can prove where it came from, whose handwriting is on the page or whatever. This is to get around all of that and make itprima facie admissible in court but not conclusively authentic as evidence.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 10, subsection (8), line 45, after "proof" to insert "unless the Court sees good reason to the contrary".

Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 11, subsection (10), line 7, to delete "subsection (4) or (5)” and substitute “this section”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 11, subsection (10)(a), lines 10 and 11, to delete “that subsection” and substitute “this section”.

Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 4.54 p.m. and resumed at 5.38 p.m.
SECTION 11

Amendments Nos. 32a, 33 to 37, inclusive, and 45c are related, amendments Nos. 34 and 37 are cognate, amendment No. 33 is an alternative to 32a, and amendment No. 36 is an alternative to 35a. Therefore amendment Nos. 32a to 37, inclusive, and 45c may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 32a:

In page 12, subsection(4)(b), line 1, after “advice” to insert “and representation”.

This makes it clear, in the case of any doubt, that a person is entitled to obtain or to be provided with legal representation when he or she appears before the court. Indeed that is the existingsituation under extradition and criminal law generally.

The court is required to fix a date for the hearing that falls not later than 21 days after the date of a person's arrest, which is certainly a very short space of time. It is not absolutely essential to stick to the minimum period suggested in the Framework Document and perhaps the Minister might be a little more flexible, especially where legal advice is required and may not be forthcoming.

This proposed amendment received very considerable and careful examination. On balance, the view at the moment is that it should not be accepted. The purpose of the European arrest warrant is to speed up surrender procedures. The timeframe for fixing a date for the hearing has to be definite to some extent. In addition, a person will be informed of his or her right to obtain or be provided with legal advice at the time of arrest and at the first court appearance. Our view is that, whereas we examined this issue sympathetically, we thought it would result in more delay and uncertainty.

Twenty-one days is three weeks. Why not allow 30 days which would give more time?

The whole process has to be completed in 60 days. If 28 days are nibbled away to start with, which is effectively 30 days, the rest of the process in the High Court would have to take place in a fortnight. That would require massive resources in terms of availability of barristers and solicitors, court room availability and so on. I would prefer not to do that.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 12, subsection (4)(c), line 2, to delete “obtain, or be provided with, where appropriate” and substitute “where appropriate, obtain, or be provided with”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 12, subsection (5)(b), lines 13 to 15, to delete all words from and including “(being” in line 13 down to and including “arrest)” in line 15 and substitute “, either on the first occasion or a subsequent occasion when the person is before the Court, but having first given the person a reasonable opportunity to obtain or be provided with professional legal advice”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 35a:

In page 12, subsection (5)(c)(ii), line 19, after “advice” to insert “and representation”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 12, subsection (5)(c)(iii), line 21, to delete obtain, or be provided with, where appropriate” and substitute “where appropriate, obtain, or be provided with”.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

In page 11, I suggest a new subsection be inserted between lines 21 and 22, on the lines that in its consideration of an application of an arrest warrant, the High Court shall consider factors relating to whether the offence concerned is a political offence, that is, an offence which does not merit a term of imprisonment in the State or an offence which is not a corresponding offence under section 12(4)(a).

That can be raised on Report Stage.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 12.

Amendments Nos. 41 to 44, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 38. Amendments Nos. 38 and 41 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, inclusive, are alternatives. Amendments Nos. 38 and 41 to 44, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 12, between 30 and 31, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) A person arrested under this section shall upon his or her arrest, be informed of his or her right to-

(a) consent to his or her being surrendered to the issuing state under section 13,

(b) obtain, or be provided with, professional legal advice, and representation, and

(c) where appropriate, obtain, or be provided with, the services of an interpreter.”.

The amendment ensures that a person who has been provisionally arrested must at the time of his or her arrest be informed of his or her right to consent to being surrendered to the requesting state, to obtain, or be provided with professional legal advice and representation and to obtain, or be provided with, where appropriate, the services of an interpreter.

Amendment No. 41 inserts a new subsection in section 12. This new subsection provides that where a person who has been provisionally arrested is brought before the High Court, the court is required to inform the person that he or she has the right to consent to surrender or to do the other things I have just mentioned.

Amendment No. 43 deletes paragraph (c) of subsection (5) as this is repetition of what the court will have already told the person, at the person’s first appearance before the court, as provided for in amendment No. 41.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 12, subsection (2), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

"(a) if satisfied that the issuing state intends to issue a European arrest warrant in respect of the person,”.

Provision is being made here for an arrest without warrant by a member of the Garda Síochána. A caveat should be inserted that a person should not be arrested unless the authorities are satisfied that the issuing state intends to issue a European arrest warrant in respect of the person. We can hardly look into the mind of the issuing state, which may not wish to issue it. If we arrest the person we are pre-empting its decision.

I would be sympathetic to that particular amendment were it not for the definition of "Schengen alert" as outlined in page 13, which states that "a European arrest warrant has been issued. . . " Therefore, the precondition means that a European arrest warrant has been issued. It is copperfastened.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 40, 47 and 54 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 12, subsection (2), line 38, after "custody" to insert "or on bail".

In this amendment I seek a similar type caveat, where a person is arrested, pending production of the warrant, that he or she be remanded in custody or on bail. It would be unconstitutional not to make provision for the possibility of bail being granted, given that every suspect in this jurisdiction is entitled to apply for bail.

In this case, the High Court has dealt with a situation where the person is likely to leave the State and has found there are reasonable grounds for a garda to believe that before the arrest warrant is received in the State. To preserve the status quo it would be remarkable if the High Court could then grant bail since the person could then effectively skip. The High Court is obliged to remand the person in custody and for that purpose it should have the same powers as if the person was brought before it charged with an indictable offence. As soon as the situation of the warrant crystallises, the High Court would be in a different position. Under subsection (4) the High Court may order the release from custody of a person remanded in custody under this section if, at any time after the person has been so remanded, it appears to the High Court that a European arrest warrant has not been issued in respect of the person or, where appropriate, the issuing judicial authority has not given an undertaking under section 9(3). Effectively, one is obliged to remand the person in custody. Once the warrant has issued, the question of bail does arise. It is purely to prevent a person dancing away from the whole system.

The only danger is that a person could be in custody for a considerable period. There is no sense of urgency about it.

Seven days is the period provided for in subsection (3).

There is no——

It could not be used to keep a person in custody indefinitely.

Very good.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 12, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) When a person arrested under this section is brought before the High Court undersubsection (2), the High Court shall inform the person that he or she is entitled to-

(a) consent to his or her being surrendered to the issuing state under section 13,

(b) obtain, or be provided with, professional legal advice and representation, and

(c) where appropriate, obtain, or be provided with, the services of an interpreter.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 13, subsection (5), lines 21 to 27, to delete paragraph (c).

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 13, subsection (6), line 30, to delete "Inspector" and substitute "sergeant".

A garda sergeant rather than a garda inspector can certify a document in respect of alerts on the Schengen information system. This takes account of the likelihood that the SIRENE Bureau, which is the back up bureau, once established, will be made up primarily of members of the Garda Síochána below the rank of inspector. The present text requires that it be a garda not below the rank of inspector. We are inserting the rank of sergeant instead.

Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 13.

Amendments Nos. 45b, 51a, 52, 53a, 53b and 68 are related to amendment No. 45a. Amendments Nos. 45b, 51a and 53b are cognate, amendment No. 52 is related, amendments Nos. 53, 53a and 53b are alternatives and amendment No. 68 is related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 45a, 45b, 51a, 52, 53, 53a, 53b and 68 may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 45a:

In page 14, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

"(b) the surrender of the person is not prohibited by section 17, 18 or 19,”.

This amendment is to make it clear that before the High Court makes an order directing that a person be surrendered to the issuing state, it must be satisfied, among other things, that such surrender is not prohibited by section 17, which is the rule of specialty, section 18, which is the surrender of persons to another member state, or section 19, which is the possibility of surrender to a third state.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45b:

In page 14, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(i) the surrender of the person is not prohibited bysection 17, 18 or 19,”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45c:

In page 14, subsection (2)(b)(iii), line 44, after “advice” to insert “and representation”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment Nos. 49 and 57 are related to amendment No. 46 and, therefore, amendments Nos. 46, 49 and 57 may be taken together by agreement.

On page 15, at lines 32 and 33 there are mistakes. The reference to "(b)" on line 32 should be removed and the word "or" on line 33 should be removed and inserted on the following line. Accordingly, I move:

That at line 32 to delete "(b)”, at line 33 to delete “or” and at line 34 to insert “or”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 15, subsection (4), between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(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 at any time before his or her surrender to the issuing state,”.

I point out that on page 15, at line 32, there is a "(b)” in the margin.

Can the Minister clarify what he proposes in regard to amendments Nos. 52 and 53?

We will discuss them when we reach them.

Amendment No. 46 provides that where a person consents to surrender in the High Court and it makes an order directing that the person be surrendered, it must inform the person of his or her right to make a complaint under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution at any time before his or her surrender. That, effectively, is what is colloquially known ashabeas corpus. The High Court is obliged to remind the person who is being processed of his or her right under the Constitution to habeas corpus.

Amendment No. 49 inserts new subsections (6) and (7) in place of the existing subsection (6). The new subsection (6) provides that while proceedings relating to a complaint under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution is pending, the person shall not be surrendered. In preparing that amendment account was taken of the views expressed by the Human Rights Commission that the section, as currently framed, did not set an outer limit on the period of detention between the making of the surrender order and the actual hand over. While the Bill reflected a framework decision in that regard, it is considered that the amendment will ensure that the arrested person, first, will be aware of his or her right to bring ahabeas corpus application and, second, will seek a release if the delay in the hand over is too long. That is something which is being done in deference to the Human Rights Commission’s observations. The new subsection (7) while, in effect, replacing the existing subsection (6) contains no significant change in substance.

Amendment No. 57 inserts new subsections (6) and (7) in section 14. Subsection (6) provides that a person making a complaint in regard tohabeas corpus under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution shall not be surrendered while proceedings relating to that complaint are pending. Subsection (7) provides that a person to whom an order for surrender has been made shall be released from custody if he or she is not surrendered within 25 days of the order being made. A surrender order under this section does not take effect until the expiration of 15 days from the making of the order and the person must be surrendered not later than ten days after that - effectively, there is a period of a fortnight followed by one of ten days after which the person must be released unless there is some good reason for not doing so - or, second, within ten days of such later date that may be agreed by the central authority, which is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the issuing state unless habeas corpus proceedings are pending at that time.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.

Amendment No. 55 is cognate to amendment No. 48 and, therefore, amendments Nos. 48 and 55 may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 15, subsection (5), line 12, to delete "A" and substitute "Subject tosubsection (6)*, a”.

Amendment No. 48 is related to amendments Nos. 49 and 60. If they are accepted, renumbering of the relevant subsection will be required.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 15, lines 19 to 23, to delete subsection (6) and substitute the following:

"(6) Where a person makes a complaint under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution, he or she shall not be surrendered to the issuing state while proceedings relating to the complaint are pending.

(7) Subject tosubsection (7), a person (to whom an order for the time being in force under this section applies) who is not surrendered to the issuing state in accordance with subsection (5), shall be released from custody immediately upon the expiration of the 10 days referred to in subsection (5), unless, upon such expiration, proceedings referred to in subsection (6)* are pending.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I signal my intention to table an amendment on Report Stage to the effect that at lines 24 and 44, after the words "legal advice", that the words "and where appropriate the services of an interpreter" be inserted to make the section effective and for people to have a sense that it is relevant.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 16, subsection (1), lines 8 and 9, to delete all words from and including ", upon" in line 8 down to and including "11,” in line 9 and substitute “, in accordance with this Act,”.

I do not propose to accept this amendment. The Deputy proposes to delete the reference to section 11. However, section 11(5)(b) requires the court to fix a date for the purposes of section 14, being a date that falls not later than 21 days after the date of the person’s arrest. A reference in section 14 refers back to that. It is better to leave it as it is.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 16, subsection (1), lines 11 and 12, to delete all words from and including "that-" in line 11 down to and including "the" where it secondly occurs in line 12 and substitute the following:

"that the High Court is satisfied that-

"(a) the”.

This is a technical amendment.

I do not propose to accept this amendment. Section 14(1)(a) requires that the High Court must be satisfied as to the person’s identity. The High Court has to address this issue. Section 14(1)(b) is a question of fact as to whether the warrant has been endorsed. Under section 14(1)(c) the High Court has to ascertain if any undertakings, as are required by the Act, are provided to the court. Similarly, under paragraph (d) the surrender of the person either is or is not prohibited. In other words, paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are objective issues of fact to be decided before the making of an order that the person be surrendered.

I am surprised that acceptance of my amendment would affect all that the Minister outlined because it is a function of the High Court to be satisfied and to check the true copy of the facsimile. If the words "the High Court" were included in subsection (1) it would cover all of those, rather than applying only to subsection (1)(a).

I am told by the draftsman that it is better to leave it in its present form.

Will he not admit a drafting error?

The officials looked carefully at the implication of the Deputy's amendment and their view was that this was trenching on issues of fact, which either are or are not the case. Paragraph (a) is a matter of opinion while (b), (c) and (d) are objective documentary matters.

The High Court will have examined these documents to see that they are a true copy or a facsimile.

The text reads that the High Court may do these things, provided that——

Provided that the High Court is satisfied that all of these are in order.

I am told it is better this way. I will take a look at it again and if the Deputy's amendment is preferable on a drafting basis, pride will not prevent me from accepting it.

I thank the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 51a:

In page 16, subsection (1), between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"(d) the surrender of the person is not prohibited by section 17, 18 or 19, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 16, subsection (1)(d), line 20, after “by” to insert “sections 17 to 19 or”.

I spoke about this matter when we discussed amendment No. 45b and the related amendments. Those amendments make clear that before the High Court makes an order directing that a person be surrendered to the issuing state it has to be satisfied that such surrender is not prohibited by the rule of specialty or the rule preventing surrender of a person by an issuing state to another member state or by the rule preventing surrender of a person by the issuing state to a third state.

Will the Minister accept the amendment?

My amendments are, effectively, the same as Deputy Costello's. I am moving amendments Nos. 45a, 45b, 51a, 53a and 53b.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 16, lines 22 to 37, to delete subsection (2).

I do not propose to accept this amendment. Section 14(1) deals with section 11 cases while section 14(2), which the Deputy is proposing to delete, deals with section 12 cases. The two sets of circumstances are slightly different. They look similar and I can well imagine how someone might think there is a repetition and wonder if a word processor had gone mad, but the issues are not same.

It looks repetitious.

That is what the Minister said.

Why does it look so repetitious?

That is a good question.

The fourth line in each subsection shows that they refer to different periods. Subsection (1) reads "upon such date as is fixed undersection 11” and subsection (2) reads “upon such date as is fixed under section 12”. Subsection (2) is the emergency type procedure and subsection (1) is the ordinary procedure.

Could it not specify upon such date as is fixed under sections 11 and 12?

I will look at that and see if they could be merged. I agree that the text looks elephantine. If it can be tidied up I will be happy to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 53a:

In page 16, subsection (2)(b), line 35, to delete “and”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 53b:

In page 16, subsection (2), between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(c) the surrender of the person is not prohibited by section 17, 18 or 19, and “.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 17, subsection (5), line 4, to delete "A" and substitute "Subject tosubsection (6)* and section 16*, a”.

This is a textual amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I also wish to move a textual amendment:

At line 24, to move "or" to line 25 so that it is between the two sub-paragraphs.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 17, subsection (5), line 4, after "order" to insert "for the time being in force".

This amendment is for the purpose of textual clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 17, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following subsections:

"(6) Where a person makes a complaint under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution, he or she shall not be surrendered to the issuing state while proceedings relating to the complaint are pending.

(7) Subject tosubsection (7), a person (to whom an order for the time being in force under this section applies) who is not surrendered to the issuing state in accordance with subsection (5), shall be released from custody immediately upon the expiration of the 10 days referred to in subsection (5), unless, upon such expiration, proceedings referred to in subsection (6)* are pending.”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 17, subsection (6), line 10, after "the" to insert "High".

Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 59:

In page18, before section 15, to insert the following new section:

15.-Where, in relation to an offence specified in a European arrest warrant, the High Court decides not to make an order undersection 13 or 14, it shall not be necessary for the issuing judicial authority to issue another European arrest warrant in respect of such other offences as are specified in that warrant, and, where such other offences are specified in the European arrest warrant, that warrant shall be treated as having been issued in respect of those other offences only.”.

A new section is being inserted here to cater for the situation where a single European arrest warrant is issued for several offences and the High Court decides not to grant surrender for some of the offences. In such circumstances it will not be necessary for the issuing judicial authority to issue another EAW in respect only of the offences for which surrender is being granted. In other words, the High Court can grant surrender for some of the offences specified in a single European arrest warrant without the need for a revised warrant being sent to it. Accordingly, the High Court can grant surrender for some, all or none of the offences specified in a single EAW.

I am considering amendments to sections 9 and 27, to be introduced on Report Stage. This relates to the substance of what is the new section 15, in that they will clarify that European arrest warrants, either received here or issued from Ireland, may be in respect of more than one offence. I just want to make that one hundred per cent clear. The amendments will be by way of stating this fact for the avoidance of doubt and may involve the addition of new subsections to sections 9 and 27 of the Bill before us.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 59:

After the proposed new section 15, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) A person shall not be surrendered to an issuing state in respect of an offence where the person is, in the issuing state, liable to be proceeded against or detained in respect of another offence in respect of which the High Court has either refused to order the surrender of the person or not been requested so to order, unless the issuing judicial authority gives an undertaking in writing that the person will not be proceeded against in respect of such other offence.".

Is the Minister effectively accepting my amendment to amendment No. 59?

I am bringing forward amendments which address the point raised in the Deputy's amendment. I am accepting the substance of Deputy Costello's amendment but not the wording of it.

Once again the Government is ensuring that we will have more amendments on Report Stage.

The Deputy is doing that himself.

A Minister is expected to produce a Bill which is as good as possible and it is the Opposition's job to promote amendments to correct the flaws they see in it. While I welcome some of the Minister's amendments, the fact that he is proposing large numbers of amendments and that the Opposition must deal with them within severe time constraints is not acceptable. Opposition Members cannot be expected to examine the mass of amendments proposed by the Minister before the debate on Report Stage.

I object to this method of rushing through Bills. We could have taken longer to consider this Bill. That might have left us in default of the deadline of 1 January 2004 but it would have allowed us more time to consider these matters, even in January next, instead of rushing the Bill through. We are having to jump from one document to another. We do not even have a complete set of amendments which we can deal with in order. Last week we saw the debacle of two separate Bills.

I wish to record my objection to this method of dealing with legislation rather than to the amendment itself.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 18, before section 15, to insert the following new section:

"Postponement of surrender.

16.-(1) The High Court may, if satisfied that circumstances exist that would warrant the postponement, on humanitarian grounds, of the surrender to the issuing state of a person to whom an order under section 13 or 14 applies, direct that the person's surrender be postponed until such date as the High Court states that, in its opinion, those circumstances no longer exist.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), circumstances to which that paragraph applies include a manifest danger to the life or health of the person concerned likely to be occasioned by his or her surrender to the issuing state in accordance with section 13(5) or 14(5).

(3) Subject to section 17*, where a person to whom an order under section 13 or 14 applies-

(a) is being proceeded against for an offence in the State, or

(b)(i) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence of which he or she was convicted in the State, and

(ii) is required to serve all or part of that term of imprisonment, the High Court may direct the postponement of that person's surrender to the issuing state until-

(i) in the case of a person who is being proceeded against for an offence, the date of his or her acquittal or conviction (where he or she is not required to serve a term of imprisonment), or

(ii) in the case of a person who is required to serve all or part of a term of imprisonment, the date on which he or she is no longer required to serve any part of that term of imprisonment.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), a person to whom this section applies shall be surrendered to the issuing state not later than 10 days after such date (being a date that falls after the date specified in subsection (1) or subsection (3)(i) or (ii), as the case may be) as may be agreed by the Central Authority in the State and the issuing state.

(5) Where a person makes a complaint under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution, he or she shall not be surrendered to the issuing state while proceedings relating to the complaint are pending.".

This is a new section dealing with the postponement of surrender. It is being inserted in the Bill to reflect articles 23.4 and 24.1 of the framework decision. The High Court may direct that a person's surrender be postponed on humanitarian grounds and that includes a manifest danger to the life or health of the person concerned, likely to be occasioned by his or her surrender to the issuing state. The High Court may also direct the postponement of surrender in the case of a person who is being proceeded against for an offence in the State until the date of his or her acquittal or conviction.

In the case of a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence for which he of she was convicted in the State, being an offence other than one to which the European arrest warrant relates, the High Court may postpone surrender until the date on which the person is no longer required to serve any part of that term of imprisonment in the State.

Considering that I do not agree with the Minister on everything, although I do on occasion, I wish to have it recorded that I welcome this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 18, before section 15, to insert the following new section:

"Conditional surrender.

17.-(1) Where a person to whom an order under section 13 or 14 applies-

(a) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence of which he or she was convicted in the State, and

(b) is, at the time of the making of the order, required to serve all or part of that term of imprisonment, the High Court may, subject to such conditions as it shall specify, direct that the person be surrendered to the issuing state for the purpose of his or her being tried for the offence to which the European arrest warrant concerned relates.

(2) Where a person is surrendered to the issuing state under this section, then any term of imprisonment or part of a term of imprisonment that the person is required to serve in the State shall be reduced by an amount equal to any period of time spent by that person in custody or detention in the issuing state consequent upon his or her being so surrendered, or pending trial.".

A new section which reflects article 24.2 of the framework decision dealing with conditional surrender is being inserted into the Bill. In the case of a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence for which he or she was convicted in the State, it being an offence other than the one for which surrender is being sought, and is at the time of the making of the surrender order required to serve all or part of that term of imprisonment, the High Court may, subject to such conditions as it may specify, direct that the person be surrendered to the issuing state for the purpose of being tried for the offence to which the European arrest warrant relates. This provision can have the effect of ensuring a speedy trial, thereby facilitating the accused, victims and other parties. Account will be taken, when determining the period to be served in Ireland, of any time spent in custody or detention in the issuing state, as a consequence of his or her being so surrendered.

The amendment makes substantial improvements to the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 15

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 18, subsection (2), lines 15 and 16, to delete "Movement of persons detained under this Act.".

The amendment seeks to correct a typographical error.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 18, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsections:

"(3) In proceedings under this Act, evidence as to any matter to which such proceedings relate may be given by affidavit or by a statement in writing that purports to have been sworn-

(a) by the deponent in a place other than the State, and

(b) in the presence of a person duly authorised under the law of the place concerned to attest to the swearing of such a statement by a deponent, howsoever such a statement is described under the law of that place.

(4) In proceedings referred to in subsection (3), the High Court may, if it considers that the interests of justice so require, direct that oral evidence of the matters described in the affidavit or statement concerned be given, and the court may, for the purpose of receiving oral evidence, adjourn the proceedings to a later date.".

The amendment adds new subsections (3) and (4) to section 15. The amendment provides that evidence as to any matter in which proceedings under the Act relate may be given by affidavit or by a statement in writing that purports to have been sworn by the deponent in a place other than the State, and in the presence of a person duly authorised to attest to the swearing of such a statement by the deponent. The High Court may, if it considers that the interests of justice so require, direct that oral evidence be given of the matters described in the affidavit or the statement. There is a similar provision already in section 7B of the Extradition Act 1965.

Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 18, subsection (1), line 21, after "necessary" to insert "or appropriate".

This is a simple amendment so that, rather than having the cross-bar too high in terms of somebody being transferred to hospital when the Minister considers it necessary, it would also include the words "or appropriate" to read "when the Minister considers it necessary or appropriate".

I will examine this between now and Report Stage but it seems to me that it introduces a new possibility of uncertainty. It may be that it will not give rise to any grounds for judicial review but I want to consider it carefully, if I may.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.

Amendments Nos. 64A, 65 and 65A are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 64A:

In page 18, subsection (1)(a), line 50, after “offence” to insert “(in respect of which he or she is surrendered)”.

These amendments clarify that a person may be proceeded against in the issuing state only in respect of the offence or offences for which he or she was surrendered. This clarification was required in the case of a European arrest warrant containing multiple offences where the High Court decided a grant surrender for some, but not all, of the offences in the European arrest warrant. It is the first cousin of the rule of specialty.

The Minister's amendment covers my amendment No. 65.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 65 not moved.

I move amendment No. 65A:

In page 19, subsection(1)(b), line 7, after “offence” to insert “(in respect of which he or she is surrendered)”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 65B:

In page 19, lines 36 to 49, and in page 20, lines 1 to 4, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:

"(4) The surrender of a person under this Act shall not be refused on the ground that it is intended to proceed against or detain him or her in the issuing state for the purpose of executing a sentence or order of detention in respect of an offence-

(a) of which the person claimed has been convicted,

(b) that was committed before his or her surrender, and

(c) that is not the offence specified in the European arrest warrant concerned, or otherwise restrict his or her personal liberty as a consequence of being convicted of such offence provided that -

(i) after his or her surrender he or she consents to such execution or to his or her personal liberty being so restricted, and

(ii) under the law of the issuing state such consent shall be given before the competent judicial authority in the issuing state and be recorded in accordance with the law of the issuing state.".

This amendment is simply for the purpose of ensuring the correct alignment of the small Roman numerals (i) and (ii) within the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 20, lines 5 to 35, to delete subsection (5).

The Deputy is proposing to delete subsection (5) of section 17. The provisions in section 17 reflect article 27 of the framework decision. In particular, subsection (5) reflects the provisions in article 27.2(g) on Ireland's declaration. At the time of the adoption of the framework decision, Ireland made a declaration that the central authority, rather than the judicial authority, would be the appropriate authority for the purpose of giving consent to the waiving of specialty in this State. As regards the rule of specialty, some countries vest waiver rights in the court system, but in Ireland we have always vested those waiver rights in the Executive arm of the State.

Is the Minister satisfied that if there is no reference to the offences, and if it includes offences other than those specified in the warrant, it is constitutional?

I am advised that it is constitutional for the specialty waiver right to be vested in me.

Without reference to the High Court?

I think so because it has certainly always been the case. It has been the classic content of extradition law until now and it has never been challenged but I will seek further confirmation on the issue, if it is available. It certainly reflects the existing pattern on extradition.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I wish to move a textual amendment:

In page 21, line 26, to move "or" to line 27.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 66A:

In page 21, subsection (6), line 12, after "respect" to insert "of".

This is a textual amendment upon which not much rests.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.

I move amendment No. 66B:

In page 21, subsection (1), line 41, to delete "A" and substitute "Subject to this section, a".

This is another minor textual amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 66C and 66D are related and may be discussed by agreement.

I move no. 66C:

In page 21, subsection (1)(a), lines 47 and 48, after “surrender” to insert “to the issuing state”.

These are two minor textual amendments and I do not think they are controversial.

Amendment agreed to.

I move no. 66D:

In page 22, subsection (3)(b), line 37, to delete “consents” and substitute “gives its consent”.

Amendment agreed to.

I wish to move a textual amendment:

In page 22, line 21, to move "or" to line 22.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 22, subsection (3)(b), line 38, after “(4)” to insert “and the High Court consents to the surrender”.

This amendment is similar to amendment No. 66 that the central authority in the State should consider the matter under subsection (4). I am adding that the High Court should consent to the surrender. In other words, the High Court is bypassed in the surrender.

I oppose the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 68 not moved.
Question, "That section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 19.

Amendments Nos. 69 to 71, inclusive, are cognate and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 23, subsection (2), line 12, to delete "surrender" and substitute "extradition".

The amendment proposes to substitute the word "extradition" for "surrender". "Surrender" is used in a rendition context, whereas for non-EU member states "extradition" still remains the norm.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 23, subsection (3), line 15, to delete "surrender" and substitute "extradition".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 23, subsection (3), line 18, to delete "surrender" and substitute "extradition".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Amendment No. 71A is an alternative to amendment No. 72. Amendments Nos. 71a and 72 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 71a:

In page 23, lines 45 to 49, and in page 24, lines 1 to 18, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:

"(4) (a) A member of the Garda Síochána shall not enter a dwelling under subsection (3), other than-

(i) with the consent of the occupier, or

(ii) in accordance with a warrant issued underparagraph (b).

(b) On the application of a member of the Garda Síochána, a judge of the District Court may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that-

(i) evidence of, or relating to, an offence specified in a European arrest warrant, or

(ii) property obtained or received at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) as a result of or in connection with the commission of that offence,

is to be found in any dwelling, issue a warrant authorising a named member of the Garda Síochána accompanied by such other members of the Garda Síochána as may be necessary, at any time or times, within one month of the date of the issue of the warrant, to enter the dwelling (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) and search the dwelling and any person found at the dwelling, and a member of the Garda Síochána who enters a dwelling pursuant to such a warrant may seize anything found at the dwelling or anything found in the possession of a person present at the dwelling at the time of the search that the member believes to be such evidence or property.".

The amendment seeks to ensure correct alignment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.
Question, "That section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendment No. 74 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill".

I want to make a textual amendment to move "or" in line 34 out into space.

Is that agreed? Agreed

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 25, subsection (1), line 44, after "his" to insert "or her".

This is a technical amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.

I move amendment No. 75a:

In page 28, subsection (2)(c), line 5, to delete “and”.

It is a textual amendment which is not controversial.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 are cognate and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 28, subsection (3), line 13, after "warrant" to insert "or warrant for the purposes of extradition".

The amendment deals with conflicts between European arrest warrants and extradition requests and between European arrest warrants and requests from the International Criminal Court. The issue of conflicts between the ICC requests and extradition requests will be dealt with in the International Criminal Court Bill. Consequently, I cannot accept the amendment. I assure the Deputy that the issue will arise and will be dealt with in the ICC Bill which is awaiting the Second Stage reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 77 not moved.
Question, "That section 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
NEW SECTIONS.

Amendments Nos. 78, 80, 84, 86 and 88 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 28, before section 26, but in Chapter 2, to insert the following new section:

26.-In this Chapter-

'domestic warrant' means a warrant (other than a European arrest warrant) issued, for the arrest of a person, by a court in the State;

'European arrest warrant' means a warrant to which the Framework Decision applies issued by a court, in accordance with this Chapter and for the purposes of-

(a) the arrest, in a Member State, of that person, and

(b) the surrender of that person to the State by the Member State concerned.”.

Section 26 defines a domestic warrant and a European arrest warrant for the purposes of chapter 2, that is, for the issuing of European arrest warrants by the State. Amendment No. 78 replaces the existing section 26. Acceptance of the amendment involves the deletion of the existing section 26 and its replacement by the new version.

Amendment agreed to.

Before coming to my next amendment, I wish to move the word "and" in line 38, page 28, out into space.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 28, before section 27, to insert the following new section:

27.-(1) For the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Framework Decision, the Minister may, by order, specify the offences under the law of the State to which that paragraph applies.

(2) The Minister may, by order, amend or revoke an order under this section (including an order under this subsection).

(3) This section shall not operate to require that an order under this section be in force before a court may issue a European arrest warrant undersection 27.”.

This new section is being inserted to assist Irish courts when issuing European arrest warrants. Under the framework decision the issuing judicial authorities require to indicate if the offence for which the person is being sought comes within article 2.2. The new section provides for the possibility of the Minister, by order, detailing the particular offence under the law of the State which fits within the category of offences in article 2.2 of the framework decision, thus facilitating Irish courts in meeting the requirements under the framework decision when issuing European arrest warrants.

Article 2.2 contains the so-called positive list of offences for which the dual criminality requirement is relaxed. The offence is surrenderable if it is on the positive list and is punishable by at least three years imprisonment in the issuing state. It does not necessarily have to be an offence in the requested state. What effectively will happen here is that the Minister will be in a position to issue by order a list of offences which fall within the category of offences which are on the positive list.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 26 deleted.
SECTION 27.

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 28, subsection (1)(a)(i), line 36, after “a” to insert “domestic”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 28, subsection (1)(b)(i), line 40, after “convicted” to insert “of the offence concerned”.

This will make the text clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 29, subsection (1)(b)(ii), line 1, after “required” to insert “forthwith”.

I do not propose to accept the amendment, which is unnecessary. However, I will consider the issue overnight.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments No. 83 is an alternative to amendment No. 82a, therefore the amendments will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 82a:

In page 29, to delete lines 3 to 17, and substitute the following:

"(2) A European arrest warrant shall, in so far as is practicable, be in the form set out in the Annex to the Framework Decision and shall specify-

(a) the name and the nationality of the person to whom it relates,

(b) the name, address, fax number and e-mail address of-

(i) the District Court Office for the district in which the District Court was sitting when it issued the European arrest warrant,

(ii) the Circuit Court Office of the county in which the Circuit Criminal Court was sitting when it issued the European arrest warrant,

(iii) the Central Office of the High Court, or

(iv) the Registrar of the Special Criminal Court, as may be appropriate,".

This amendment substitutes the phrase "the Registrar of the Special Criminal Court" for the phrase "the Special Criminal Court". It also aligns the phrase as may be appropriate. I am prepared to accept the substance of the amendment and I will bring forward an official amendment tomorrow along these lines.

The Special Criminal Court is not a legitimate court and the Minister and others have questioned it. The Good Friday Agreement suggested we get rid of it. We should not add to its legitimacy by including it in the Bill. The High Court and other courts are strong enough to deal with things without referring to a registrar of a court that I hope will cease within a short period.

I ask Deputy Costello to withdraw his amendment in favour of mine.

Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendment No. 83 not moved.

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 29, subsection (2)(d), line 21, after “a” to insert “domestic”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 85:

In page 29, lines 40 to 43, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) Where it is not practicable for the European arrest warrant to be in the form set out in the Annex to the Framework Decision, the European arrest warrant shall, in addition to containing the information specified insubsection (2), include such other information as would be required to be provided were it in that form.”.

My amendment substitutes new wording for the existing subsection (3). The annex to the framework decision contains a format for the European arrest warrant. Subsection (3) provides that where the European arrest warrant is not in that form it must, nevertheless, contain all of the information that would be required if it were in that format.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 29, lines 44 to 46, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:

"(4) In this section 'court' means-

(a) the court that issued the domestic warrant to which subparagraph (i) of section 27(1)(a) applies, or

(b) the High Court.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That section 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 30, before section 28, to insert the following new section:

28.-A European arrest warrant issued undersection 27 shall be transmitted to a Member State by the Central Authority in the State.”.

My amendment inserts a new section in the Bill. It ensures certainty and clarity in administrative arrangements. It provides that European arrest warrants issued by the State must be transmitted to a member state by the central authority in the State, which is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 30, before section 28, to insert the following new section:

29.-(1) Where a person is surrendered to the State pursuant to a European arrest warrant-

(a) the domestic warrant issued for his or her arrest and referred to in subparagraph (i) of section 27(1)(a),

(b) subject to paragraph (c), where more than one such domestic warrant was issued, those domestic warrants, or

(c) where-

(i) more than one such domestic warrant was issued, and

(ii) the executing judicial authority ordered the surrender of the person in respect of one or more but not all of the offences specified in the European arrest warrant,

the domestic warrants issued in respect of the offences for which the person was surrendered, may be executed by any member of the Garda Síochána in any part of the State and may be so executed notwithstanding that the domestic warrant concerned is not in the possession of the member when he or she executes the warrant, and the domestic warrant concerned shall be shown to and a copy thereof given to the person arrested at the time of his or her arrest or, if the domestic warrant or copy thereof is not then in the possession of the member, not later than 24 hours after the person's arrest.

(2) Where a person is surrendered to the State pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued by the High Court (whether or not sitting as the Central Criminal Court), the Central Authority in the State shall inform the Central Office of the High Court, in writing, of the person's surrender.".

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister agreed to look at the substance of section 28 regarding the reduction of the period of detention in the executing State from the time of sentence.

I shall look at it. The framework decision is very clear and I cannot ask for additional undertakings. If that were not provided in the law of another State, as Deputy Bruton mentioned earlier, that might give rise to reasons for challenging extradition, the fact that no credit was given for it.

I ask the Minister to look at it overnight.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.

I wish to refer members to line 45 and I want to do my little trick with "or".

Is that the "or" at the end?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendments Nos. 89, 93 and 93a are related. Amendment No. 89 is an alternative to amendment No. 88a. Amendments Nos. 88a, 89, 93 and 93a may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 88a:

In page 30, lines 18 to 23, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) his or her surrender would be incompatible with the State’s obligations under-

(i) the Convention, or

(ii) the Protocols to the Convention,".

These amendments provide that a person should not be surrendered under the Act if his or her surrender would be incompatible with our obligations under the Human Rights Convention or the Protocols to the Convention.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 89 not moved.

I agree with the sentiment expressed in the amendment.

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 30, subsection (1)(b), lines 25 to 27, to delete all words from and including “(other” in line 25 down to and including “applies“) in line 27.

Reference is made to the so-called positive list contained in Article 2.2 of the framework decision. The weighting of the dual criminality requirement in relation to such offences is an essential feature of the framework decision. Consequently, I cannot accept the amendment. The provision of the framework decision, including the positive list, received Oireachtas approval in accordance with Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is a bit late now to start fiddling around with it. I am stuck with the positive list concept.

I will withdraw my amendment and table it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 91 not moved.

I move amendment No. 92:

In page 30, subsection (1)(c)(iii), line 46, to delete “that”.

My amendment deletes the word "that" and is not of much significance. It is a textual amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 93 not moved.

I move amendment No. 93a:

In page 31, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) In this section-

'Convention' means the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms done at Rome on the 4th day of November, 1950, as amended by Protocol No. 11 done at Strasbourg on the 11th day of May, 1994; and

'Protocols to the Convention' means the following protocols to the Convention, construed in accordance with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention:

(a) the Protocol to the Convention done at Paris on the 20th day of March, 1952;

(b) Protocol No. 4 to the Convention securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the First Protocol thereto done at Strasbourg on the 16th day of September, 1963;

(c) Protocol No. 6 to the Convention concerning the abolition of the death penalty done at Strasbourg on the 28th day of April, 1983;

(d) Protocol No. 7 to the Convention done at Strasbourg on the 22nd day of November, 1984.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 29, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I refer to page 30, line 33, to insert after "ethnic origin" the word "(including nomadism or membership of the Traveller community)", and then a further addition in line 34, after the word "or", to insert "physical or mental disability." There is a further addition after line 45, "(V), does not have the same physical or mental disability as he or she does, or".

The Minister is changing the use of the word "or" all over the place. There is one on line 34-

I am not sure if I want it changed. I shall look at it overnight and see if we want to proceed with it.

I thought the Minister missed it.

I had it marked on my text.

The Minister is a good proof reader.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 31, subsection (2), line 27, after "refused" to insert "solely".

I cannot accept the amendment having consulted Parliamentary Counsel on this point. It is essentially a drafting point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That section 30 stand part of the Bill," put and declared carried.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.

I move amendment No. 94a:

In page 32, line 6, to delete "(1)".

This is a textual amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 96, 96a and 97 are related. Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 96a, 97 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 97 together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 32, subsection (1)(a), line 8, to delete “constituting” and substitute “that constitutes in whole or in part”.

Section 34 deals with the grounds on which the execution of an European arrest warrant may be refused, that is where there are proceedings in the State in relation to the offence in question. The existing provisions of section 34 deal with the situation where proceedings have been brought in the State against the person for an offence, consisting of an act or omission that constitutes, in whole or in part, the offence specified in the European arrest warrant or the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General has decided not to enter anolle prosequi in proceedings against the person for the offence specified in the European arrest warrant.

Amendment No. 96 adds a new ground. It inserts a paragraph (a) in section 34 which provides that a person shall not be surrendered if the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General is still considering but has not yet decided whether to bring proceedings against the person sought for an offence.

Section 36 also deals with grounds on which the execution of a European arrest warrant may be refused, such as where the offence was committed outside the issuing state. Amendment No. 97 amends this section by deleting paragraph (a). It provided that the execution of the European arrest warrant would be refused where the offence was, in whole or in part, committed in the state. As a result, only the existing paragraph (b) remains. It provides that a person will not be surrendered for an offence that was committed, or alleged to have been committed, in a place outside the issuing state if the state would not exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction in respect of such an offence committed outside its territory.

In other words, if Belgium, for example, decided to put someone on trial for an offence committed outside Belgium, Ireland would not surrender someone to Belgium if we ourselves would not exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction for the offence concerned.

Has the Minister covered my concerns?

Which concerns?

The original Bill contained that exception, which I am putting forward here again. The Minister might look at this matter before the debate on Report Stage.

I will look at it overnight.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 32, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

"(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General is considering but has not yet decided, whether to bring proceedings against the person for an offence,”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 96a:

In page 32, paragraph (b), line 36, to delete “Prosecution” and substitute “Prosecutions”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 33, before section 36, to insert the following new section:

36.-A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if the offence specified in the European arrest warrant issued in respect of him or her was committed or is alleged to have been committed in a place other than the issuing state and the act or omission of which the offence consists does not, by virtue of having been committed in a place other than the State, constitute an offence under the law of the State.".

Amendment to amendment not moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36 deleted.

Amendments Nos. 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 are alternatives to amendment No. 97a and all may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 97a:

In page 33, before section 37, to insert the following new section:

37.-A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if-

(a) he or she was not present when he or she was tried for and convicted of the offence specified in the European arrest warrant, and

(b)

(i) he or she was not notified of the time when, and place at which, he or she would be tried for the offence, or

(ii) he or she was not permitted to attend the trial in respect of the offence concerned, unless the issuing judicial authority gives an undertaking in writing that the person will, upon being surrendered-

(i) be retried for that offence or be given the opportunity of a retrial in respect of that offence,

(ii) be notified of the time when, and place at which any retrial in respect of the offence concerned will take place, and

(iii) be permitted to be present when any such retrial takes place.".

The purpose of this amendment is to align the Roman numerals. It is a textual amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 98 to 102, inclusive, not moved.
Section 37 deleted.

I move amendment No. 103:

In page 33, before section 38, to insert the following new section:

38.-A person shall not be surrendered under this Act to serve a life sentence or a sentence of over 20 years, or surrendered on a charge which carries such a sentence as a maximum penalty, unless the issuing state undertakes that the person will be subject to procedures for the review of his or her detention with a view to release after not more than 20 years if the person is not at that stage a danger to the community.".

The matter referred to in the amendment is a constitutional issue for Portugal and not a matter of concern for us in Ireland. It should also be remembered that the killing of a garda in this State can lead to a mandatory 40 year sentence. I do not propose to intervene with that. Portugal has upper limits of 20 years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 104:

In page 33, before section 38, to insert the following new section:

38.-A person who is a citizen of or is ordinarily resident in or otherwise in the opinion of the Minister has a sufficient connection with the State shall not without his or her consent be surrendered under this Act unless the issuing state agrees to transfer the person to the State pursuant to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995 as soon as practicable after his or her surrender or sentence as the case may be.".

This amendment would tie the transfer of sentenced persons into an agreement to extradite. I do not propose to accept the amendment. It would not enhance the operation of the Bill. It is a separate issue. The amendment, effectively, provides that I should not extradite people in certain circumstances unless there is an agreement that they will be transferred back. I am not prepared to do that. In certain circumstances it may be desirable that people serve their sentence in the state in which they committed the offence.

What will the arrangements for repatriation be?

There is a discretion. No one can be forced to do this, one way or the other. Any prisoner abroad who is an Irish national or has close connections with the State can make an application but I am not obliged to accept someone back, nor am I obliged to allow someone to go back. This arose in the case of a murder in Limerick recently where it was suggested that someone might opt to go back to Portugal. That is not the law.

Is the Minister saying the existing legislation for the repatriation of offenders will operate and the option will be there?

Yes, there is discretion both ways, whether to send back and whether to receive.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 38 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 33, before section 39, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:

39.-Section 3 of the Act of 1965 is amended by-

(a) the insertion in subsection (1) of the following definition:

' "country" includes territories for whose external relations the country concerned is responsible;',

(b) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1A):

'(1A) For the purposes of the amendments to this Act effected by Part 2 of the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001, "Convention country" means-

(a) a country designated under section 4(1) of that Act, or

(b) in such provisions of this Act as are specified in an order under subsection (1A) (inserted by section 41 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003) of section 4 of the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001, a country designated by that order, to which the provisions so specified apply.’, and

(c) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1B) (inserted by section 9 of the Act of 2001):

'(1B) For the purposes of the amendments to this Act effected by Part 3 of the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001, "Convention country" means-

(a) a country designated under section 10(1) of that Act, or

(b) in such provisions of this Act as are specified in an order under subsection (1A) (inserted by section 41 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003) of section 10 of the Extradition (European Union Convention) Act 2001, a country designated by that order, to which the provisions so specified apply’.”.

The existing section 39 is to be replaced by the provisions in this amendment. The amendment repeats the wording of section 39(1)(a) of the Bill. Its purpose is to facilitate the operation of extradition arrangements of territories as well as countries. For example, the EAW will replace existing extradition arrangements between Ireland and the United Kingdom. However, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will not be operating the EAW so we must bring them within the potential ambit of the European Convention on Extradition.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 39 deleted.

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 34, before section 40, to insert the following new section:

'4.-Every order under section 8 of this Act made after the commencement ofsection 40 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House sits after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.’.”..

This amendment is consequential on the amendment to section 8 of the Extradition Act 1965, which allows for the making of orders under section 8 by the Minister for Foreign Affairs rather than by the Government, which is the subject of the next amendment. Amendment No. 106 deletes the reference in section 4 of the 1965 Act to the Government making orders and replaces it with reference to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. This is in line with the proposal in amendment No. 107, which I will move in a moment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 34, before section 40, to insert the following new section:

41.-Section 8 of the Act of 1965 is amended by-

(a) the substitution in subsection (1) of-

(i) 'Minister is' for 'Government are' where it first occurs, and

(ii) 'Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister,' for 'Government may',

(b) the substitution of subsection (1A) (inserted by section 23 of the Act of 2001) of ’Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister, ’ for ’Government may’,

(c) the substitution in subsection (2) of ’Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister’, for ’Government may’,

(d) the substitution in subsection (6) of ’Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister,’ for ’Government may’ and

(e) the insertion of the following subsection:

'(9) An order under this section in force immediately before the commencement ofsection 41 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 shall continue in force after such commencement as if made under this section (as amended by the said section 41), and may be amended or revoked accordingly.’.

and the said section 8 as so amended is set out in the Table to this section.

TABLE

8. (1) Where by any international agreement or convention to which the State is a party an arrangement (in this Act referred to as an extradition agreement) is made with another country for the surrender by each country to the other of persons wanted for prosecution or punishment or where the Minister is satisfied that reciprocal facilities to that effect will be afforded by another country, the Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister, by order apply this Part in relation to that country.

(1A) Where at any time after the making of an order under subsection (1) a country becomes a party to an extradition agreement to which that order applies, the Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister, by order so declare, and this Part shall, upon the making of the second-mentioned order, apply to that country.

(2) Where the Government have made an arrangement amending an extradition agreement the Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister, by order so declare and the extradition agreement shall thereupon have effect as so amended.

(3) An order relating to an extradition agreement (other than an order under subsection (1A) (inserted by section 23(a) of the Extradition (European Union Conventions) Act 2001)) shall recite or embody the terms of the agreement and shall be evidence of the making of the agreement and of its terms.

(3A) An order under subsection (1A) shall in relation to the extradition agreement concerned recite or embody the terms of any reservation or declaration entered to that agreement by a country to which the order applies, and shall be evidence of the reservation or declaration (if any) and of its terms.

(3B) An order under subsection (2) shall recite or embody the terms of the amendment and shall be evidence of the making of the arrangement amending the extradition agreement concerned and of the terms of the amendment.

(4) An order applying this Part in relation to any country otherwise than in pursuance of an extradition agreement, may be made subject to such conditions, exceptions and qualifications as may be specified in the order.

(5) Every extradition agreement and every order applying this Part otherwise than in pursuance of an extradition agreement shall, subject to the provisions of this Part, have the force of law in accordance with its terms.

(6) The Minister for Foreign Affairs may, after consultation with the Minister, by order revoke or amend an order under this section.

(7) On the revocation of an order applying this Part in relation to any country this Part shall cease to apply in relation to that country.

(8) A notice of the making of each order under this section shall be published inIris Oifigiúil as soon as may be after it is made.

(9) An order under this section in force immediately before the commencement of section 41 of theEuropean Arrest Warrant Act 2003 shall continue in force after such commencement as if made under this section (as amended by the said section 41) and may be amended or revoked accordingly.”.

Amendment No. 107 has the effect of replacing the reference to the Government with a reference to the Minister. It deletes all reference to the Government making orders and provides, in future, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, following consultation with the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, will make orders under our extradition arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 109a not moved.
Section 40 deleted.
Section 41 agreed to.
NEW SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 110:

In page 34, after line 50, to insert the following new schedule:

This amendment proposes that the schedule be inserted. It was left out by a printer's error.

Amendment agreed to.
TITLE.
Question, "That the Title be the Title to the Bill", put and declared carried.
Bill reported with amendments.