Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

The Minister did not refer to the points I made. I stated that section 9 did not cover the political offence exception. Given that the legislation is to be retrospective and the political offence exception abolished, someone who could not have been pursued under the previous legislation could now be pursued even though the offence could have happened 20 years ago and was not an offence at that time. Section 9 does not provide any protection or safeguards in cases where extradition would be refused now.

I also asked the Minister to give some indication of the number of countries that have signed up to the European arrest warrant. I have heard that anomalies exist in the manner in which countries have signed. Some of them have made it retrospective and others have not done so. Considerable difficulty is likely to arise and may have already arisen in some cases in trying to execute the European arrest warrant.

I refer to the application of this legislation to the Colombia three. At the time the Tánaiste gave the impression that the Government was doing something about the issue. She was the only person available at the time because the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was on holidays. She pulled this rabbit out of a hat even though under the provisions of section 4 regarding the additional protocol and the Schengen Convention, it seems clear that this legislation cannot be used in that respect. It would be difficult to see how Colombia could sign the convention. It would be very difficult for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to agree to have Colombia as a designated country given its appalling track record on human rights. It was a red herring. The Tánaiste gave the impression the Government was doing something when it was doing nothing and had no intention of doing anything.

See this speech in context