Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Ar dtús, gabhaim buíochas leis na hoifigí sa rannóg a thug comhairle dúinn ar cad atá sa Bhille atá os ár gcomhair inniu. Déanfaidh mé ar dtús déileáil leis an chuid den Bhille a bhaineann leis an European arrest warrant, na leasuithe atá molta sa Bhille seo.

Several years ago, Sinn Féin called a division when the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, which was introduced to implement an EU framework decision was rushed through the House at short notice after a mere hour of ill-informed debate, from which my party was excluded. Criminals actively make use of borders to avoid prosecution and punishment. While we must work together in Europe and beyond to ensure criminals are brought to justice, there is a right and a wrong way to achieve this objective. The European arrest warrant is the latter.

During the discussion on the legislation implementing the framework decision, the Irish Human Rights Commission concluded that the framework decision was based on a flawed presumption of effective and equivalent protections of accused persons' rights between European Union member states. It also stated that the 2003 Act was likely to diminish constitutional protections in the area of extradition. The then Minister, in his wisdom, ignored the principal conclusions and recommendations of the commission and decided, so to speak, not to give it the time of day.

Given the Irish Human Rights Commission's role in this State, specifically its function in exercising oversight of legislation that is likely to impinge on the human rights of citizens, why was the Bill before us not submitted to the commission for its observations? While this legislation may be practical and logical in the Minister's eyes, given its implications, whether good or bad, it should be referred to the human rights commission to allow it to be examined from a different perspective and to ensure it does not further erode the human rights foundations of society. The decision not to submit the Bill to the commission is a disgraceful example of the Minister's bad attitude to a body established under the Good Friday Agreement and charged with promoting the fundamental human rights of all in this State. It also follows his decision to slash funding for the Irish Human Rights Commission in the 2009 budget.

I appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to refer the Bill to the Irish Human Rights Commission for its consideration. This step should have been taken when the heads of the Bill were agreed. The commission may find that the legislation is in order, although I doubt that will be the outcome of its deliberations, especially with regard to the European arrest warrant system. That the House is again addressing this system so soon after the enactment of the European Arrest Warrant Act was introduced suggests that either the House or the European Union did not get the legislation right in the first instance. The Act was rushed and it has since become clear that practical matters which have made the European arrest warrant either unworkable or subject to major court challenges need to be addressed.

Sinn Féin and the Irish Human Rights Commission were not alone in voicing criticism of the European arrest warrant system. It has also been heavily criticised by international human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, which specifically cited the lack of fair trial guarantees in the European arrest warrant proposal as possibly violating human rights norms. Certain rights are unacceptably negated by the arrest warrant system and I am not convinced the safeguards introduced in the 2003 Act were adequate.

My party's concerns about the European arrest warrant include: the abolition of the dual criminality requirement for a list of 32 crimes in the absence of harmonised laws relating to a number of these offences; the inclusion of the term "terrorism" on the positive list in the context of an excessively broad European Union common definition; the removal of the traditional categoric exemptions from extradition, including political offences; the limits on the so-called specialty rule; and the fact that the appeal process is unclear. The Bill before us exacerbates these shortcomings.

My party is strongly opposed to this section of the Bill. It is a pity that I might find myself opposing this Bill, which is three Bills in one, albeit three separate parts, at the conclusion of Second Stage because I do not believe in this section. I will return to the section to do with firearms.

I oppose the Bill and I oppose the agenda which is akin to an EU federalist agenda. The Government should not have backed the framework decision in the first place. The 2003 Act was rammed through all Stages at break-neck speed and with little room for manoeuvre for this Parliament to give the proper oversight that such a significant development in our justice system should have undergone. There should have been proper scrutiny. There also should have been a proper chance to amend it to ensure that it could be implemented practically and that it could guarantee the rights of the accused persons or the rights to fair trial procedures, and guarantee that human rights would not be abused.

The 2003 Act and this amending legislation is irredeemably flawed and, therefore, unsupportable. The introduction of the EU arrest warrant moved us from a formal extradition relationship between sovereign Governments in a EU context to a new inter-court system analogous to the interaction between a federation of states. My party believes the EU arrest warrant contributes to the development of a super-state architecture, a federal state system as opposed to the partnership approach taken up to now where countries signed up to bilateral agreements between the sovereign Governments recognising the different peculiarities on a one-by-one basis of different criminal systems that have grown up in each nation state in Europe.

I object in principle to the federal super-state structure. My party is not alone in that objection. In fact, the most recent referendum would indicate that the majority of the population shares our opposition to the creation of that super-state structure.

I will point out some of my concerns about particular provisions of Part 2. Sections 11 and 13 limit the avenues for appeal and extend the duration for which a person can be detained where a surrender is not effected within the specified timeframes. In addition, the Bill removes the existing provision for withdrawal of consent to surrender. These all constitute regressive steps.

A host of sections simply modernise the recognised means of inter-state communication beyond fax to include mechanisms such as e-mail. That, in itself, is welcome. It is a modernisation and there are many other sections of the law that should be modernised in the same way. However, section 10 provides that an alert on the Schengen information system will be the equivalent to an EU arrest warrant. That might be fine but, given the Schengen information system and the equivalence of the alert, it will give a garda an automatic power of arrest without warrant and then the High Court can remand the person in custody for 14 days prior to the production of the EU arrest warrant to which the alert relates, if a warrant exists at all.

Given that we are recognising new technology in the first part by stating that an alert would be equivalent to an EU arrest warrant and that the inter-state communication can move beyond fax, I cannot see the circumstances arising where we would have to wait 14 days for the production of an arrest warrant, which could be e-mailed within seconds if required. Obviously, with weekends and public holidays taken into account, and perhaps time to find a judge, there might be a need to allow for a day or two, but the Bill allows for holding somebody in custody for 14 days until the production of a warrant, which should be available in the first instances before any alert appears on the Schengen information system. If it appears there, then it should be attached to the alert so that it can be downloaded by the Garda or an officer in another country. This would mean that the warrant is available and can be executed, and then that the person can apply for legal aid or whatever to prevent his or her extradition or the full implementation of the arrest warrant.

The scope for error under the Schengen information system has significant implications for this. People do not understand the seriousness of this information system. One should not forget that the scope for error of which we speak is that somebody could be deprived of his or her liberty for up to 14 days. When the Schengen information system was operating across just 13 countries there were 125,000 input or access points for the different security or police apparatus in those 13 states. If, as is intended, the principle of convergence, that is, the automated access to all data stored without oversight/authorisation requirements, is extended across the 27 member states some of which are very large, and potentially across the new common security area with the United States in the future, which has also been madly proposed by some, the number of access points will be much greater. If there were 125,000 input or access points for 13 states and this doubles that number, there would be a quarter of a million. With a quarter of a million such points, one can see the scale and the opportunities for mistakes to be made. We need to ensure that there are rigorous protections and mechanisms put in place to prevent mistakes, and also that the duration of time for which somebody may lose his or her liberty is reduced to ensure that people who are innocent, or whose names have been tagged unbeknownst to them for no reason at all, do not end up in front of a court or losing 14 days of their lives. Obviously, the greater number of access points ensures that there is a greater chance that data will be lost, stolen or otherwise illegally accessed, and a greater chance that inaccurate alerts will be recorded on the system causing, under this Bill, wrongful arrest and even detention.

I will turn now to the other section of the Bill, a section which we dealt with not so long ago. Even with our considerable scrutiny of the 2006 legislation on firearms, we still did not manage to get it right. The previous legislation was given very little time and was rushed through, and we got it totally wrong. On this occasion the amendments being suggested are practical ones. They recognise some of the points raised on Committee and Report Stages and tidy up the practice that has since emerged.

The Minister opened his speech and contextualised his introduction of the firearms provisions by specifically stating that his determination is to ensure that a gun culture not be allowed to form in the State. I welcome the Bill's firearms provisions, but it is important not to overstate their significance. This section of the Bill is about prudent gun control, but it will regrettably not reduce gun crime. It will not tackle the dangerous gun culture that already exists in segments of society, a sub-culture, the growth of which is evidenced by the increased access to weapons by lower level criminals and the exposure of guns to teenagers as young as 12 and 13 years of age.

Speaking in the House last December on the fatal shooting of Aidan Kane in East Wall, I called for legislation to be introduced to tighten gun control laws. I had just learned from a response to a parliamentary question that I had tabled that 1,200 legally held firearms had fallen into the hands of criminals in the preceding five years. This shocking figure has no doubt grown since. It highlighted the need for legislation to tighten up the laws regarding the licensing of firearms. For this reason, I welcome the relevant provisions in the Bill. At the time, I asked how many of the legally held firearms had been used in the commission of crimes, but the information was not forthcoming. That there is no database to record each legally held weapon, ballistics reports and so on is a problem.

I also emphasised the need for security to be tightened up at our ports, as large numbers of firearms continue to enter the country alongside the vast quantities of illicit drugs entering the market that fuel gangland crime. The State has just one X-ray machine to detect illegal drugs and weapons entering the State through the ports in trucks and containers. The container scanner's location at any given time allows major drugs importers to decide on which port to use to smuggle their drugs or to at least hedge their bets and minimise the risk of seizure. I call on the Government to ensure that all major commercial ports with high volumes of haulier traffic have a permanent X-ray container scanner in place.

In my constituency in particular, a large number of weapons are in the hands of several drugs gangs, resulting in more than 13 deaths in one feud alone. Most of that weaponry seems to have entered the State with drugs shipments. I appeal to the Government to go beyond what is recommended in the Bill, but we will tease out some of the points on Committee Stage. I welcome this aspect of the Bill, but I cannot support the provisions on the European arrest warrant.

See this speech in context