Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, to delete lines 40 to 45.

When I try to struggle with this section of the Bill again, it reminds me of the Taoiseach's famous remark that he did not read the Lisbon treaty, for which he was somewhat unfairly pilloried given that he was involved in the negotiation of it. It is also fairly hard going to relate and cross-reference the sections that refer to my amendment. As we know Bunreacht na hÉireann endows us with the Supreme Court - a court of final appeal - having appellate jurisdiction from the High Court and the lower courts, subject to certain exceptions that are provided for in law. At the same time as the Supreme Court has that appellate jurisdiction, we in this House are gradually moving to reduce the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in specific cases. Here again we are doing precisely that.

Notwithstanding that extradition concerns very fundamental personal rights, this section limits the right of appeal to cases where either the High Court or the Attorney General allows it. That is a departure from the existing situation. At the moment either side may appeal without leave. However, this section would constrain it only to cases allowed by the High Court or authorised by the Attorney General. There is a further unfairness in the sense that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a party to European arrest warrant applications. It seems unfair that his colleague at the Cabinet table, the Attorney General, has the power under the legislation as framed to decide whether the Minister can appeal or whether to refuse the defendant the right to appeal as the case may be. I do not see a pressing need to limit the right of appeal as proposed.

I have looked over the earlier debates and the explanatory memorandum. As happens increasingly nowadays, the explanatory memorandum will outline matters that are not of great importance and avoid giving the substance. In this case the explanatory memorandum does not bother dealing with this point at all. I am concerned at this reduction in the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform believes there is a logjam in the Supreme Court on matters that it might be considered should not be in the Supreme Court, that is a matter of reviewing the structure of the Courts Service.

Let us consider the measures we have enacted recently, including the Water Services Act 2007, the Criminal Justice Act 2007, the Prisons Act 2007, the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act 2005. We have gradually constrained or reduced the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As I mentioned on Committee Stage in the circumstances we are discussing that could also limit the State's freedom in certain circumstances. I reviewed what the Minister said on Committee Stage. He has not explained why he thinks it is necessary to similarly reduce the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this case to either where the High Court allows it or the Attorney General sanctions it. This is appalling. History will view us harshly in terms of the manner in which we now make law in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The position of the Dáil as compared with the position of the Executive is being gradually eroded with more Ministers believing this House is a rubber-stamp for legislation. There were a number of weeks in this parliamentary year when the cupboard was bare in terms of legislation before this House. Currently, there are four live justice Bills on the floor of the House for completion before 10 July on which major points such as this are not being teased out or discussed.

Deputy Flanagan stated on the Order of Business that a Bill with which we will be dealing next week will inevitably find its way to the Supreme Court, and sooner rather than later. We will not have an opportunity to even debate matters in respect of that Bill that require to be teased out. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in regard to whether there is a general Government theory as to the type of issues that ought properly proceed to be decided by the court, which is a change in direction. If the problem is a logjam in the Supreme Court we should have an open discussion on the matter in terms of the solutions that might be on offer.

See this speech in context