Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

A further limitation is that under section 2(4) an order applying the European Arrest Warrant Act to a third country must reflect the terms of the agreement it gives effect to. What is being done here provides a legislative mechanism to give effect to agreements on surrender negotiated by the European Union as a whole - I would emphasise that - with non-EU countries. However colourful either Deputy Halligan's contribution about Zimbabwe or Deputy Daly's invocation of extradition to Thailand under this provision may be, they are also completely inaccurate. We have no such intentions or arrangements. I can also assure Deputy Pringle that Australia and the United States do not fall within this provision either. Therefore, perhaps we can have a little less excitement on that issue.

Deputy Mattie McGrath made a very interesting speech and I feel it would be remiss of me not to make some reference to it. He informed us that this legislation - and I hope I am doing him justice - should not be enacted. He did not want anyone extradited under it and said he would be voting against the Bill. He also said he had serious principles on this issue.

I must say that I was somewhat taken aback by Deputy Mattie McGrath's attack on the European arrest warrant system because he has form on this matter. He has obviously forgotten what he said on previous occasions both in this House and elsewhere. When he stood up to speak I expected to receive his support. As a member of Fianna Fáil, he had previously supported this measure not just by voting it through the lobbies but by express statements he made.

I presumed him to be a staunch supporter of the European arrest warrant system, particularly having regard to the records of this House. They show that on 28 May 2009, Deputy McGrath made a particularly eloquent speech on Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009, which amended the European Arrest Warrant Act of 2003. In that speech he said:

Part 1 of the Bill contains the standard preliminary features of all legislative proposals including the Short Title, the interpretation section and the provision that the Exchequer will bear the cost of administering the Bill when enacted. Part 2 contains amendments to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005. The 2003 Act, which gave effect to the European Union framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant, replaced extradition arrangements between member states with a system of surrender based on arrest warrants issued by judicial authorities in member states. The amendments proposed in this part of the Bill are necessary to deal with issues that have arisen in the administration and implementation of the 2003 Act. As the House will be aware, the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 has been in operation for more than five years. There is now a better understanding in Ireland and across all member states of the European Arrest Warrant system.

The Deupty then voted enthusiastically in favour of the European arrest warrant system. On 24 September 2009, Deputy McGrath issued a statement, which I think was directed at the national media but perhaps only got coverage in his local media, under the happy title "Lisbon treaty will help tackle crime in Tipperary". He has not yet enlightened us as to whether or not the Lisbon treaty helped to tackle crime in Tipperary. In that particular statement, which may still be accessible on his website, he said that organised crime is international by nature and requires, and I quote:

a concerted and united international response to it to be effectively tackled. The Lisbon treaty will give the European Union more effective powers to combat cross-Border crime such as human trafficking and drug smuggling. In an internal market where there are 500 million people living in 27 different countries, member states need to work more closely together so that they can defeat those international drug barons and slave traders. Organised criminal groups have evolved over the years and tend to have highly sophisticated networks. Ireland is best placed to tackle these criminals with the full force of the European Union behind it.

I presume that today Deputy McGrath is as concerned about international drug barons and slave traders as he was back in 2009. In this context, he went on to say that "the treaty will also build on the work that the EU has already done in the area of cross-Border crime". Listed below were just a few examples of EU anti-crime initiatives of which he obviously approved. I ask Members to guess the first initiative to which he referred, and I quote:

The European arrest warrant has ensured that criminals can no longer escape justice by fleeing to another European Union member state. The European arrest warrant has led to a substantial reduction in the time it takes to surrender a person from one member state to another for prosecution.

The Deputy said that approvingly in urging his constituents to vote "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty. What metamorphosis has the Deputy experienced since he delivered that speech?

It was noticeable that in his contribution to this House, Deputy McGrath made no reference of any kind to these aspects. However, he said something that is as relevant today as it was in 2009 concerning the European arrest warrant system.

The reforms we are introducing to the European arrest warrant system are of crucial importance in protecting citizens of this State, ensuring that those who commit serious crimes in this State can be returned here for trial, to protect citizens of this State from those who have committed serious crimes in other parts of Europe locating here and, possibly, engaging in criminality in this State and, to ensure that those against whom charges have been brought in other European Union countries can be effectively returned to the States that are bringing criminal proceedings against them within Europe. These are important objectives. Ultimately, they are about human rights and ensuring we do everything possible to protect every citizen of this State against criminality, that we bring those who are alleged to have committed offences before our courts, that we have the maximum co-operation from our European Union colleagues in returning to this State those who we want to put on trial and ensuring this State is not burdened by becoming a safe haven for criminals who have committed serious crime across the European Union. In the context of our general extradition laws, I do not want this State to become a safe haven for those engaged in serious crime, be it in the United States or any other country in which the rule of law applies and in which there are constitutional protections of personal rights and civil liberties.

See this speech in context