Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The section, to which there are no amendments. I am disappointed that my amendment has been ruled out of order. I believed it was perfectly reasonable and related to the section and purpose of the Bill. I will outline it when I seek further clarification on the decision made.

Extradition plays an important role in east-west and North-South policing and the justice area and there must be provision for it if the European arrest warrant will no longer apply in the context of a hard Brexit. It is right and proper that there be further integration and co-operation in dealing with justice and security matters now than ever before. Some of it is based on international conventions, but the majority is based on EU infrastructure. Unfortunately, it may be eroded substantially and we saw an example this morning. In the event that there is a hard Brexit, the Brussels II agreement on the mutual recognition of family law arrangements will no longer apply. I understand a number of other conventions, including the Hague convention, will cover that situation, but there is the possibility of divergence further down the line. This concern needs to be addressed as a wide number of areas will be affected. The Minister has stated he will deal with some of them by way of statutory instruments, but in this area primary legislation will be required.

Even though it is not yet in force, we could have benefited from mutual recognition of probation judgments and decisions on probation and community service. Unfortunately, the new EU proposal which we are transposing into Irish law will not benefit those who are convicted and given a sentence that involves probation in the North, for example. They will not be able to serve their sentence in the South if resident here. It also applies east-west. It will not be possible to apply that proposal because it is not law, but will the Minister seek bilateral arrangements with Britain for mutual recognition once it becomes law in order that such provisions will apply?

This section relates to the Extradition Act 1965 which was based on a 1957 Council of Europe convention. Section 8 of the Act can apply where the State has made an agreement with a country that is a signatory to a convention to which the State is also a party, for example, the 1957 convention. This section of the Bill which amends the Act will ensure that provision applies to Britain post Brexit and takes account of more efficient and up-to-date electronic means for processing applications. We will not oppose it. However, our amendments sought to ensure this legislation would remain up-to-date in the context of any change in compliance with human rights provisions in other European jurisdictions. All continental European countries, with the exception of Belarus, are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, which has been defined as a key value of Europe and is frequently referenced in EU literature, even though it is a Council of Europe document. The British Government's current position is to rule out withdrawal from the ECHR, but that has not always been the position of the Conservative Party. Many of its members would have Britain renounce and exit from the convention. We need to take this into consideration, provide for it and ensure Irish legislation will be robust enough to be revised if what I have described happens and the standards of human rights protections in the United Kingdom or any other European country recede because of a desire to reduce such protections. The same concern extends to every area in which there is mutual co-operation, including refoulement. If there is a departure from the ECHR, it will have profound implications for Ireland, particularly on a North-South basis, in compliance with the highest human rights standards.

For the moment the British Government has dropped what was the clearly stated policy of the Conservative Party, to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, replace it with a British Bill of Rights and eventually withdraw from the ECHR. Repeal of the 1998 Act under which the ECHR was transposed into UK law and requires British judges to take decisions of the European Court of Human Rights into account has been a stated aim of the Conservative Party for over a decade. It was clear in the party's manifesto in 2010, as was its commitment to withdraw from the European Union. In 2014 the party published its proposals for a British Bill of Rights to replace the Act. After the 2015 general election, the then Secretary of State for Justice, Mr. Michael Gove, promised proposals in that regard. At one stage the Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, favoured renouncing the ECHR, as did Mr. Gove and several other senior Conservative leaders. It is not the current position of the British Government, as I am sure the Minister will say, but we cannot say that will remain the case. In that context, we must be willing to review Irish legislation on and procedures for co-operating with the United Kingdom and ensure they will be kept up to date.

I am disappointed that our amendments have been ruled out of order. Amendment No. 52 reads: "Where a European Country, notifies the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, under article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights [under which it is required to give six months' notice] ... the Minister shall immediately initiate a review of this legislation, which shall be concluded within 4 months". That would have provided an additional window to take urgent legislative action. Obviously, the amendment will not be moved, but I hope the Seanad will be able to discuss an amended version. This is an important matter and in this and other respects we must watch Britain's compliance with the ECHR.

See this speech in context