Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Government's proposed amendment of section 14 of the 1965 Act is appropriate and regrettably, necessary in the context of us facing a no-deal Brexit. One of the great achievements of the EU has been the European arrest warrant, which enables countries to apply for the extradition of persons from other countries in order that they can be held accountable for criminal acts that they committed in the requesting country. It has worked very effectively throughout the EU, particularly in the United Kingdom. One of the big losses to the United Kingdom when Brexit happens, particularly a no-deal Brexit, is that it will be outside the European arrest warrant system. This reveals the artificiality of Brexit because no doubt, when it comes to negotiation with the EU on the future relationship, the United Kingdom will insist on being part of or having a relationship with the European Union which is similar in effect and substance to the current European arrest warrant system. There is no reason for the UK to want anything less and no reason to think that it would benefit from seeking anything less. We are going to go through this artificial scenario whereby the United Kingdom announces that it is out of the European Union but in fact, it wants to avail of many of the successes of that Union. Had the political leaders in the UK made an effort to praise the achievements of the European Union, such as the European arrest warrant, the people of the United Kingdom might not be as blinded to the benefits of membership of the EU.

If there is a crash-out Brexit, the 1965 Act will be amended. One of the principles of extradition is that there must be reciprocity, that is, the requesting country must be able to extradite its own citizens. I was informed by the Minister at a committee meeting last week that this has happened already in the UK. The law there has been changed and citizens of the UK can be extradited to the European Union, including to Ireland, in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Since that arrangement is in place, it is appropriate that we should amend section 14 of the 1965 Act in accordance with what the Government is proposing. It is also a requirement in respect of extradition that the offence for which the request is being made is also an offence in the country from which extradition is being sought. That is a fundamental principle which is also set out in the 1957 convention. It will apply here too. In general, criminal offences in Ireland are similar to the criminal offences that are on the Statute Book in the UK. There are some differences but ultimately when a request for extradition is made, it is clearly in respect of an offence that is an offence in Ireland, even though it may have been committed in the UK. The section is appropriate but hopefully we will not have a crash-out Brexit.

I note what Deputy Ó Laoghaire said in respect of the European Convention on Human Rights and I agree with him that there is a strong strain of political thought within the British Conservative Party that wants to get Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact, in advance of the referendum in 2016, although the current Prime Minister of the UK was in favour of remaining in the EU, she did suggest that it would be appropriate for the UK to opt out of the aforementioned convention. Many of the people in England who object to the European Court and its influence on British politics are actually confusing the European Court of Justice, ECJ, with the European Court of Human Rights. If one were to ask, just after the referendum, whether the UK would be anxious to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights, the answer would probably have been "Yes". However, now that the reality of what Brexit involves is becoming clearer to those who advocated leaving, there is a recognition that there is much more to this process than simply getting Britain out of European agreements. Brexit has consequences for the UK, as we can see in respect of the European arrest warrant.

See this speech in context