Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The Social Democrats will support the Bill, which is largely technical in nature. It amends aspects of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 to ensure compliance with the 2002 framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the member states. As others have noted, every few weeks we come to the House and talk about having to do better about our need to do better on transposing European directives and framework decisions. I have lost count of how many times I have stood here and debated legislation which was drafted either to avoid infringement proceedings or financial penalties. The Government often tells us that we are good Europeans but in this regard we are very poor. Is there a wall planner of time lines outlining things that will hit a critical point of things if we do not deal with them and avoid that scenario? I have asked in the past how this is managed. The Department of Justice is a conveyor belt of legislation. A great deal of legislation goes through there. We all accept that. However, we will have to deal with the legislation one way or another. I do not understand the notion that delaying it is beneficial. There are very high administrative costs as well as legal costs and back and forth with the EU which must add to the difficulties and to the time line. If the Department requires additional staff for drafting to deal with these things, I do not understand why that does not happen. The Government will pay for it one way or another.

Infringement proceedings were launched against us in 2020 for failure to comply with a number of outstanding issues in the 2002 framework decisions, in particular those relating to mandatory time limits. The European arrest warrant system has been operational since 2004 and has been a vital instrument in combating cross-border crime in the EU.

It ensures the open borders and freedom of movement we enjoy as members of the EU cannot be exploited by those looking to evade justice. The system allows for a simplified cross-border judicial procedure used in prosecuting or executing custodial sentences or detention orders, with warrants issued by one member state being valid in every member state. One of the most beneficial aspects of this arrangement is the strict time limits it imposes. We must remember that also benefits the accused and ensures he or she is not kept in custody for lengthy periods while awaiting a decision. The country where the person is arrested must make the final decision on the execution of the warrant within 60 days after the arrest if the person does not consent to surrender. If that person does consent then the decision must be made within ten days. This is in stark contrast with the lengthy extradition procedures that used to exist between member states prior to the framework decision. I remember some of those cases that were played out, especially between Ireland and the UK. We have been absolutely failing to comply with the mandatory time limits and it is welcome we are going to remedy that now.

It is also a welcome feature of this legislation that there are provisions to refuse a request to transfer a sentenced prisoner where there is a belief he or she may face discrimination on grounds of sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation. We can never be complacent about our responsibilities to protect individuals from discrimination within the EU. The EU has long had quite a poor record when it comes to sanctioning member states for breaches of treaty and human rights. The actions of certain countries over the past few years, like Hungary and Poland for example, have raised particular human rights concerns. Women’s rights, freedom of expression, judicial independence and the rights of the LGBT community have been under attack in these jurisdictions for some time now. Last year, Hungary passed a law outlawing the distribution of content that is deemed to portray or promote LGBT people to minors. This follows legislation enacted in 2020 which made it impossible for trans or intersex people in Hungary to change their gender legally. It is welcome to see the EU begin a substantive action against Poland and Hungary with daily fines and withholding payments due to violations. We are now in a particularly difficult time with the likes of Poland, for example, which has a monumental task in relation to the intake of Ukrainian refugees. On the plus side, there is some remarkably good work being done on that and on the other hand, there are some very worrying signs at the border regarding the treatment of ethnic minorities or people of colour. We need to use all the tools at our disposal to protect human rights and the rule of law within the EU. Any rogue member state should of course face sanction. Europe is really that beacon and that requires us to protect that by making sure that there is compliance within the member states.

I turn to the issue Deputy Howlin referred to, namely, his proceeds of crime legislation. I spent about a year going backwards and forwards with the people in the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, essentially trying to construct a Magnitsky Act. Bill Browder was good enough to come over and meet some people here who wanted to collaborate on that. I have copious amounts of legal advice that they were able to give me and we commenced some drafting, which I had to pause because it became very clear a genuine Magnitsky Act would be required to come from Government because it would require a money message. A Magnitsky Act that would survive any challenge would require fair procedures. There is no doubt that would be a requirement for an investment if we were to do that. I am aware the European Union has adopted a Magnitsky Act but I do not see how that can actually function as Europe is not a jurisdiction. It is the individual jurisdictions that would be required to identify and prosecute things like, for example, major human rights abuses or major corruption. That is unfolding as we talk about it. We are looking at the money that is washing through our financial services sector. Some of that is in shell companies and with some of it is very difficult to get at the ownership. I have no doubt there are people avoiding sanctions that are justifiable and that should be applied because they are not the direct person that has been sanctioned but who may well be friends or relations.

In 2009, Sergei Magnitsky, who was a tax accountant, revealed huge tax avoidance or tax scandal and Mr. Browder wrote about this in his book Red Notice. When you read it you realise this is a whole other world you did not know existed. After that, the US put in place a Magnitsky Act and that has been followed by Canada and a whole lot of jurisdictions across the European Union. Collectively, there are quite a lot of us who have done work on this and would be enthusiastic about sharing the work we have done to see if we can take this over the line. However, it will fall to Government because I do not see how it can be done by an Opposition party such that it can travel the entire distance of having the legislation passed and enacted. It is legislation that there is a desire to see passed, certainly on the Opposition benches. It must be done at the individual country level. That is where it can be most beneficial, rather than using the wider European Magnitsky Act that went through the European Parliament. I hope there will be scope to do something on that on a cross-party basis possibly, because as I said there is much useful information that several of us have that we would be more than willing to share. I am sure the likes of Mr. Browder would be more than happy to come back over and share exactly what is needed. It is not about trying to have legislation that allows people it is not intended to target fall into its categories. It is instead about the very high level of corruption and the very high level of human rights abuses. It should be possible for us to do that as a united Parliament.

See this speech in context