Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am grateful to the Senator for tabling the amendments but I oppose them. They propose that the full text of the additional protocol and the Schengen Convention should be added as Schedules to the Bill. I do not propose to accept them because the additional protocol does not give effect to the full protocol. While the protocol contains nine articles, only two contain substantive provisions — articles 2 and 3 — and Ireland proposes to operate article 2 only. In those circumstances, it would be inappropriate to schedule the entire protocol when only part of it will be given effect. Given that the main convention was not scheduled in the 1995 Act, scheduling the convention might be odd and might lead to confusion about the exact legal position. Such an outcome would defeat the purpose of the amendment.

The Schengen Convention consists of 142 articles. The Bill gives effect to only three articles, namely, articles 67, 68 and 69, which deal with the transfer of the enforcement of criminal judgments. Furthermore, Ireland is only opting into parts of the convention, such as police co-operation, mutual assistance in criminal matters and extradition. Ireland is not implementing provisions such as cross-border hot pursuit. Scheduling the entire convention, including those parts Ireland will opt into, might give rise to confusion, particularly among those trying to understand our law and who read the Statute Book. If they print the statutes, they might wonder whether this is part of domestic law. If confusion resulted, it would defeat the purpose of the amendment, which I presume was tabled for clarity.

It would be inappropriate to schedule the entire convention to this Bill when we are only dealing with a small part of it. For example, if the amendment were accepted, objects such as cut flowers, chrysanthemums, roses, fresh citrus and so on would go on the Statute Book. It raises a serious question in terms of the purpose of the legislation. It is not necessary to schedule such material to give it legal effect.

I had to pilot through emergency legislation in response to a High Court judgment stating that incorporation by reference was unsatisfactory and all material had to be included in legislation in extenso. Curiously, the Supreme Court decided earlier that the High Court was wrong in the first place. All the fuss was based on a judgment which has eventually been reversed. There is no legal reason for setting out these materials, although this impression might have been created by the High Court judgment, which stated materials cannot be incorporated by reference only. We are in a happier position.