Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate and thank those in particular who are supportive of the Bill. I will come shortly to Senator Ó Clochartaigh's contribution, as he is the only member of the Seanad who is opposed to this measure. Senators raised a number of issues which I will address in no particular order. Mention was made of the Tobin case, to which I made reference in my speech. This case was a great tragedy for the family concerned in Hungary. I can absolutely understand how they are very distressed at the manner in which matters turned out within this jurisdiction. There are no words of consolation or sympathy that can be expressed that could relieve the pain and heartache they have experienced as a consequence of what happened. Tragically and sadly, nothing further can be done within this State to address the matter. As I said in my speech, I am happy to engage with my colleague, the Hungarian Minister of Administration and Justice, in any discussions he wishes to have with me, but we operate under the rule of law and under a constitutional system in which our courts make final decisions in these areas. It is my judgment and understanding that now that the matter has been dealt with in the Supreme Court it cannot be reopened. However, I very much share and understand the concerns and the pain that must be felt by the family who were so tragically and appallingly bereaved.

The issue of the Bailey case - or the du Plantier case, as it was also referred to - was also raised. A number of issues arise out of the Supreme Court judgment in that case. This legislation was at an advanced stage when the more recent judgment was delivered. The implications of that judgment on the European arrest warrant legislation will be considered in the context of the overall review that is being conducted. It is urgent that this legislation be enacted in its current form so that we can meet our international obligations. I was anxious to ensure, as far as possible, that the legislation be enacted before the summer recess. More complex issues arise out of that case in respect of which consideration is required. We will return to those issues when we have completed our deliberations on the review.

Senator van Turnhout provided me with an analysis of some aspects of the legislation. I have engaged in a preliminary examination of that and, again, some of the matters to which it refers relate to the review. I will certainly examine her analysis further prior to Committee Stage.

There is an ultimate issue of concern here which most Senators understand. It is clear, however, that it is beyond Senator Ó Clochartaigh's comprehension. The essence of that issue is that those who engage in criminality can travel freely from one part of Europe to another and from one side of the world to the other. It is very important that the State should ensure those who commit criminal offences in this country and then flee to other jurisdictions should be capable of being returned here and brought before the courts. Freedom of movement is guaranteed within the European Union but there is a co-operative architecture in place among member states which ensures those who flee from one jurisdiction to another to avoid criminal prosecution can - through a proper system - be surrendered and returned to the jurisdictions from which they came.

I listened to the contribution of Senator Ó Clochartaigh and to those of his colleagues in the Dáil. It appears Sinn Féin believes the legislation to purely be about our surrendering individuals who have committed crimes in other states. Some very serious crimes have been committed in this State. Without this legislation working properly, those who engage in serious crime would not be brought to justice. In circumstances where we expect our European Union colleagues to return to this jurisdiction those individuals who have engaged in criminality here and then fled abroad, we must reciprocate and return to their jurisdictions people who have engaged in criminality there.

I wish to revert to my speech to note the fact that the offences cited in warrants issued under the existing legislation included "murder, sexual offences, drugs offences, trafficking, assault, robbery and fraud". It is not possible to state that one is in favour of ensuring those who engage in criminality are brought to justice while also claiming that one is opposed to them being surrendered and returned to this State from another European Union member state or vice versa. The approach in that regard seems to be that we will have a little bit of law and order but not too much. Based on Sinn Féin's philosophy, safe havens would be created in every other European Union member state for individuals who engage in criminality in this country. In essence, this would facilitate such people in avoiding being brought to justice. It is time Sinn Féin got its act together, moved away from ideological and anachronistic perceptions and understood the reality that exists.

In the context of Sinn Féin's historical past, there has always been visceral dislike of anything to do with surrender or, to use the phrase which used to apply in all of these areas, extradition. Sinn Féin sees what is proposed here as a threatening concept. However, it does not relate to threatening anybody. Rather, it is about protecting the victims of crime and bringing to justice those who engage in serious criminality and doing this on the basis of partnership and co-operation - under the rule of law - with supervision by our courts in a European Union context.

Sinn Féin cannot have it both ways. Its representatives cannot stand up in this House or the Lower House and shout about giving the Garda more resources and getting the criminals off our streets and then on other occasions state that the latter should be allowed to run free around Europe and should not be surrendered and returned to this jurisdiction.