Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

In the context of human rights, there is an important provision for which our Human Rights Commission expressed support and which is contained in the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Obviously, the Senator is not familiar with that particular provision. The provision to which I refer is contained in section 37 of the Act. It states:

(1) A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if—

(a) his or her surrender would be incompatible with the State's obligations under—

(i) the Convention [namely, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], or

(ii) the Protocols to the Convention,

(b) his or her surrender would constitute a contravention of any provision of the Constitution (other than for the reason that the offence specified in the European arrest warrant is an offence to which section 38(1)(b) applies) [this is a technical issue on which I will not comment],

(c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(i) the European arrest warrant was issued in respect of the person for the purposes of facilitating his or her prosecution or punishment in the issuing state for reasons connected with his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinion or sexual orientation, or

(ii) in the prosecution or punishment of the person in the issuing state, he or she will be treated less favourably than a person who—

(I) is not of his or her sex, race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin,

(II) does not hold the same political opinions as him or her,

(III) speaks a different language than he or she does, or

(IV) does not have the same sexual orientation as he or she does,

or

(iii) were the person to be surrendered to the issuing state—

(I) he or she would be sentenced to death, or a death sentence imposed on him or her would be carried out, or

(II) he or she would be tortured or subjected to other inhuman or degrading treatment.

There is, therefore, an express provision in the 2003 Act of which the Senator appears to have absolutely no knowledge. In the context of the case he cited - the Tobin case - and the very tragic consequences for a family in Hungary following the death of their two children, it was the oversight of our courts which resulted in the individual concerned not being surrendered to the Hungarian authorities. Whatever one's view of that matter, it confirms the importance of court oversight based on constitutional provisions, the rule of law and human rights. Effectively, the section of the 2003 Act to which I refer clearly sets out where matters stand.

Senator Bacik raised the very interesting question of the other countries with which the European Union may conclude agreements and to which, consequently, the European arrest warrant may apply in the way it already applies to Norway and Iceland. As I understand it, discussions are taking place on this matter at European level. The countries to which it may very well be extended include Andorra, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. It is not possible to be conclusive in respect of this matter because I cannot predict how matters might develop or what agreements may be entered into in the future. However, a double-lock protection exists in that there must be a European Union agreement based on certain principles to which the European Convention on Human Rights would apply. Subsequent to the making of such an agreement, the arrest warrant provisions would apply through the making of ministerial orders. There is no major issue or difficulty with regard to that aspect of the matter.

This is very important legislation.

It is important that we ensure we can meet our international obligations in the manner in which we apply the measure in the context of the issue raised by Senator Colm Burke. There are concerns about the extent of the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court and there is enormous pressure on the court as a result of the proliferation of litigation and the number of appeals coming from the High Court. In recent years there has been a substantial increase in numbers within the High Court, but there has not been a proportionate increase in numbers within the Supreme Court. It is part of the programme for Government that legislation will be enacted to provide for a civil court of appeal and constitutional issues will have to be addressed in that context, with, possibly, a unified and separate system of family courts. Work is being done on that issue, on which, ultimately, a referendum will be required. The intention is that work will be completed to facilitate the holding of a referendum in 2013. It is more likely to take place in the second half of 2013 because of the burden and privilege that will arise from our holding the Presidency of the European Union for the first six months of the year. Clearly, it would not be a good idea to hold a referendum in the middle of the Presidency. My intention is to address the issue in the autumn of 2013 and that a substantial amount of work will be done in advance. Serious work has commenced and it may be that some issues arising from it may be the subject of a conference later in the year to ensure maximum consultation on the referendum that may need to be held and the structure of the new courts system.

I thank Members for their interesting, constructive and supportive contributions. I look forward to taking Committee and Report Stages and would appreciate the co-operation of the House in that regard. I hope to achieve the objective of enacting the Bill before the summer vacation commences.