Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this important Bill. It is also important that we keep up with our obligations to transpose this legislation under our partnerships with other states across the EU.

I will comment on the Bill's structure. As other Senators have acknowledged, it is not a Bill that is likely to be read by ordinary people on the street. I hope that the vast majority of ordinary citizens will never have to interact with extradition procedures. Notwithstanding that, there have been a number of amendments to the European Arrest Warrant Act 2013. This is just another one in that sequence, and to read and understand it, one needs to have a few other Acts in one's hand. A point I have made a number of times in the House in respect of various legislation is that consolidation is an important tool that we have. Without the benefit of the Acts that precede this Bill, it is unreadable. I would favour a situation in which we repealed the preceding versions and re-enacted a consolidated version. That would be more helpful for practitioners as well as anyone else who, for whatever reason, had to interpret the legislation.

It is necessary to recognise the importance of extradition. Reference has been made to how effective extradition is now. For those who are not familiar with it, the European Arrest Warrant framework that was put in place in the EU more than 20 years ago is an incredibly effective and streamlined administrative process now. It has brought together many aspects of the criminal justice elements of member states so that it is now very easy to have someone extradited within the EU from one state to another. That is exactly the way it should be. For this reason, there is nowhere for criminals to hide within the EU. It is an effective administrative tool that allows us to ensure that there are no hiding places for people who seek to evade justice.

I believe the Minister of State mentioned that there had been 105 requests from Ireland to the UK for extradition of people from there to here. We have sent more than 400 requests to other European countries. It is interesting that, in the post-Brexit era, this is one of the instruments that the UK thought to be so valuable as to retain, which is why its provisions continue to exist there. Under the Extradition Act 1965, extraditing people was clunky and difficult, so we can see how much the situation has changed and how much the European Arrest Warrant benefits us. This is not to say that it is appropriate for Poland, which has been criticised by the Supreme Court in this regard, to seek to extradite a Polish citizen in Ireland for having a very small amount of cannabis on the street in Warsaw 15 years ago or something like that. That is not what the European arrest warrant should be used for, yet some states are doing so. However, when we talk about the real criminals who have committed offences against the person, drugs offences, people trafficking, murder and rape - serious-level criminal activity - it is a fantastic tool that the State can use to bring those people to justice.

I recognise what has been said about Ireland being a net recipient of intelligence. That is undoubtedly the case. Of perhaps all member states, we have the most to gain from further engaging in international co-operation with our colleagues across the EU, specifically their policing organisations. The European Arrest Warrant is a powerful tool that allows us to link into our colleagues throughout the EU.

I will raise a number of small issues. Some of them are semantic, but I wish to flag them at this stage because they are matters that should be considered for amendment. Section 7 inserts in section 14 new subsections (6) and (7). The proposed section 14(6) states: "The release of a person under subsection (5) shall not prevent his or her re-arrest and surrender if a European arrest warrant for his or her surrender is received by the Central Authority and subsequently endorsed by the High Court for execution." My understanding is that this is a saving provision to allow the State to rearrest and reprocess a person where the High Court has not surrendered him or her because an administrative or other mistake had been made or for some other reason. The way it is phrased suggests to me that the person could only be rearrested where the arrest warrant for surrender was received and subsequently endorsed. I do not know if that is the intent. My understanding of the section is that it tries to reapply an extant warrant. Perhaps the Minister of State could re-examine the new subsection to see whether it should be amended to say that, where there is an extant warrant, there is an opportunity to re-execute it and the warrant does not necessarily fall simply because the surrender was not possible.

Will the Minister of State also examine the proposed new section 15(6A) in section 9(l) of the Bill? Section 15 allows a person to surrender voluntarily to the country seeking him or her. The new subsection seems to suggest that, where the person has consented to his or her return but 40 days have passed, the court is prevented from remanding that person on bail. I have concerns about this provision. Maybe I have misread it and that is not the intent, but it would be a negative provision if the person could not be remanded on bail.

I will raise a semantic issue relating to section 4(a)(i), which amends the 2003 Act by changing the terminology from a person "against whom" proceedings are to be issued to a person "who" is going to be prosecuted by a state. I believe this should still read "whom". We have removed the construction, but the indirect object pronoun still exists.Again, a very semantic matter to raise but it might just be worth looking at in advance of Committee Stage. On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I welcome the legislation and I wish it good passage through the House.