Very good.

I acknowledge that.

I move amendment No. 17: In page 8, to delete lines 28 to 38 and substitute the following: “(e) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (4): “(4) Where the High Court makes an order under subsection (1) or (2), it shall— (a) inform the person to whom the order relates of his or her right to make a complaint under Article 40.4.2° of the Constitution , within the period of 10 days referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), as applicable, of subsection (3), and, unless it orders postponement of surren…

I again accept what the Minister of State says, but I just wonder about amendment No. 18 where I propose-----

Can they not be discussed together?

I thought it was amendments Nos. 17 to 21, inclusive. I beg your pardon, Acting Chair. Very good. I accept what the Minister of State said. I think there is very thin paper between what we are saying. I will withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 18: In page 9, line 8, to delete “without delay”. At a number of points in the amending Bill, it is proposed to amend the 2003 Act to require judicial authorities and others to do things "without delay",which is the phrase that is used. The reason I seek to remove that is not by any means to encourage delay, but to acknowledge the fact that I think it is a slightly nebulous term insofar as what constitutes delay is not entirely clear to me. My concern is that we are, to an extent, hamstringing …

The same issue runs throughout all of these amendments. It is not with a view to promoting delay or anything like that. The Minister of State is absolutely right that these things need to be done expeditiously. We have to remember that in the context of the surrender of a person, it is often a hugely traumatic event for that person. Very often we are dealing with somebody who might have been in this jurisdiction for a decade or even 20 years. The person might have been living here, have married here and have a fami…

I move amendment No. 20: In page 10, line 3, to delete “shall, without delay,” and substitute “shall”.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 10, line 11, to delete “If, in exceptional circumstances, the proceedings” and substitute “If the proceedings”

I move amendment No. 22: In page 10, line 15, to delete “without delay”.

I move amendment No. 23: In page 10, to delete line 31. I want to ask the Minister of State his view on the groupings because these are amendments that seek to delete specific provisions relating to whether there is a discretion involved.

Amendment No. 23 deals with the amendment to section 16(i) of the 2003 Act. The reason I raise this issue is that I think it is at variance with what the Minister of State said regarding other aspects. I do not dispute his bona fides in this regard but section 16(1) states: Where a person does not consent to his or her surrender to the issuing state or has withdrawn his or her consent under section 15 (9) , the High Court may, upon such date as is fixed under section 13 , make an order directing that the person be …

I move amendment No. 28: In page 10, to delete line 36.

I move amendment No. 33: In page 11, line 10, to delete “shall, without delay,” and substitute “shall”.

I move amendment No. 35: In page 12, line 23, to delete "without delay,".

I move amendment No. 36: In page 12, line 37, to delete, "without delay".

I move amendment No. 43: In page 13, line 26, to delete "without delay".

I move amendment No 44: In page 13, line 31, to delete "without delay".

I think it was agreed to discuss amendments Nos. 45 to 47, inclusive. Amendment No. 47 has already been discussed with amendments Nos. 23 and 28. The issue involved is, again, related to judicial discretion and I have already discussed that. I am happy to move the amendment but I do not think it needs to be gone into any further.