Amendments to this Bill are on the Order Paper.
Extradition Bill, 1965: Report and Final Stages.
Amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 2 which is consequential may be discussed together, if the House agrees.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, line 35, to add "and shall thereupon order the person, if in custody, to be released".
I am moving these two amendments as a result of the suggestion by Deputy O'Higgins on Committee Stage that "shall" should be substituted for "may" in section 35, which gives the Minister for Justice a general power to release persons who are in custody under the extradition procedure provided for by this Part. The effect of the amendment is to make it mandatory on the Minister for Justice, once he has refused extradition, to order thereupon the person claimed, if in custody, to be released. In such a case, it seemed to be preferable to spell out clearly the mandatory character of the Minister's function and in this respect I agree with Deputy O'Higgins's suggestion on Committee Stage and, to accord with that view, I have incorporated these two amendments in the section.
These amendments meet the point fully, I think.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, line 36, to delete "In any such case, or,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 13, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute:
(1) Transit through the State of a person being conveyed from one country to another on his surrender pursuant to an agreement in the nature of an extradition agreement may, subject to any relevant extradition provisions and to such conditions, if any, as the Minister thinks proper, be granted by the Minister upon a request to that effect by the country to which he is being conveyed.
(2) The Minister may arrange for the supervision of such transit by the Garda Síochána and the person concerned shall be deemed to be in the custody of any member of the Garda Síochána accompanying him pursuant to such arrangement.
This amendment, which substitutes a new section for the existing section 40, is designed to meet points made by Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Higgins in Committee Stage.
Provision is made by subsection (2) for the Minister for Justice arranging for the supervision by a member of the Garda Síochána of the transit through the State of an extradited person and for deeming that person to be in the custody of the garda concerned.
As regards the question of incorporating in the section the provisions of Article 21 of the European Convention on Extradition, I think that I should make it clear that these provisions will have the force of law here once we ratify the Convention and the Government apply the provisions of Part II to the countries who have also ratified it. This is set out in section 8, subsection (5). Article 21, of course, will only be binding as between the parties to the Convention. These provisions are, however, rather stringent and might unduly hamper the Government in having transit arrangements with some countries, such as Britain, which attach little or no significance to allowing transit of extradited persons through or over their territory or other countries with whom we are making arrangements apart from the European Convention. I prefer, therefore, the more flexible provisions in subsection (1) of the existing section 40, though I have made it clear in the revised draft that the Minister for Justice may attach any conditions he considers proper to granting requests for transit.
This is a completely new section, as I have stated, and is designed to meet the point made both by Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Higgins that there was an undue limitation of sovereignty in the provision as it stood. We now have it spelled out in subsection (2) of the amending section that the Minister for Justice can arrange for the supervision by the Garda Síochána of any person who may be in transit here from one country to another under an extradition arrangement and that while that person is in transit he should be deemed to be in the custody of a member of the Garda Síochána.
I think this meets the matter that was worrying both Deputies on the last occasion, that the section as it stood might imply a situation where people in the custody of another police force might be on our territory and yet not amenable to or under the control of the forces of our country.
I think the Minister has, in fact, met the point raised by Deputy Dillon and myself very fairly in this amendment whereby he substitutes a new section for section 40. I am glad the Minister has accepted that because I feel the point raised was of substantial importance and situations could have arisen which might very possibly have led to unpleasantness. I think the Minister has met the point very fairly and the amendment is, to my mind in any event, a very big improvement on the section as it originally stood. I appreciate what the Minister says, and of course he is right with regard to the application of the Convention to the contracting parties and, consequently, I think his judgment is correct in deciding that it is not necessary to recite fully the entire of Article 21 of the Convention in relation to this question of transit. I do think that the new section which is now being proposed is a big improvement and meets the point fully.
Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration, put and agreed to."
FIFTH STAGE.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
I should like to get some information, if it is possible, from the Minister in regard to a matter which has been receiving a great deal of publicity, international publicity, indeed, of late, that is, the allegation that this country is being used by wanted English criminals as a kind of holiday camp for some considerable time. This may, of course, be entirely a matter of sensation-mongering by certain newspapers. I read in the Evening Press of last Monday a statement—not a report of a statement—but a statement obviously emanating from the Evening Press itself to the effect that there are in this country over 80 wanted men, men who are wanted by the British authorities or other authorities for offences. This is something which merits investigation, to say the least of it.
I should like to hear from the Minister as to whether there is any foundation for this statement and, if there is, what is the nature of the offences for which these men are wanted. Is it a fact, as has been reported in some responsible cross-Channel Sunday papers —and they are very few—that some of the almost semi-romantic figures as they are being made out to be, such as the escapee Wilson, and people of that ilk, are now in residence here? If that is so, it is a matter which is of public concern and upon which the public should be enlightened.
If there are in our midst people of that type we should know about them. For obvious reasons, it is well that we should know if such people are here in order that the ordinary citizen may so comport himself as to facilitate his own protection.
It is unfortunate, of course, that a situation which permits of the creation of a sanctuary in this country should ever have been allowed to develop and it is indicative of certain negligence on the part of those charged with seeing to such matters from the time the State was founded. As we know, in a court case of some time ago laws were found in our extradition procedure that were deemed to be ultra vires the Constitution, in spite of the fact that this type of procedure in relation to removing people from this jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of other countries had been in progress over a long number of years. Apparently, that situation has created a vacuum which we are now trying to fill, admittedly, with the Extradition Bill going through the Dáil.
I should like to know, then, is there within the Minister's knowledge any truth in the allegation that we have in our midst a large number of people who are wanted for serious criminal offences. If there is, how soon does the Minister consider this Bill will effectively remove these people from our shores?
At this stage I would just like to ask the Minister if he can give some indication to the House as to how quickly it will be possible to put in hands the task of making extradition treaties. As far as the first Part of the Bill is concerned, it is dependent on treaties being made with other authorities. As far as Part III is concerned, I think I am right in saying it will come into operation as soon as the day appointed by the Minister may be and I take it it will be as soon as the corresponding British legislation has been finalised.
It seems to me that the answer to the problem that Deputy Dunne has raised is the fact that this Bill has not been in operation before this. If it had been in operation previously any such situation as that mentioned by Deputy Dunne as having been reported in the newspapers could hardly have arisen. If it did arise all that would be necessary under this Bill would be that the British warrants in the case of wanted people from Britain who are in this country should be backed by the Irish authorities. If it is a question of nationals from any other country seeking sanctuary here when they are wanted in their own country, the solution of that problem must still be postponed until an extradition treaty is made with the other country. I assume it is the intention of the Minister to proceed — let me use a phrase that appears from time to time—as soon as may be to conclude extradition treaties and arrangements with other countries.
Deputy O'Higgins is right in his conclusion that Part III will be brought into operation as soon as may be after it has passed through the Seanad, and at the same time as the corresponding British measure, which is now at the Committee Stage in the House of Commons, having been through the House of Lords where it was initiated. That should not take too long. We shall then proceed with the ratification of the European Convention and seek to negotiate extradition arrangements with the other countries outside the scope of the Convention.
There is nothing very extraordinary about what has appeared in the newspapers or in what Deputy Dunne has just stated. The whole purpose of the exercise in passing this measure is to deal with the precise situation that arose last year both here and in Britain when the courts in both countries, in cases which had no connection, declared that the extradition arrangements which had existed for a number of years between our two countries were faulty. These extradition arrangements had been in existence since the last century and had worked well since the formation of the State. Following these decisions of the courts, the two Governments have cooperated in introducing appropriate extradition procedures. Undoubtedly in the period since last July criminals have come here from Britain. There is nothing extraordinary about the figure—about 80, I think—mentioned in the newspapers. Over the years the number of British warrants executed here varied between 50 and 100 per year. Normally a hundred or so British warrants were executed here annually in respect of criminals who had come here to escape justice in Britain. Therefore, it is not too far from the mark to assume that something in the region of 70 or 80 such criminals would be here now.
Do we know definitely they are here?
It is a fairly reasonable assumption that they are here.
Do we know their names? Is Wilson here?
I cannot go into details and mention names in this regard. This is a matter for the police and they are best left to deal with these cases. By passing this legislation we are taking an important step in regard to these criminals. I hope the Seanad will deal with the Bill as expeditiously as this House has done, and I am sure the House of Commons in London will do the same. When this measure comes into force we shall have extradition arrangements which will enable British warrants here to be backed and our warrants to be backed also. It comes down to this, that the quicker this measure passes through the Oireachtas the quicker this situation will be dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.