Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1975

Vol. 286 No. 5

Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1975 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. J. O'Leary

Yesterday afternoon I was referring to the impact which this Bill, if it becomes law, will have on the nation and on the people, on the minority in the North of Ireland and, indeed, throughout the world. I referred to the Sunningdale Agreement and said that this was the only surviving remnant of Sunningdale. The most original and important idea to come out of Sunningdale was the idea of the common law enforcement area. This envisaged a situation in this island in which every person, regardless of his religious or political beliefs or whether he lived in Belfast or South Kerry, would be guaranteed the same basic civil and religious rights. It also envisaged that the European Convention on Human Rights should be made a part of the domestic law in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in this Republic and that the police forces in Northern Ireland and in the Republic would operate under the same basic control and that violence and the injustices which gave rise to it would be eliminated side by side. The concept of the common law enforcement area also envisaged the closest possible co-operation between the police force in Northern Ireland and the police force in the Republic, the bringing to justice of perpetrators of outrageous deeds both North and South.

The parties at Sunningdale, I believe, were not agreed as to how the common law enforcement area should be established and for that reason a law commission was established to investigate the various alternatives. Included in the alternatives, I believe, was a proposal to set up an all-Ireland court of justice and with this I would fully agree. In fact, the commission never considered, nor was advised to consider, the full implications of the establishment of an all-Ireland court. It certainly accepted that the all-Ireland court was a very constructive idea but it declined to consider it on the grounds that it would require an amendment to the Constitution of the Republic. I believe that such an amendment, if necessary, would be well worth while. The result is that the commission had to choose between extradition and a scheme proposed in this Bill, neither of which can realise the concept of the common law enforcement area or the all-Ireland court of justice. Without the court, the whole concept of a common law enforcement area is destroyed and cannot be got off the ground. It is tragic that the all-Ireland court was dismissed because of the time that would be required to carry through an amendment to the Constitution of this State and yet we have been spending months of Government time in the Seanad and in this House debating this petty and futile Bill which will achieve none of the objectives hoped for at Sunningdale. This I cannot understand.

The establishment of an all-Ireland court of justice is the real answer to this Bill. I should like to pose the question I posed last night and I hope the Minister will mention it in his reply to the debate. It is proposed under the Bill to extend the criminal law of the State to certain acts done in Northern Ireland. I would ask, why Northern Ireland? Is it not a fact that if a person from this State should kill a British soldier in Northern Ireland prosecution can be brought within the ambit of this Bill but that if such an event should occur in England the person would not be brought within the ambit of the Bill and, certainly, should such an event occur in any other country in the world the person would not be brought within the ambit of the Bill? This does not add up. It does not make sense.

I am particularly concerned about section 11 of the Bill which contemplates that under certain circumstances evidence may be taken in Northern Ireland for the purposes of a trial in this State. If an accused person is charged in the State with an offence committed in Northern Ireland, all the witnesses, apart from witnesses to matters of procedure such as arrest, will be in Northern Ireland. In many cases it would appear that all the evidence will be taken outside the State under procedures and rules of evidence which may differ considerably from the procedures and rules of evidence applicable in the Republic. It also appears that the accused will have the right to go to Northern Ireland and be there in the custody of the RUC while evidence against him is being taken. What person accused on any charge in this State would want to go to the North and hand himself over to the custody of the authorities there while evidence is being taken against him? It is unlikely that a person charged with a crime of violence committed in Northern Ireland or charged with escaping from custody in the North will voluntarily go to Northern Ireland and place himself in the hands of the authorities from which he may have escaped. It is extremely unlikely.

It is not sensible on the part of the Government to suggest that events such as are suggested in the Bill could take place. It is obvious from the Bill that the accused has the right, with a big question mark after it, to attend the taking of evidence on commission in the North provided that he gives himself up in custody to the Northern police. To appear to confer a right and then to make it impossible to exercise that right is not to confer a right at all but to impose certain disability because the failure of an accused person to exercise the alleged right may lead to the comment that he had his chance to exercise it and that he failed to do so. In such circumstances his latter position is far worse than his first.

I am convinced that should the Bill become law, in these circumstances, all the vital evidence in any case will be taken in the absence of the accused and I suggest that this is entirely contrary to what the people of the country or the people of any country in the free democratic world would want and what the people in this country and in the vast majority of countries would regard as a fair criminal trial. This Bill must fall on that score alone.

I am also very worried in case the Bill, if enacted into law, would have the effect of reducing respect for our criminal law and might have the opposite effect to the effect the Minister thinks it may have. It may have the effect of strengthening the hands of those who want to bring all the institutions of Government in the Republic and the North of Ireland into contempt. This could well be the case.

I suggested this yesterday afternoon and I have considered the matter very carefully since then and I am still convinced that this could be the effect. I suggest that it is a very serious matter to interfere with the people's respect for the criminal law of the State and this Bill could very well have that very effect.

We must also recall and bear in mind the fact that while the police force in Northern Ireland remain unreformed and while the harassment of the minority population there continues, judges from the Republic hearing evidence in Northern Ireland for the purposes of section 11 of the Bill will be placed in a very compromising position, a terrible position. The judges from the Republic will have no power to exercise in the court in Northern Ireland. They will just sit and listen and will keep their mouths shut. All they can do is sit in silence and watch while the taking of evidence is conducted by another judge, perhaps, and as I believe, in 99 per cent of cases in the absence of the accused.

Should such a Bill be introduced in any other country, particularly in the House of Commons in England, there would be an uproar because it would be contrary to the concept of legal justice in England and in the vast majority of the free democratic countries in the world where from time immemorial the Governments of these States have passed laws which applied to the citizens within their own territories and, apart from a few well-known exceptions which are not relevant to this debate, never attempted to make crimes committed outside their own territories offences against the laws of their own countries.

I suggest that the reasoning behind this tradition was, and is, that it would be unfair and unjust to try a man under, say, English law for an alleged offence committed in a foreign country where conditions might be very different, perhaps a corrupt and dictatorial regime where the accused as a member of a minority was discriminated against because of his religious or political views or where the police force proved to be a sectarian force using inhuman methods of torture to obtain information or a confession or where internment without trial was carried out on a religious basis, or where the majority were allowed arm themselves and assassinate members of the minority.

To Britain, of course, the existence of such a state is a mere supposition. To us in Ireland it is a reality and comprises six countries under British rule. The Fianna Fáil Government on numerous occasions pointed out to the world the way in which the legal system there discriminates against the minority. They went even further and brought a case against the authorities in Northern Ireland to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg alleging the use of torture and inhuman treatment. There is no doubt that these allegations can be proved. Yet, if this Bill becomes law it can only work if our courts accept evidence obtained by members of the RUC or the British Army operating the same techniques which we are now condemning, and which we are trying to prove in Strasbourg were committed.

This Bill is drafted on the mistaken premise that all the violence is caused by the minority in the North and that the Republic is crawling with IRA members who are guilty of bombings and murder throughout the North. Both these suppositions are incorrect. A look at the latest assassination figures, particularly during the last six months, will clearly show that the members of the minority are getting a severe belting by the majority supporters. The figures also show that very few of the majority who were involved have been apprehended.

Does the Minister say that the passing of this Bill will bring those killers to justice? I would remind him that if there are members of the IRA who are guilty of very serious offences at large in the Republic the Government are to blame because they have powers under the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act to arrest and charge members of illegal organisations. The Minister himself, as well as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, opposed to the bitter end the passing of that Act. Now the Minister for Justice is introducing legislation which I believe is contrary to the Constitution and to legal justice. This Bill would not be accepted in any parliament of any free democratic country in the world today.

Will the scope of this Bill enable the Government to deal with members of the British army or the RUC suspected of having committed serious offences in this State? I remember the case of a young man who, some time ago, was shot by a British soldier for no apparent reason. The circumstances clearly pointed to murder but a Northern court let the accused off scot free. Will the passing of this Bill prevent such a thing happening again? Perhaps the Minister will refer to this in his reply.

Will this Bill make it any easier to bring to justice the people responsible for the bombing in Dublin Airport, if we know who they are, if we have an idea of the organisation to which they belong, if they are resident in the North and arrested there? If I read the Bill correctly, such people cannot be tried here unless they consent to such a course. What man in his right mind will consent to be tried here when he knows he can have a trial before his own judge in the North and get off scot free? This is very relevant to this debate.

This is bad legislation. It is unconstitutional. I am surprised at the Minister and the Government introducing such legislation. It would have been better if the Government had, when the strikes in the North wrecked a democratically elected assembly there, openly condemned them but the Taoiseach or the Government did not do that. They should have told the world that we wanted a democratically elected institution operating there and we did not want the strikers to bring it down. Where was our great liberal, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, at that time? The Taoiseach appeared to be afraid and kept his mouth shut. What he was afraid of I do not know. The Minister for Justice, too, was afraid to speak openly and tell the world that we wanted a democratically elected institution operating in the North.

I believe this Government have no interest whatsoever in the people of the six north-eastern counties and this Bill proves it. The actions of this Government during the past two-and-a-half years show clearly that they have no interest in the minority in the North nor in the majority. Fianna Fáil are interested in the minority in the North and in the majority. We believe the only way to unite this country is to reunite the people. This is the policy we will pursue. It will not be fulfilled by implementing and putting on our statute book this legislation which I believe is unconstitutional.

Dr. O'Connell

Before remarking on certain disturbing aspects of this Bill, I should like it to be understood that my raising these doubts should not be taken as an indication that I have moved even one inch away from my consistently negative appraisal of the activities of terrorist groups. I maintain, and have always maintained, that these mindless acts of terrorism and indiscriminate violence serve only to expose the perpetrators of these deeds as depraved fanatics. They debase their ostensibly noble and lofty ideals by resorting to these sub-human attacks on individuals. These men of violence have displayed a sub-human understanding of the basic human right, the right to live, and as such I could not and never will condone their attacks. I remain unconvinced of the political nature of these acts and I continue to condemn them as anti-social expressions of primitive people regardless of the fact of whether they occur on our own doorstep, in Northern Ireland or in Britain. So, I would expect and hope that my comments on this Bill will be given a calm and a rational evaluation on their own merits.

I do not subscribe to the rather questionable assumption that there are only two sides to an issue and that if you voice any criticism of one position your support must obviously lie in the enemy camp. This sort of "you are with us or you are with them" mentality, I think, is corrupt and demagogic especially when it is used to attack the credibility of reasoned and constructive criticism.

I am speaking in an attempt to draw the attention of the Chair to some doubts that have arisen in my mind about this Bill. These doubts do not place me in the camp of the violent extremists whose decadent activities I unquestionably condemn nor do they put me in the position of being disloyal or blind to the security requirements of this State. I think we would all agree that the primary obligation of Government is to safeguard the democratic institutions of the State and the rights afforded to our citizens under these institutions. Any measure which might seriously curtail these rights should undergo the most rigorous— what I might term—cost benefit analysis. This analysis should take place in an atmosphere which would allow Deputies, who may agree fully with the general concern and purposes of this Bill, to express their concern about the effectiveness and the cost in terms of individual liberty of certain sections of this legislation. We must be able to voice our concern without fear of appearing to give solace or support to extremists.

I am aware of the argument put forward by Members of the Government that a democratic State has the right to initiate extraordinary and even at times undemocratic legislation to guard the State against the activities of those who are opposed to its very survival or existence. I accept this but it is a very difficult and dangerous argument because if a democratic State falls into the habit of passing undemocratic legislation for security reasons, what is to prevent that State from evolving into a State with totalitarian characteristics? Where is the objective criterion for the necessity of national security? And without such an objective criterion, who will be able, in the end, to draw the fine line between the necessity for national security and the police state? If legislation is pushed through in times of panic and national stress, will the time come when voices of reason will no longer be able to mount credible objections to the continuous extension of the State policing authority without appearing to be enemies of the State?

It is suggested to me that this may well happen. I admit that it is a rather extreme projection and I would not maintain that we are living in a police state. But I am maintaining that it is necessary to examine closely the effect on civil liberties of each Bill which extends the policing authority of this State. We cannot allow the gradual erosion of our civil liberties under the ambiguous requirements of the security of the democratic institutions of the State. After all, of what use would be a secure State with no democratic institutions to protect it? Any measure which will restrict citizens' rights to protection of their person and premises from unwarranted search and seizure as well as protection from unreasonably harsh and prolonged imprisonment and their right to due process of the law must undergo very sharp investigation. It is incumbent on those proposing such measures to offer an impressive case for both the necessity for and the probable effectiveness of such measures. They must convince us of the fact that the benefits accruing from such legislation will far outweigh the cost in curtailment of individual rights under the law.

It would be great if we could all know that this measure would be applied only against bombers and murderers; in other words, only against the guilty but no such assurance can be given. If such assurances were obtainable, there would be no need for the process of the law which was instituted to protect the innocent. Our obligation in a democratic State is to guarantee the effectiveness of our laws over those guilty of criminal acts while at the same time guarantee to the best of our ability that those innocent of such acts will have the best of opportunities to clear themselves. We would also make sure that the punishment will fit the crime because if not the credibility of our judicial system is at stake.

First, I should like to address myself to changes in the substantive law contained in the Bill. I do not understand the intent of including these changes in a Bill the purpose of which the Minister for Justice has indicated is jurisdictional, the prevention of criminals escaping the legal consequences of their deeds. However, the Malicious Damage Act of 1861, the Larceny Act of 1916, the Explosive Substances Act of 1883 and the Firearms Act of 1964 have all been extended to cover a number of offences which may well have no connection with the terrorist activities of fugitive offenders.

I am particularly worried about the imposition of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for robbery and aggravated burglary. The language of the section related to robbery is so broad in regard to the use of force that a strict reading of the section would fail to establish the difference between the force used to snatch a purse and that used to seriously harm or even kill an intended victim. I am aware that judicial wisdom will play a role in seeing that the punishment fits the offence but surely the fixing of a maximum penalty of life for these offences will act as a criterion or guideline for determining the severity of any given act of robbery or aggravated burglary. I am not convinced that the probably dramatic increase in the length of sentences for different crimes of this type will serve the cause of justice.

I do not wish to be seen in the position of coddling the criminal element. I am interested only in making sure that the severity of the punishment fits the severity of the crime. This is an essential element of justice under the rule of law and the wording of sections 5 and 6 relating to robbery and aggravated burglary leaves me with some concern and I should like to have additional debate on these matters so that my concern could be laid at rest.

The Firearms Act of 1964 has been amended by section 8 of this Bill to put the burden of proof on the accused. I should like now to quote from the explanatory memorandum:

The essence of the offence will thus be the suspicious circumstances in which the person in question has the firearm or ammunition. Where the defence is that the accused's purpose was lawful, the new section casts an evidential burden on the accused of proving this.

Here we have an accused being guilty until proven innocent. The presumption of innocence has always been the mainstay of justice and I find it difficult to understand the reversal now of the evidential burden. Has the burden on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed been removed for some reason of which I am not aware? Perhaps the Minister would clarify this point. If it has been removed, I shall be very interested in hearing the reason for its removal and I will expect that reason to be of such magnitude as will justify tampering with the presumption of innocence which, to my mind, is the foundation of a just trial in law.

Under section 19 (5) any member of the Garda Síochána may enter, if need be by force, and search any place where that member has reasonable cause to suspect a criminal to be. My uncertainty here lies in the expression "with reasonable cause". Would this cause cover everything from hot pursuit to door-to-door searching? Reasonable cause could certainly be maintained in the case of hot pursuit, following identification of a fugitive, but could this clause sustain the breaking down of doors along an entire street if someone were following a hunch? Without the requirement of a warrant, no man will be safe from intrusion in his own house. Where similar provisions have been enacted in other countries plain clothes police have raided residences causing residents to resist and suffer injury in the process. Such an occurrence might not be probable here but, if it is even possible, then the alarm must be sounded.

There is too, the danger that "reasonable cause" could be interpreted in a rather broad fashion. I have always maintained that our police force has an excellent record and I do not mean to imply now that they would be likely to engage in Gestapo-like tactics. My only purpose is to examine the possible results of this section and sound a note of caution if there is a danger of any loss of democratic rights. These sections should not form any part of the revision of the ordinary law designed to deal with jurisdictional problems. The Minister used the euphemism "reform". I prefer revision. These revisions of substantive law are desirable in their own right and especially recommended now. I feel their inclusion in this Bill may cause some confusion and limit the broad investigation and attention these revisions so obviously deserve. Indeed, they should have been discussed at another time.

The present atmosphere is not ideal for the discussion and defence of civil liberties but I believe we cannot forego our responsibility in this area. I appreciate that my doubts concerning the incompatibility of some sections of this Bill with democratic liberty will place me in the role of devil's advocate. The current role is one of law and order and it is a harsh rule. The recent bombing attack on Dublin Airport is bound to generate support for stringent measures. In Britain the mood is moving closer and closer towards hanging as a solution.

I understand the horror, revulsion and anger resulting from terrorist atrocities but, as a democratic politician, I have to raise the question of the importance of this measure from the point of view of civil liberties. The Minister, in making his case, said Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution should be read in conjunction with Article 38. Today, our jurisdiction has been confined to offences committed within the State. Under this measure we will have jurisdiction over crimes committed in Northern Ireland. Doubts have already been expressed as to the validity of this procedure and the probability is that the matter will have to go for decision to the Supreme Court.

The Minister says the purpose of the Bill is to deal with the fugitive criminal. I am aware of the seriousness of the problem and I have no qualms on the Minister's broad outlines but one of the principal arguments has been the issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction, something recommended by the Law Enforcement Commission established as part of the Sunningdale Agreement. One aspect of it which, I think, is important is the question of the integration into domestic law of the European Convention of Human Rights. The implementation of this extra-territorial jurisdiction without the other essential reforms in some areas undermines the legitimacy of the role of law in Northern Ireland. This argument has an element of validity especially from the point of view of the reputation of the Northern Ireland security forces and the lack of a Bill of Rights.

This is coupled with doubts as to the feasibility and legitimacy of taking evidence on commission, as is proposed by this Bill. This Bill will fashion a formal link between our judicial system and that in the North and, under the scheme for taking evidence on commission, we will rely heavily on their legal institutions and procedures whilst, at the same time, being unable to exercise much control to establish their credibility. Visiting judges from the South will be able to sit in at hearings. They will be able to suggest questions, and only to suggest, to the presiding judge and he will be the one to decide whether or not a witness may claim privilege with respect to a given piece of evidence. Our judges will be forced to give judicial decisions on the basis of judicial procedures over which they will have no substantial control. That poses a danger to the rights of an accused person. The lack of control would not be so important, perhaps, were it not for the general lack of credibility in the judicial system there. I will quote now from the Cobden Trust Report issued in June, 1973:

Nonetheless the surveys which we have been able to make of the working of the courts under the present emergency conditions in Northern Ireland, with all the imperfections which have been referred to, do suggest that there is a small but cumulative measure of sympathy with Protestants and Loyalists. This applies particularly to the decision to prosecute and the selection or withdrawal of charges by the police and the prosecuting authorities. It also applies to some jury verdicts. The judges themselves appear to have gone some way to correct these prior inequalities through their powers to direct acquittals but there was some evidence of inequality in sentences for firearms offences.

The tentative nature of these findings was remarked upon by the Minister for Justice in the Seanad. Certainly, the security precautions and the confidentiality of pre-trial proceedings will make the findings of this report tentative and, on its own, would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the credibility of the Northern authorities.

We also have the Compton Report and the Gardiner Report on Interrogation. We have also the report of Amnesty International. Even more conclusively, we have the Strasbourg indictments. I should like to ask the Minister when we shall have a report on these indictments because our Government are taking the security establishment in the North before the European Commission on Human Rights on charges of torture and illtreatment. I wonder why this matter which to my knowledge had been finalised has not been reported upon. This is the time to have a report on it because we should be told what has happened during those many months. Remember, those charges were not brought against one or two lowly privates but rather against a number of those in the higher level of the Northern security establishment.

It may be difficult to rely on any single report or analysis of partiality or abuse by the Northern authorities, but the accumulated effects of all the reports I have just mentioned, along with the Strasbourg indictments are very difficult to refute. This Bill seems tacitly to recognise that certain security measures and procedures in the North are not exactly up to par, as was evident from what the Minister said about internment being excluded, where escape from lawful custody in Northern Ireland is an offence, and he excluded internment from this. Therefore, the Minister is in fact saying that all is not right with Northern Ireland. I wonder why he asks us then to support that system?

The principal issue, with the extension of jurisdiction, is the adequacy of the taking of evidence by commission. The question then is whether or not the accused will be able to obtain his rights to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This Bill allows the accused to be placed in the custody of the Northern authorities while the evidence is being taken. I might say that the Minister has argued well that the right of the accused to be present at the taking of evidence, and also the right to cross-examine —two of the minimum requirements of a fair trial—are both protected by the provision that the accused, while in custody, will be immune from any proceedings, including arrest or detention, or questioning in respect of any other matter, civil or criminal, while in the jurisdiction where the evidence is being taken.

The Minister may have established a case for the Bill upholding the letter of the law of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights but what he has not done is establish a case for the Bill's conformity to the spirit or real purpose of the Article, which is to ensure that the defendant will in fact have the opportunity to be present, to cross-examine witnesses, and that the State would place no barriers in the way of this opportunity because, realistically speaking, the accused may well refuse to go back into the custody of those from whom he has just escaped. Given the record of the security forces in the North, he could claim that he would be placing himself in jeopardy. If there is even the possibility of his being placed in jeopardy the accused might be justified in refusing to return to custody in Northern Ireland. At any rate, there is some question in my mind as to whether or not the provisions of this Bill for the taking of evidence by commission are compatible with Article 6 of the convention assuring the accused a fair trial.

The point about this Bill being an integral part of the Sunningdale Agreement package is evidence here again because, if there were reforms in the police force, if there was a Bill of Rights for all the citizens of the North, as has been recommended, these objections would not be of any significance. My concern with these provisions of the Bill has been with their effects on the civil liberties of the accused. My doubts are related to what might be termed the cost/benefit analysis I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I do not know for certain that the chief proponents of this Bill have made their case sufficiently strongly, that the probable effectiveness of this Bill will far outweigh any cost entailed in the curtailment of civil rights.

Having read the Seanad debates, I noticed that the Adaptation Order of 1973 and the Offences Against the Persons Act of 1861 are the most recent measures which would enable people to be tried here for murders committed outside the State. Yet nobody has been tried under that order to this day. Surely we must have a stronger degree of success for the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill if we are able to justify the enactment of legislation which poses even the slightest threat to existing civil liberties.

I would have thought we might have our priorities wrong in introducing this Bill at this time. Whether we like it or not the situation is that the minority in Northern Ireland do not accept the police force in Northern Ireland. Those who represent the minority, the SDLP, have made it quite clear that the RUC, in their present form, are not acceptable to them. I would have thought we would have been urging Britain to ensure that the RUC were reformed so that they would be fully acceptable to the minority in Northern Ireland. Then, justifiably, we could have introduced this Bill and said, without any fear of contradiction, that we are co-operating with the police force in Northern Ireland; that we are sure that this force could assist any individual who is brought back or who returns to Northern Ireland to obtain evidence.

We could ensure that such a restructured and reformed force would be there to guarantee the rights of the accused while in Northern Ireland. We cannot do that at present. Instead we are saying: bring in repressive legislation. That is not the answer to the problems of the North, to my way of thinking. Rather there should be a more constructive approach. The Government may be taking political initiatives on the North. If they are, there is no visible evidence of it. I understand, and can appreciate, that a lot must be done behind closed doors. But, if we are to give the people in the North some hope, if we are not to have despair rampant throughout the North amongst the minority, there must be some evidence that the Government are taking political initiatives, with Britain, to ensure, that there is a Bill of Rights, that there is absolute civil liberty restored up there and that the police force are reformed so that they will be fully acceptable to the minority there.

That would be the proper approach to the whole problem of the North. If we could achieve a situation like that in Northern Ireland, the bombers, the madmen, the murderers would become irrelevant on the political scene in Northern Ireland. There would then be an opportunity to build proper structures and institutions there. We should be using our influence with Britain, asking them to ensure that Northern Ireland is reformed and put into proper shape so that it is a country acceptable to the majority and minority. That is not the situation at present; it leaves very much to be desired. What has happened is that the IRA have destroyed all hope of the minority ever having their liberties and freedom restored because the support is not there for them due to the bombings that have taken place there.

I would think—and I say this on behalf of many friends in the Labour Party—the Labour Party have always been to the fore defending the freedom and civil liberties of the people of this country. We have been denounced for this and have been accused of consorting with men of violence in daring to stand up in defence of civil rights and liberties.

I began to wonder if this procedure of having a debate here was a charade because one could have handed the speeches made by members of the outgoing Government to the present Ministers because we had a complete reversal of 1972 when Fianna Fáil Ministers accused the present Minister and colleagues in Government of consorting with men of violence, of being terrorists and of encouraging subversives in the State. We had this very operation in this House three years ago almost to the very day. We now see the men who were defending civil liberties, defending the basic rights and freedoms of our people, who were talking about fascist legislation being brought before the House, defending a measure which to my way of thinking, will not serve the purpose for which it is intended.

I could appreciate the Minister wanting to take action against terrorists and to ensure that this State of ours is not a haven for subversives, and I realise that he seriously, genuinely and sincerely wants to take measures which will not infringe on the liberties of the people, but I ask him now if he could not look at this Bill again and say that it is repressive legislation, that the situation at this time warrants it but that it must only be a temporary measure and he will ensure that it is a temporary measure by putting an expiration date in it and let it go for a year, and then if it needs to be extended, come back to the House and debate it again and justify its extension.

I say to the Minister very seriously, that this has happened, that there is a precedent for it, and I might say, in paying tribute to the Government of the twenties, that they brought in a number of Acts at that time, prevention of terrorism Acts, and they were only temporary measures, expiring as in the case of the 1923 Act after one year. The Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Act of 1923 remained in force for one year and the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Act of 1926 was repealed in 1928, being due to expire in 1932.

All these Acts had a time limit and I think that many people in this country who realise that stringent measures must be taken against terrorists would be happier if they knew there was a time limit on this Bill and that it would expire in one year. If there is justification for reintroducing it, by all means come back here and debate it, but I have found that when measures go on the statute book it is very difficult to get them removed, and there is a great danger that in the name of safeguarding the institutions of this State, we might add to the weighty load of repressive legislation at present there. We can do without repressive legislation. It is not going to help our democracy and in the circumstances, I would ask the Minister seriously to give consideration to what I have suggested.

Mr. Faulkner

I do not propose to comment on the speech by Deputy O'Connell, except to say that it is interesting to note that at least one Deputy on the Government side accepts that opposition to the Bill does not align those who oppose it with men of violence. We on this side abhor and repudiate violence in all its forms, by whomsoever that violence is committed, and no matter what the motives may be. There should be no need for me to make this point. Our record, both in Government and in Opposition, is proof positive that what I have said is true and I would not have felt it necessary here to reiterate our stand on law and order, were it not for the fact that efforts were made and continue to be made, particularly after the publication of our statement on our policy on Northern Ireland, to align us with violence and terrorism. The shocking, and to me the sad, part of this campaign was that it was in the main carried out by those who were only too well aware that the Fianna Fáil record on law and order is second to none.

The reaction immediately after the issue of our statement on Northern Ireland—and I say this in the most charitable way—could be attributed perhaps to too quick comment after a superficial reading of the document, but the motivation for the campaign at a later stage was quite clearly for the purpose of achieving short-term political advantage here at home, and the motivation for that particular campaign abroad could be a simple repetition of the type of propaganda used here at home, but I might also add that in many instances, and particularly in certain sections of the British Press, the campaign was motivated by deliberate malice. Whatever the reasons for the campaign, let me say to those responsible for it that they did and are doing a very serious disservice to the cause of peace in Northern Ireland.

We heard much after the publication of that document about the alleged breach in the so-called bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland problems in the Republic and the damage which it was said would ensue. Let me say again that whatever harm might be caused by differing approaches by the various political parties here to the Northern situation, the damage resulting from such, if indeed any damage would result, and I personally do not believe it would, would be as nothing compared with the damage which would result from a situation where the political parties differed in their attitudes towards violence or were believed to differ in their attitude towards violence. In my view even to suggest that such a difference obtained when in fact it does not obtain is an act of the highest irresponsibility. To state that such a difference, that is to say, a difference in regard to attitudes to violence, obtains among political parties here is an absolute untruth and is deliberately mischievous and the repercussions of such statements, if believed in certain quarters, could have most serious consequences.

The Minister yesterday found it necessary to express his indignation at the statements which were made in the British Press and he pointed out that these statements could have very serious repercussions. I suggest that he might say to his colleagues that some of the statements made by them in relation to the matters I have referred to can also have very serious repercussions. I am not concerned with the purely party political aspect of this campaign. I am concerned with the effect that such statements by prominent Members, particularly of the Government, can have on the people who are living in such a shocking situation in the North of Ireland. Coming as I do from a Border constituency, I am only too well aware of the problem and difficulties they face and the need for care in relation to statements which can have this type of repercussion.

It was sad to find the Minister for Health, when speaking at the Labour Party conference, following the lead given by the more irresponsible Members of the Cabinet, such as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, whose hatred of Fianna Fáil causes him to use the tragic Irish situation without any concern for its consequences. It was sad to find the Minister for Health questioning our law and order attitude simply to produce a balancing factor for the faithful at that conference who were shattered by the disclosure of the shocking financial mess we have now got in the country as a result of Government mismanagement. No responsible politician, particularly one in high office, should allow petty party considerations to draw from him statements which he knows to be untrue and which could cause untold damage in the present circumstances in the North of Ireland.

Those opposite, particularly some of the Ministers, should try to act in a more responsible manner when dealing with a situation of such delicacy. They would do well to try to emulate the Leader of this party in following the line taken by him in his very excellent speech on this Bill. We abhor violence but we are in agreement, as has been stated by the Leader of this party, with the objectives of the Bill but we are opposed to the Bill because it is unworkable, unconstitutional and divisive. The Labour Party and many members of the Fine Gael Party, including some Ministers, violently opposed the law which was passed by us to control violence and those responsible for it. That Act is still in operation and the strong opposition once evinced by the present Government to it has disappeared. Whatever their objections to that very necessary piece of legislation, I doubt if they would now agree that because they opposed it they were on the side of violence.

We oppose this Bill because we believe that it will do nothing to contain the violence in the North of Ireland, that it is as the old Irish proverb says, an sop in ionad na scuaibe, and that the disillusionment which its ineffectiveness will produce in the minds of all Irish people will result in a proloagation of the violence rather than in its cessation.

The Irish Government, the British Government, representatives of the loyalists and the nationalists in Northern Ireland met at Sunningdale. At this meeting it was decided to set up a power-sharing executive and a Council of Ireland. This was Fianna Fáil policy while in Government and had been developed by them during their term in office. A third decision made at Sunningdale related to the setting up of a common law enforcement area. There was much with which this side of the House did not agree in relation to the communiqué issued after Sunningdale but we agreed with the two major decisions which had been our policy. The third matter I referred to, the common law enforcement area, depended to quite an extent on the first two.

When the Taoiseach spoke on the Sunningdale agreement communiqué, he stated that Sunningdale had got to be accepted as a package. In the event of a Council of Ireland being set up it would naturally follow that an all-Ireland court would evolve to try certain offences committed in any part of Ireland. This, too, would have been acceptable to us. The situation we find ourselves in today is entirely different. Two very important developments of Sunningdale, power-sharing and the Council of Ireland, have passed into oblivion and we are now offered the rump of that agreement in such an emasculated form as to be offensive to a large proportion of the people of the country. I am not referring to the Fianna Fáil Party only but to many supporters of the Coalition, particularly in the Labour Party.

In ordinary circumstances when a Bill is brought before the House it is debated, amended, passes into the law of the land and is respected by all the people of the country, including those who oppose its passage through the House. Our opposition to this Bill is basic. It can never be amended to the extent where we would be satisfied with it. Therefore, when it is passed into law by the Coalition majority in the House, it will not be good law because the opposition to it here is not the opposition of a tiny minority. It is not the opposition of a sectional group. It is not the opposition of a fanatical group. It is the opposition of more than half the population of this country. Fianna Fáil represent approximately 50 per cent of the Irish electorate and, as I mentioned earlier, there is also opposition from quite a considerable section of the support of Fine Gael and very particularly the support of the Labour Party. Whatever public representatives on the Coalition side may do in the event of votes in the House, the fact is that the majority of the people of the State are opposed to it and, therefore, it will be very difficult to operate the measure if and when it comes into law.

I want to make it very clear that I do not say this in any provocative sense. My record here and my speeches on the subject of the North show me to be entirely against violence, to be very much in favour of the unity of my country because I believe the unity of this country will result in a better living for all Irish people, irrespective of class or creed and it also shows me as recognising that Ireland cannot be united by force. I am simply pointing to the fact that no government can pass laws through the House against the wishes of the majority of the people and hope to have them accepted as we all desire our laws should be accepted and respected.

The Bill is divisive. It is dividing the people of the Republic and it is dividing the people in the North of Ireland because it is on record that the SDLP are also opposed to this Bill and certainly never wanted it. It is further dividing our people North and South. We should ask ourselves how such a Bill can achieve what we are all so anxious to achieve—peace in the North of Ireland, an end to sectarian murders and an end to death and destruction so rampant in the North of Ireland and spreading to this State and also to Britain. How can we hope that a Bill, which is divisive, can bring about the very basic, essential changes which are necessary to ensure peace when in essence it is creating further divisions among the people of Ireland rather than creating the unity of purpose which is so essential if we are to make a common approach to the solution of this very great problem?

I ask the Government to rethink this matter, to withdraw the Bill and seek an agreed solution to reach the objectives we have all got in mind. There are much better ways in which reconciliation can be brought about. I feel that far from reconciling the people of this country this Bill will further divide them. I am convinced that an all-Ireland court which is our alternative to the proposals and suggestions in this Bill can help to bring about the necessary framework which will ultimately result in peace and eventually in unity.

The purpose of paragraph 10 of the Sunningdale communiqué was the creation of a common law enforcement area in which an all-Ireland court could have jurisdiction. All the worthwhile parts of the Sunningdale agreement have now passed into oblivion and we are left in this Bill with an emasculated paragraph 10 of the communiqué dealing with law enforcement. There is no mention in the Bill of an all-Ireland court. We have instead a cumbersome system of exchanging offenders from one area of the country with the other, without any overall common law enforcement area and, indeed, without any effort made towards some kind of common police force. This party had in mind an all-Ireland court with a police force responsible to it.

When one considers the fact that the present police force in the North is totally unacceptable to the minority in the North, one begins to appreciate the problems which face us in any effort to reach a just and workable solution. Perhaps in this respect some people on this side of the Border, because we have a police force here which is very highly respected by everybody, may tend to think that all police forces, including the Northern Ireland police force, have the same high standards and code of behaviour. Such an acceptance, in fact, appears to be the position in Government circles if we are to judge by this Bill. There is no general support in the North for the police force and while some reforms have been introduced, there is no support at all among the minority for this force. That was made crystal clear at the SDLP convention recently. The minority are unable to identify with the police force and for good reason. Yet we are dealing with a Bill here which, if it becomes law, will grant full acceptance to that force in so far as we in the Republic are concerned. The law enforcement commission which was established as a result of Sunningdale did not discuss in any detail the setting up of an all-Ireland court although they did recognise that it was, perhaps, one of the best proposals put forward. This quite clearly happened because they were told that the whole matter was one of extreme urgency and that as it would be necessary to have a referendum here before such a court could be set up and as time was precious, they could not wait. The result was that only the alternatives to the all-Ireland court were discussed.

It would be amusing were it not so gravely serious, to look back on the Government's expressed extreme urgency of the time and to remember that that is well over a year ago. Is it not clear that a referendum could have been carried out in that time? Even now, the urgency which the Government claim to attach to this Bill is shown to be false if we have regard to the very tardy manner in which time was made available for discussion of this Bill. It was only because of pressure from this side of the House that extra time was made available for it.

The manner in which the Government have designed this Bill is unfortunate in view of the fact that much real work should have been put into the preparation of a worthwhile acceptable Bill had the Government the wish to do so. I do not pretend to have a great deal of competence to deal with the legal aspects of trials under the Bill but I would be interested to know how it is proposed to bring witnesses down here in the case of a person who committed a crime in the North being apprehended here or, indeed, how evidence of certain types of witnesses can be accepted here. The reputation of the forces of the Crown in Northern Ireland, in so far as the nationalist population is concerned is at zero level. How do the Government react to this in circumstances in which, through this Bill, they are putting these forces on the same level as our forces here who have the highest respect of all our people? I wonder how the Government propose to concern themselves with the general antipathy of the nationalist population in relation to the Crown forces there, whether they are going to simply accept the evidence produced by the RUC or by the British Army as they would accept the evidence of our own Garda and Army. Can we be certain, in any case, that witnesses from the British Army and the police force in Northern Ireland will be willing to give evidence in our courts, where it would be possible to question this evidence? I have no doubt they will not come and certain sections of the Bill presuppose that in any case. In that case the evidence will be taken before a commission in Northern Ireland with our courts simply acting as observers while the evidence is taken before a Northern Ireland judge. I would, therefore, ask the Minister if the judges from our courts who will ultimately try the case will be able to cross question witnesses. It does not appear to me that they will be able to do so. In that case we will have to rely on the evidence taken down in writing. I am aware of the fact that the accused will have the right to be present at the taking of evidence but we are well aware that the likelihood of this happening in present circumstances is almost non-existent. Witnesses, therefore, who appear without the defendant being present can claim privilege and there will be nobody to challenge this claim. The course of action then, as laid down in this Bill, cannot result in justice.

One of the most serious aspects of the matter is that if the prisoner elects to attend the court in the North of Ireland he must do so in the custody of the Northern Ireland police. We have considerable knowledge already of the activities of members of this force and as has already been pointed out not only from this side but from the other side of the House as well, we have a case against the British Government before the European Court on Human Rights for acts of brutal treatment of people detained in custody in the North. Does the Minister accept that this is a satisfactory procedure, that a man from the North being tried here for an offence committed in the North on the evidence of Northern Ireland police officers or soldiers of the British Army should, if he exercises his right to attend the taking of evidence in the North, have to place himself in the custody of the same police force? As was mentioned by Deputy O'Connell, we have only to study the various reports, in particular the Compton Report, to get the picture of the procedures used by this police force in the interrogation of suspects. They are reminiscent of methods used in countries which are under dictators and certainly are not methods which could be tolerated in a democracy. It was on the basis of those reports that the Irish Government decided to bring the case before the European Court on Human Rights. It is in the hands of such a force that the present Government would have us place people who are innocent until they are proved guilty. Therefore, we will have a situation in which an accused person who does not wish to return to the North for the taking of evidence, and who has very good reason for adopting this attitude in view of the treatment which he would suppose would be likely to be meted out to him in custody there, will have no means by which he can confront witnesses. Surely nobody could suggest that in such circumstances the accused can have a fair trial?

Mr. Cooney

I think the Deputy has not read the Bill. He is entitled first of all, to immunity when he goes North and even if he does not want to go North, he can be represented by a solicitor and counsel.

Mr. Faulkner

The Deputy has read the Bill. I am referring to the fact that irrespective of what the Minister may say about immunity he will have to take into consideration the attitude and fears of the individual concerned and the likelihood of his going to the North.

Mr. Cunningham

And previous experience, possibly.

Mr. Faulkner

The fact is that he will decide not to go. In these circumstances he is being deprived of a fundamental right and with all the goodwill in the world it will not be possible for him to have a fair trial. If we take the case of a man who is taken into custody in the North of Ireland and charged with a particular offence, in the event of his escaping, if this Bill is passed, he will be charged with an offence here. While I know, as I said before, if he returns to the North after being allowed on bail here for the purpose of being present at the taking of evidence, he cannot be tried there for this particular offence. Does anybody, even the Minister, believe that he would be willing to place himself once again in the hands of a force from which he had escaped originally?

It should be remembered also that there is no positive definition of basic human rights in the North. Therefore, the offence for which the accused was originally tried in Northern Ireland might not be an offence here. In other words, the wording of an offence on both sides of the Border could be the same but the interpretation here and in the North could be quite different. In such circumstances we will be trying the person concerned for committing the offence of escaping from custody and, if found guilty, sentencing him for that particular offence, while at the same time the original offence for which he was arrested in the North of Ireland might not be an offence here at all.

The problem we are trying to solve here is a political problem. In my view it cannot be solved by any attempt to provide solutions which do not place political considerations to the forefront. We have had over the past sixty years a regular occurrence of violence, first, because the country was partitioned against the wishes of the big majority of the Irish people and, secondly, because the statelet set up by Act of the British Parliament was governed for over fifty years for the benefit of one section of that community and the remainder of the community was relegated to the status of secondclass citizens, so much so that a situation had been reached in the North of Ireland where that state of affairs had come to be accepted as the norm, when the loyalist population believed that they had the God-given right to all the helps towards a civilised living and the nationalists had come to the stage where they almost recognised that they had to accept the crumbs.

The British Government were very well aware of the situation over all this period of time but they did not want to know about it, nor did the much-vaunted, much-acclaimed British sense of justice and fair play show itself in the least concerned that within what they termed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there were people who came a poor second when, for example, jobs were being filled and houses were being allocated, to name but a few of the disabilities under which a section of the community suffer.

I stress this because in recent times we find, to some extent at home but more particularly abroad, statements which appear to claim that the root cause of all the difficulties here lies in the physical violence which has for some years besmirched the fair name of this country. Physical violence there is and I deplore and condemn it without reservation. We must, however, keep in mind that the physical violence which has escalated to intolerable proportions has its roots deep in 50 years of violence of another nature, that is, institutional violence the basis of which is political and which permits of political solution. I make this point so as to stress the fact that only through a fair and agreed political solution can we hope to overcome the problems facing us and that attempting to deal with this matter by concerning ourselves only with relatively peripheral matters which are simply a consequence of the underlying malady will achieve nothing. Even if this Bill, should it pass into law, were workable, which I am convinced it is not, I doubt very much if it would achieve anything.

It was because the former Fianna Fáil Government kept clearly in its mind that an equitable political solution was the only hope for the future of the North and, indeed, for the future of the Republic and of Great Britain as well that that Government developed the ideas relating to power sharing and the Council of Ireland. To the uninitiated and to those who do not wish to see, majority rule in the North of Ireland would appear to be reasonable. The loyalists constantly express their devotion to democratic principles and demand government on a majority vote basis such as that prevailing in Britain but we must continue to emphasise and re-emphasise the fact that the Northern Ireland area is one which was cut off from the remainder of the island by deliberate act of the British Government and with the specific intention of ensuring that that part of Ireland would have a majority which would remain a majority forever. The majority in the North is a minority in the country as a whole, whether the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs likes it or not. We in this country know that this is so but the spate of propaganda from loyalists and from the media in Britain would have us believe otherwise.

I would just like to refer further to this particular aspect of it because it is important. I am not referring to this question of the majority in the North in a narrow sense but from some experiences I had in dealing or helping to deal with the Northern Ireland question in the Council of Europe I found that it might be necessary that I should say a couple of words on it here. The majority and the minority are a permanent fixture in the North of Ireland as things are. It is a contrived majority and a contrived minority, deliberately designed for a particular purpose. There is not in the normal, ordinary sense a democratic majority in the North. Because of British propaganda the attitudes of people outside Ireland, many of them very favourably disposed towards Ireland, are coloured by the fact that they regard this majority as a normal democratic majority and, therefore, they feel that the status quo, which they feel is there because of a normal majority situation, should be maintained and that every effort should be made to avoid doing anything which will disturb the unionist majority. This approach is very similar to the approach which existed for far too many years and which ensured that the nationalists in Northern Ireland continued for 50 years to have only second-rate citizenship and nobody wanted to know about it. When we raise matters designed to improve the lot of the minority in the North, we are still being met at international level with the attitude that is concerned at all costs to mollify the unionist majority even though it should be clear that this can often mean a refusal to face up to the fact that the nationalists are in consequence being deprived of a right.

As things are at the present time, there can be no alternative to power sharing in government in the North. The unnatural, deliberately designed, partitioned area demands such a solution but, of course, the loyalist leaders are aware that former loyalist leaders perished on that particular rock and, in fact, they themselves were responsible for the political destruction of former leaders. So they are now caught in a situation which allows them little room for manoeuvre.

What I have said may not appear to be relevant to the Bill. I suggest it is highly relevant and that we are proceeding along highly dangerous lines by pretending that this Bill, which is dividing the people of the Republic in a fundamental way, which is also dividing the people of the island as a whole, can effect any worthwhile improvement in the horrible situation which is confronting us. Far from improving the situation, it is, in effect, ignoring the basic problem. By doing that I feel it can do nothing but harm.

Had the proposals in the Sunningdale Agreement been implemented, had we got a power-sharing Executive and a Council of Ireland with some authority so far as the police are concerned, and following on that the ending of internment, we would be well on the way towards achieving the end we all desire—peace. We would then have got an acceptable and workable package with the necessary safeguards for both sides on which progress could continue to be made. We have not got that package and the Government are pretending that this minute element of the Sunningdale Agreement is a worthwhile effort. This appears to be the only policy this Government have. Here I agree with what Deputy O'Connell says that if there is a secret policy, he is not aware of it. As I said, the only policy this Government appear to have is to introduce this type of Bill.

We must try to get back on the rails. If for the moment we find it impossible to proceed with the power-sharing arrangement under the Council of Ireland, at least we can insist on an all-Ireland court which even the Government have accepted as being the best solution, if one is to judge by the statements made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. To say that this cannot be achieved because of the present situation is to accept that failure is inevitable. We have under this Coalition Government not only in relation to the Northern problem but with regard to every other national issue as well, backtracked at the first sign of opposition and by so doing we have left this nation leaderless and rudderless.

An all-Ireland court, to my mind, is an achievable objective but it would need a constitutional referendum. As I said earlier, the need to have such a referendum to put to the people and the time it would take to do so was the excuse the Government gave for proceeding with this Bill. Well over a year has since elapsed and we have not yet passed any legislation on this matter. I have no doubt that we can afford a little more time to clear the way for an effective instrument. A referendum would pass quickly. The people have experience of them. If we were honest and told all the people of the North who are so anxious for peace that the present Bill will not ensure peace— and if one were to judge by the Unionist papers from the North, they also believe that—but we would have a much more effective structure and be much surer of results with an all-Ireland court, then I think we would get support for it.

The Law Enforcement Commission saw considerable merit in an all-Ireland court proposal and they were concerned too with the time factor. As I said already, the time factor has been shown not to have the great importance which the Government tended to give it some time ago. The really important factor in my view is to ensure that the legislation is effective and obviously, with such deep-seated opposition in principle to this Bill, it cannot be effective.

I would like again to refer to situations which could arise here in the event of this Bill being passed. If a person escaped from custody in the North, was arrested here and charged with the offence of escaping from legal custody, the difficulty facing our courts, bearing in mind the pressures on witnesses, the unreliabilily of the witnesses from the Crown security forces, would be so great as to be insuperable. We have the case where the British authorities claim that a certain individual had committed a series of offences on specific dates when, on the basis of independent witnesses, including our own security forces, that person was proved to have been in the Republic and under constant surveillance at the time the offences were alleged to have been committed. If we were to suppose that that individual returned to the North, was arrested there and charged with the offences, that he then escaped from custody and fled to the South and was arrested here on the grounds that he had, under the terms of this Bill, broken the law by escaping from lawful custody, what would the position be? The court would be aware that he had not committed the original offences with which he was charged but they would not be trying him for these offences; they would be trying him for escaping from lawful custody. If he was found guilty I assume he would be convicted and sentenced. Surely we could not regard that procedure as justice.

Then there is the case mentioned by Deputy O'Leary of the young man who was cruelly shot to death by the British army. He was the sole support of his parents and was not involved in any unlawful or political activity. We saw what passed for justice at the trial of the soldier accused of his murder. Under this Bill, members of the British army, some of them willing to act as the army witnesses acted in this case, will be the same people who will be called here as witnesses in many instances. At the taking of evidence, members of the Irish court present in Northern Ireland at such cases will have no power to question these witnesses in order to elicit the true facts.

How can this type of legislation gain the confidence of the people which is so necessary if it is to be effective? The Bill is divisive and will be impossible to operate. Its worst feature is that the pretence that it can be effective is there, and that it is getting to the root causes of the problem, when we all know that it is only tinkering with it. Again I appeal to the Minister to withdraw this Bill and to endeavour to re-establish a joint judicial commission representative of North and South and to reconsider the whole matter of the provision of an all-Ireland court.

For reasons which I have already mentioned, this aspect of a possible solution did not get the attention it deserved when the problem was being discussed by the Law Enforcement Commission. It must be remembered that that commission did not reject the idea of an all-Ireland court. The Government, through the voices of some of their Ministers, regarded the all-Ireland court as the best solution. It was only because of the time factor in each case, a factor which could now be regarded as vital, that further efforts were not made to establish it.

We are asking that a recommendation which was envisaged in the Sunningdale Agreement be made, that is, an all-Ireland court incorporating in some way the police authorities from both North and South. This court would have a positive function. Not only would it be concerned with ensuring that those who broke the law were brought to justice, but it could be given the task of ensuring that basic civil rights are assured. There must be basic acceptance of the law and those who operate it, otherwise there would be no respect for it and it would be impossible to administer. What we appear to be doing here is taking certain action without first ensuring that human rights are safeguarded. In an all-Ireland court where there would be a certain element of control of the police we would have an institution which would have the respect of all. We would be laying the foundation stone for peace. If we do not concern ourselves with the positive human rights approach, and instead confine ourselves to the rather negative approach of bringing the offender to justice, then we are unlikely to make progress along the road to peace and we will continue to face the shocking situation that we have. Dealing piecemeal with problems of this sort has had little success to date. Rushing legislation of this type through the Dáil will not solve anything. Patience and care and positive thinking are necessary. The process will be slow but in the end it will pay a worth-while dividend in bringing peace to our nation. Giving the country the tail-end of the now defunct Sunningdale package is worse than useless and no solution at all.

I sincerely ask the Minister to reconsider the situation and to set up a commission, give them the terms of reference relating to an all-Ireland court and give them time to find a reasonable solution. Only in that way can the people of Ireland have hope for the future.

The Bill is unconstitutional. The case for this belief has been made by the Leader of this party and other speakers. The Minister himself, despite his protestations that the Bill is constitutional, has now stated that if he were satisfied with the arguments put forward by speakers in this House he would be willing to refer a case to the courts. As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, it is the duty of the Government to produce legislation which is constitutional and it is positively not for any Government to have legislation passed about which there are doubts as to its constitutionality.

The Bill is divisive. Not only does it divide the Government and the Opposition but it also divides supporters of the Government here and throughout the country. The whip which was cracked by the Tánaiste at the Labour Party Conference when he said that defeat for the Bill would mean a general election will probably have the effect of ensuring that Government Deputies will support the Bill and ensure its passage but the fact remains that forced prayers are no devotion. Government Deputies who have shown by their actions and frequent statements that they are opposed to the Bill will, while walking in one direction, undoubtedly continue to hold their views and the followers of the Coalition who feel as these Deputies do and who do not suffer from the same constraints will continue to voice their views publicly and we will have a situation here where expediency will prevail to the detriment of our democratic system.

Opposition to this Bill is much more widespread than the number of Deputies on this side of the House represent. We all have the same objective; we all want peace. We want to lay the foundations of what will result in bringing to a close a frightening chapter in our history. We can only succeed by facing the problem as a whole, by adumbrating and following the policy we believe will bring about the conditions which will result in peace. Attacking the problem piecemeal as has happened too often in the past, will fail to achieve our aim. It is time that we legislators tackled the problem in a realistic way. Failing to do so can result ultimately in our condemnation in the eyes of posterity.

The nationalists in the North will not go to the RUC for protection because in the past they know there has been collusion between some members of the RUC and the loyalists. They will not go to the British army for protection because they see for themselves that the army regard the loyalists as "us" and the nationalists as "them". The vast majority of the nationalists do not want the men of violence nor do they desire to be associated with them in any way but they do need help and protection and support and they expect all these things from us.

What is this Government doing by way of policy to uphold the morale of these people and strengthen them in their time of need? The simple answer is nothing. The people in the North of Ireland who expect some sympathy from us in their travail are caught between the hostility of the forces of the Crown and the bomb and the bullet of the extremists of all shades. They are being offered nothing by this Government except a negative Bill. This will not do. What is really needed is a framework which will ensure civil liberties for all the people of the North, which will ensure that each citizen, whether Protestant or Catholic, rich or poor, will have full and equal rights with his fellow citizen. The softly-softly policy of the Government in regard to the North is just an excuse for doing nothing: it is not a policy. One has only to talk to the ordinary nationalist in the street in Northern Ireland to know that he has absolutely no faith in the policy of the present Government—if you may call it a policy. All it does is make available this Bill which, as we have said on many occasions in this debate, is unconstitutional and divisive and unworkable.

I make a final appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the whole situation so as to try to introduce substance for the shadow he is presenting here. On the matter of such fundamental importance, when people's lives are at stake, he can be assured of the seriousness of our approach and if he takes cognisance of this I think he will feel the need to make a more positive and more fundamental approach to this very great problem.

Finally, let us remember that the Sunningdale Agreement was presented to this House as a package which the Taoiseach then said had to be accepted in its entirety and which Government spokesmen claimed at that time could only be effective if accepted in its entirety. The same people are now proposing that the Irish people should accept an infinitesimal part of this agreement or rather a substitute for the original agreement. This will not do. We have a duty and responsibility as legislators to produce an effective Bill which will be a milestone along the road to peace. We are not doing that here. I believe that if the proposal put forward by us as an alternative were to be adopted by the Government we would be doing something worth while. I should like to know from the Minister who is objecting to an all-Ireland court. It is not the Government, if one is to judge by the statements made by some of the Ministers; it is certainly not Fianna Fáil. Is it the British Government?

The British Government have the power to help set up such a court and to co-operate with the Irish Government in doing so. I am convinced that if we were to set about this matter in a proper, constructive manner we could produce something acceptable not only to Deputies but to our people in general. It would help us to achieve what is so badly needed in this country, and that is peace.

Debate adjourned.