Vol. 350 No. 3
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, if he will request the British Government to investigate immediately a sworn statement made in a court hearing in Belfast that on a certain night in December 1982 members of an undercover unit of the RUC special Branch were operating south of the Border; and if he will report back to Dáil Éireann as soon as he has received a reply.
18.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he is concerned at the statements made in the course of the trial Séamus Grew and Roddy Carroll that a unit of the RUC known as E4 operates within the Twenty-six Counties; the action he intends to take on these matters; if he will outline the Government's attitude to the view expressed by leaders of the nationalist community in the North that there is no justice for them there; and specifically in the light of these events whether the Government's policy of extradition will be reviewed.
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 17 and 18 together.
Deputies will be aware that the Government Information Services issued a statement on the evening of 5 April last on behalf of the Government following the Taoiseach's meeting with the British Ambassador earlier that evening. A further comprehensive statement was made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 10 April which answers all but one of the points raised by Deputies Collins and Gregory.
On that final point raised by Deputy Gregory concerning extradition, I would point out that the Government's actions on extradition are determined by the 1965 Extradition Act and its interpretation by the courts. That will continue to be the case.
Is the Minister aware that, since the Robinson affair was discussed in Dáil Éireann, reports have been published in the New Statesman showing that during the Coalition term of office in the seventies when the Taoiseach was Minister for Foreign Affairs there were regular incursions with a view to the commission of crime by members of the SAS and RUC special branch? Has the Minister had any contact with the British Government about these allegations? Has he sought an explanation and is he aware that these allegations link an officer of the SAS not merely with the murder of a civilian in County Monaghan but also with vicious, sectarian murders, in particular the Miami Showband massacre carried out by the UVF.
The questions on the Order Paper relate to 1982.
That question is down for answer next week.
There is a question coming up next week but the questions on today's Order Paper deal with comparatively recent happenings.
Does the Minister agree that the outcome of the trial referred to in the question clearly illustrates that the system of justice for members of the nationalist community in the North is suspect, to say the least, so much so that the leaders of the nationalist community there have stated publicly that there is no justice for them in the North. Is this not particularly relevant at this point? Does it not call into question the policy of the Government in extraditing or handing over persons to security forces whose members are involved in such killings as are outlined in the question and to courts who justify and in the case of this trial——
A question, Deputy. You cannot make a speech.
——applaud such killings?
The question is based on a false premise. The Deputy is saying the Government are the people who extradite. The Government do not. The attitude of the Government is determined by the 1965 Extradition Act. It is the courts who interpret. Applications are made to the courts for extradition and they decide whether they will or will not, not the Government.
Does the Minister feel that the policy on extradition should be reviewed at this point?
That is another question.
It arises directly out of the question on the Order Paper which refers specifically to the policy of extradition.
I have answered it.
Does the Minister not feel that, given the circumstances of this trial and the killing which brought about the trial, this brings into question the policy on extradition and does he not feel that the Government should review that policy at this stage?
I answered that when I said I would point out that the Government's actions on extradition are determined by the 1965 Extradition Act and its interpretation by the courts. That will continue to be the case.
Is the Minister aware that heretofore when we had incursions the excuse was that they mistook the Border markings? Recently they came across brazenly where customs officials were in the course of doing their duty. Is that not very serious as compared to heretofore when the security forces and their officers said they mistook the markings, that they were indistinct, or that they were not aware of the Border area?
I am not sure what the Deputy is referring to. Is he referring to the one in the question put down by Deputy O'Hanlon for next week?
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.
On a point of order, I put down a Private Notice Question to the Minister for Communications which was ruled out of order on the grounds that it is not urgent. The question asked the Minister about political interference with An Post relating to EEC postal votes.
I considered that question fully and I conveyed my ruling to the Deputy. The Deputy will understand that my decision on the matter cannot be raised in the House in this manner.
I am raising the point on the grounds that it was ruled out of order on the basis that it is not urgent.
Deputy De Rossa or any other Deputy cannot question the ruling of the Chair in the House in this manner. That is the Chair's ruling. The Deputy has two options open to him. He can come and discuss it with me if he wishes, or he can put down a formal motion for discussion in the House censuring me, but he cannot come into the House and seek to raise an argument with the Chair.
I have no wish to censure you because I am sure you have made a correct decision in accordance with the rules of the House. I am making the point that there has been serious political interference with An Post. We sought to raise it and we are prevented from doing so by the rules of the House.
I understand the Deputy has a question down for written answer.
I suggested that I might do that.
What is the Deputy seeking to do now?
I am seeking to impress on the Ceann Comhairle——
That is what the Deputy may not do.
It is a matter or urgency.
I am sorry, I cannot hear the Deputy.
Will you allow me to raise it on the Adjournment?
I will communicate with the Deputy but he has talked himself out of time on that one.
Could I raise a question on the Adjournment?
It is 3.35 p.m. and the Deputy is five minutes over the time.
