Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Feb 1985

Vol. 355 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - UK Prevention of Terrorism Act: Motion.

Mr. G. Collins

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Prevention of Terrorism Act in its provisions and in its implementation as clearly discriminatory against Irish citizens and being in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to seek the repeal of this legislation and to insist, in accordance with normal diplomatic practice elsewhere, that the Irish Embassy in London be immediately notified of any arrests of Irish citizens made under this Act.

You may ask, as it is the basis of the Minister's amendment, whether Dáil Éireann is entitled to condemn a piece of British legislation. The only reason Dáil Éireann is even discussing the issue is that it is legislation directed against Irish citizens travelling between here and Britain and at Irish citizens living in Britain and in Northern Ireland. We in Ireland have a responsibility towards our citizens living in another country or jurisdiction. Governments everywhere see it as their duty to protest when their citizens suffer harassment, victimisation or discrimination in another country simply because of their nationality. Dáil Éireann has every right to condemn legislation anywhere directed against Irish citizens.

I must point out in passing that the British Government and Parliament have never felt inhibited about criticising any of our laws or even our Constitution. They have repeatedly condemned our laws on extradition and they have even asked us to remove sections of our Constitution which state that the national territory comprises the whole of Ireland. For both these reasons the Minister is not justified in seeking to prevent this House from condemning a piece of British legislation that discriminates against Irish citizens.

Indeed, it is a matter of regret that the Minister and the Government whenever an issue of this kind comes up, while purporting to criticise abuses or, to use a phrase in the amendment "possibilities of abuse", nonetheless tend to defend the basic principles behind repressive legislation and security practices. In his amendment the Minister criticises possibilities of abuse, application and irregular practices. He does not condemn the Act itself. In this House last autumn the Minister fudged the supergrass issue. He has fudged the plastic bullets issue, leaving the case against them go by default in a UN sub-committee in the summer of 1983. Earlier this month he fudged the UDR issue and now he wants to go on fudging the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He is seeking to make sure that any criticism ventilated in this House is rendered harmless. No wonder Mr. Hurd takes a benign view of the Minister's statements. They are always couched in a qualified way that does not actually require the British authorities to do anything.

It is a wonder that the Minister, following his meeting yesterday, had the audacity to refer to his Clonmel speech of last November, one of the least convincing speeches of his entire career, in which he tried dishonestly to claim that the Irish people saw behind the Press conference of Mrs. Thatcher's "real and unprecedented movement on the British side" at the Chequers meeting. Indeed, the people saw real and unprecedented movement in the wrong direction. The Clonmel Nationalist called that speech “a defence of the indefensible” and totally inappropriate to a Chamber of Commerce meeting. Yesterday the Minister was enthusing about the role Mrs. Thatcher had in mind for the Irish Government. The spirit of deference is obviously alive and well. No doubt the Minister was given the benefit of Mr. Hurd's advice on how best to reply to this debate, and no doubt we will hear all the worthless and meaningless assurances he has been given.

It would seem that Anglo-Irish relations take precedence over the civil rights of Irish citizens. The clear message that the British Government are receiving in relation to all these issues is that the Irish Government will go to any lengths to avoid attacking the root cause of Nationalist alienation while making a great fuss and show, principally for domestic consumption, about individual incidents. This sort of sham nationalism is absolutely transparent both to the British Government and to the Nationalist community in the North.

Everyone in this House abhors violence in all its forms. This is well known and it has been stated clearly in the report of the New Ireland Forum. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind about this issue. There are occasions when special legislation is required, but that legislation must nonetheless respect basic civil rights. The British Prevention of Terrorism Act was hasty legislation rushed through in response to a particular atrocity. In the opinion of many people it was a political rather than a security response to the situation. There has long been serious concern about the validity of some of the convictions arising from the Birmingham bombings, a matter which has been raised on a humanitarian basis by Cardinal Ó Fiaich and the Department of Foreign Affairs among others.

The political atmosphere of the time was not conducive to cool, rational decisions about either real security needs or the protection of civil rights. It was with some amusement that I heard the Minister say a few weeks ago "I hope we never have to introduce such legislation whereby people can vanish from the streets for 48 hours". Of course, the irony is that the Coalition, in which the Minister was a member of the Government at that time, brought in an exactly similar Bill in 1976, the Emergency Provisions Bill, which was in this respect a carbon copy of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Minister voted for it. Fianna Fáil on return to Government in 1977, in which I was Minister for Justice, repealed that section. We are discussing this motion in a somewhat similar atmosphere two months after the Brighton bombings which have been condemned clearly by all parties in this House. There is no evidence that the Act which has been in force for ten years has prevented such acts of violence which we all deplore. Can anyone suggest seriously that there is any lack of legislation in Britain to deal with acts of violence or apprehending terrorists?

The principal features of the Act are the power to exclude persons from Great Britain on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity and to hold people for up to seven days for questioning without right of access to a solicitor or to one's family. Further, there was a provision which made it an offence to possess information which may be of material assistance in preventing acts of terrorism or apprehending persons so involved and not to pass it on to the authorities. This clause interferes seriously with the freedom of the Press and, I understand, has been repealed.

By allowing the authorities to detain persons for up to seven days without trial, there is no safeguard against unlawful detention or against abusive interrogation practices. Secondly, the Act permits detention for the purposes of questioning, and at ports and airports this can be done on a random basis without even any requirement to justify a reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism. The power of exclusion is entirely arbitrary and can be applied without any evidence or justification needing to be produced and there is no appeal. The exclusion order, which is regarded as a breach of human rights and as contrary to the European Convention, is in effect a power of exile, more usually associated with totalitarian countries.

We are not here primarily discussing the operation of the Act in Northern Ireland, but it is a part of what Dáil Éireann discussed last November in relation to the supergrass system. It allows uncorroborated confessions, including the use of informers, to be used in evidence in one-judge courts. Only a very small proportion of those arrested have been charged under the Act and an even smaller number have been found guilty. Of 5,683 people arrested between November 1974 and September 1983 only 2½ per cent, or in numbers 137, were charged and only 9 per cent of those charged were found guilty. Not one person has been found guilty of murder and only four persons were found guilty of attempted murder or conspiracy to murder. These statistics have been supplied by the Irish Information Partnership. While some 70 people have been convicted of possessing firearms and explosives offences, nobody has suggested that such offences could not be prosecuted except for this Act. It is important to note that 95 per cent were totally innocent. In Northern Ireland the percentage is even lower.

There can be little doubt that the Act is being used largely for purposes of questioning and of harassment. Withholding information is in itself an offence under the Act. I would remind Deputies that Members of this House and even a former Minister for Foreign Affairs have been held under the Act, which gives some idea of the indiscriminate use made of the Act.

There was an attempt, in breach of the common travel area, to introduce a landing card requirement. This card, issued to Irish citizens, states that it is issued under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which can only mean that the authorities regard every person issued with one as a potential terrorist. The information is computerised and means that a large section of the Irish population in Britain is on police files. Deputy David Andrews publicly protested about this, and the practice has been curtailed.

Reports have appeared in the newspapers of detainees being ill-treated in detention, and of being subjected to threats. Crew members of the B & I have been picked out and detained several days in succession on a random basis. The former British Labour spokesman in Northern Ireland Mr. Clive Soley, MP, has said and I quote from The Irish Press of January 4, 1985:

Perfectly law-abiding people have been dragged in under the Act, held for days without any contact with their families.... In my opinion this Act creates a serious problem of people's democratic rights.

There has been a suggestion that some of the recent arrests, are politically motivated. The circumstances that a number of those arrested have a public profile, and indeed were campaigning against the Prevention of Terrorism Act and for a reopening of the cases of the Birmingham Six, is surely a cause of some disquiet. Even should the case against some of those arrested fail, they will have been out of circulation for some time. It has been pointed out that political activists in the Irish community are most likely to be picked up.

Our Embassy in London has been unjustly criticised for its role during the last month. I am sure the Embassy does its best within the limits of Government policy. The Embassy will do what it is told to do by the Government. To the extent that there is any dissatisfaction with official reaction to these events, it should be directed at the Government.

We have asked, and we ask again, that the Irish Embassy be informed immediately of all detentions under the Act, so that it can provide an effective consular service. This is the routine practice in virtually every other country. We believe also that detainees should be allowed access to solicitors and that their families be informed. However, this is not enough. The Act itself must be condemned straightaway.

The Minister has been subjected to severe criticism for his manner of defending the Act in the last few weeks. His remarks have been used gleefully to defend the Act by right wing Tory spokesmen, such as Peter Utley of the Daily Telegraph, who quoted the Minister's statement that the Act was not being used to harass the Irish community in Britain.

The secretary of the Irish Bishops Episcopal Commission also criticised the Minister. The Irish News severely criticised the Minister. Indeed, I should like to quote from their editorial, as the Irish News is generally regarded as a very moderate voice of Nationalist opinion in the North. I quote:

Another Minister talking nonsense can be found in the Republic where the man in charge of foreign affairs has explained his stance towards Britain's Prevention of Terrorism Act.

This is the Act under which about 6,000 people have been arrested. Only some 150 have ever been charged — that is less than two per cent.

The Minister, Deputy Peter Barry, apparently, is satisfied the Act is now being used more responsibly. He bases his satisfaction on the claim that the level of detentions under the PTA has dropped from 1,000 a year last decade to 100 a year now. God help those 100 because the Republic's Minister for Foreign Affairs, with complacent attitude, certainly will not.

Deputy Barry said he would "stand up and defend" any Irish people harassed under the PTA. Deputy Barry, you should have stood up years ago. Mr. Douglas Hurd, on the other hand, praised the Minister for his measured words. It is easy to see from the Government's amendment why. The Minister's amendment to our motion expresses deep concern at the possibilities of abuse of some of the provisions and their application, but all that it actually deplores is denial of access to a solicitor and information to families. It is obvious that the word in our motion that sticks in the Minister's gullet is the word "condemn". Have we now reached the stage where we are afraid to condemn what the British Government are doing to our citizens in Britain?

If peace is to come to these islands, it is essential that pieces of legislation that only fuel a sense of grievance and of alienation must be repealed. We should say this clearly and without hesitation to the British Government and parliament in the knowledge that there are many members of that parliament who would express themselves in even stronger terms than we would. How can we expect British MPs to succeed in repealing legislation that impinges on the rights of Irish citizens if our Minister for Foreign Affairs indicates that he is now much happier with the Act? Let us give a clear signal here tonight and give encouragement to the friends of Ireland in the British parliament and assist their efforts, instead of fudging our signals as the Government by their amendment wish us to do.

Many in the Government parties carry their liberalism on their sleeves. Many of them have expressed concern about the basic rights of oppressed peoples in far off countries. They have no option but to support our motion.

I wish to allow Deputy Liam Fitzgerald use the remainder of my time.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

The Act we are calling on the Government to condemn is one that was introduced in 1974 in the wake of the Birmingham bombings, at a time when tensions in Britain were high and when there had been a number of fatalities and serious casualties. It was a time when perhaps reasoning was not as sound as it might be ordinarily though there is never very much reasoning in Britain in the matter of Anglo-Irish affairs. This has been the experience not only for some decades but for centuries. However, at that time of very high tensions in 1974 serious measures were introduced under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Act gave extremely wide ranging powers to the police in Britain to take on the Irish situation in that country. In conjunction with other powers that were coming on stream in Northern Ireland then, under what was to be known as the Emergency Powers Act, the legislation was to break down the machinery of any kind of political resistance to a situation in Northern Ireland that was regarded as totally unacceptable, unreal, unworkable and most illogical.

It is only fair to say that at the time of its introduction there could have been some justification for the British seriously believing that this kind of wide ranging legislation, giving widely extended powers, frightening powers in many respects because of the obvious implications for civil rights and for basic human rights in Britain, was necessary.

If the House has regard to the fundamental elements of the Act it can appreciate more clearly what I am saying. Basically, the Act can be divided into three elements. First, there is the right of the Home Secretary to proscribe certain organisations, an aspect that has been used widely but selectively in the case of members of the Irish community. Without going into great detail, a quick glance at the situation that pertains in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act vis-à-vis that which obtains under the Emergency Powers Act in Northern Ireland seems to indicate a greater balance in Northern Ireland to the extent that Britain has ignored a number of organisations on the Protestant side in Northern Ireland, that would seem to me to be more deserving of prohibition than some of those on the national side that they have so willingly proscribed. I do not attempt to justify violence but the selective manner in which certain sections of this Act are being applied gives a clear picture as to the way the Act is being directed against the nationalist people. These exclusion orders have been used widely in rather dubious circumstances. There is a wide arbitrary dimension in this Act which gives rise to abuse and which has caused doubts as to how the Act is being applied.

A basic element of this Act is where the Home Secretary has the right to deport those suspected of being involved in terrorist activities from Britain. Another aspect that impinges on Irish people travelling to Britain and indeed on Irish people in Britain is the right of the police to arrest a person suspected of terrorism and to detain him for 48 hours on their own authority and for a further five days with the approval of the Home Secretary. This aspect is particularly worrying because of the arbitrary manner in which it is applied. In addition police have the right, with the approval of the Home Secretary, to arrest suspects at a port or an airport and detain them for up to seven days. When this legislation was introduced in the wake of the Birmingham bombings, many people felt its wide-ranging powers were needed but people have since seen the folly of that action. British Labour MPs who were directly involved in the introduction of that legislation have now come out in opposition to it. Other groups opposed to it include the National Council for Civil Liberties in Britain, the Irish in Britain representation groups and others and they are in the process of lobbying internationally to have this legislation repealed because of its damaging implications for the democratic and legal systems in Britain and for fundamental human civil liberties. Despite the extensive powers given to the police under the Prevention of Terrorism Act it is questionable if these powers have been effective in minimising terrorism in Britain. Its effect has been to alienate Irish communities throughout Britain, Scotland and Wales. This legislation is not having the desired effect. In the British House of Commons in January 1984 during the renewal of this Act Mr. Clive Soley the spokesman for the Labour Party stated that this Act should be looked at thoroughly as to its effectiveness and desirability in the present situation.

Between 29 November 1974 and the end of 1984 5,896 people were arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, less than 2.5 per cent, that is 147 people were charged and less than 10 per cent of those charged were given a prison sentence. A number of those charged and sentenced under the Act are the subject of controversy due to the rather flimsy nature of the evidence presented when they were convicted. Apart from a very small percentage all of those arrested were Irish. Five thousand seven hunderd and seventy nine people were detained for periods ranging from a few hours to several days and then released without charge and without the right of redress.

I have today received an outline of the conditions that obtain when individuals are arrested and brought into a police station under this Act. On 21 January last two members of the B & I staff were arrested. They were taken off a ship in Liverpool at 11 a.m. There was no consultation with the captain of the ship. They were told that they would be back on the ship that evening. First they were photographed and fingerprinted and then they were put into a cell for several hours without being questioned. Then they were taken out and questioned repeatedly. They were not allowed to make a phone call and then a solicitor who arrived at the direction of the father of one of the men was not allowed to see them. They were returned to their cells after the initial period of questioning and left there for some time. They were then repeatedly brought from their cells for questioning and on each occasion were accused of being liars. They were not physically ill treated but were made to feel like criminals by the warders and the police. These two gentlemen were not released until 6 o'clock the following evening despite assurances that they would have been released in time to catch the boat that evening from Liverpool. If the Minister is really interested he will be able to obtain confirmation of that information. It is only one of the cases out of many that could be highlighted.

The Minister will be aware that the Greater London Council recently carried out a survey into the conditions that obtain within police stations when people are arrested and held for periods of between two and seven days under this Act. The survey found that all of those arrested were denied access to a solicitor and that they had effectively disappeared. That is a frightening dimension reminiscent of the discussions we had on Northern Ireland. Neither family nor friends were informed of their whereabouts or their detention. On a number of occasions relatives heard of their arrest through the media or were themselves threatened with arrest on making inquiries. Some detainees complained of physical ill treatment, threatening behaviour and severe mental pressure. Some required psychiatric assistance following release or lost their employment as a result of the arrest. Others found that their families had been subjected to harassment or even assault by their neighbours, children were placed in care, families were broken up and at least one suicide was reported as being linked to detention under the Act. These are serious details which I hope the Minister and his Department are investigating thoroughly. We very much regretted and were embarrassed by the Birmingham bombings but the build-up in the incidence of arrests will give cause for concern to this Government. I hope the Minister has taken every step to ensure that any abuse likely to occur will not occur if his intervention can prevent it.

Many people have the view, as expressed earlier by my colleague, that the system operating there is one which is interested in gathering information. The Labour spokesman on Northern Ireland, Clive Soley MP, said it was an act which should be referred to as the "Collection of Information Act." People travelling from here to Britain are presented, on landing, with a landing card. Although Deputy Collins was of the opinion that the incidence of this has diminished, or perhaps almost disappeared because of protests by Deputy Andrews, I am informed by that Deputy's brother that the last time he landed in Britain he was presented with one of these cards. Again, he refused to sign it.

I shall go very briefly through the questions asked on this card, so that Members of the House can exercise their own judgment on the necessity or otherwise of this kind of information. It asks that the surname, maiden name and christian name be completed in block letters and nationality, citizenship, date and place of birth, home address, address visited, purpose of visit, occupation, employer, date, signature. In addition to completing this card, one is required, on disembarking, to provide proof of identity. I must put it to the Minister and the House that this is the greatest insult that any member of the Irish community could have thrown at him or her on landing at a British port and is totally unacceptable.

I, for one, would not be prepared to sign or complete such a landing card. As a peace loving citizen of this country, I object to it. Not alone Members of this House but members of the European Parliament and a former Minister for Finance have been challenged to produce identity and to complete the details required on this landing card. This obligation should be unacceptable to the Minister and should be condemned by him outright and unequivocally tonight in this House. Because of the high incidence of regular travelling between this country and Britain, it cannot be maintained that a card requiring these details is necessary to maintain an adequate level of security in Britain.

One matter about which a number of groups in Britain are concerned is the very dramatic and dangerous erosion of civil liberties. Successive British Governments, not alone of our generation but of past generations, have gone out of their way to try to demonstrate to the world how glorious their democracy was, is and is likely to be. The British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, at times has rushed to the media to demonstrate her understanding of the reason for the blacks in South Africa resorting to violence because of frustration of their political ideology. I am not saying that Mrs. Thatcher condones violence, but she was very quick on a number of occasions, when it suited her in terms of international popularity, to make statements to that effect through the media. Yet, when it comes to the Irish situation there is nothing but bland and gross stubbornness and political blindness. Time and time again, opportunities have been given to the British Prime Minister to understand the underlying political reasons for the degree of dissatisfaction with Britain translated into violence. While I do not seek to justify any form of violence, I hope the Minister has, during the course of his visit yesterday and discussion with the Foreign Secretary in Britain, unequivocally put his view that the political difficulties and expression of violence pertaining in Britain and Northern Ireland have a very serious Anglo-Irish dimension to them which can and must be resolved through political action.

One of the very sad and frightening effects of the implementation of this Act in its provisions as it stands, is the alienation of the Irish communities in Britain. The British Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, MP, gave an assurance in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 22 January last, that he regarded the powers under the Act as "extremely undesirable in principle, sadly necessary in practice and to be exercised only with the very greatest possible care". He said that it was in that sense and that spirit that the powers were exercised and they were never exercised in any way for political purposes, contrary to suggestions which had been made in recent weeks.

We know that the reality is far from that. We know that the Irish communities in Britain, as well as Irish people travelling over to Britain, are being selected for arrest, detention and questioning on a random basis. An appeal for the repeal of this Act was launched in the House of Commons on 22 January last. The Irish in Britain Representation Group have been formed because of the build-up of frustration at the inaction of this Government and this Minister is not taking on the British Government and pointing out to them, very clearly and unequivocally, that this Act is excessive, wrong, illogical and will not serve the purpose which we are publicly told it is there to serve. This Minister should have done that, but obviously has not, and this pressure group have now launched an international campaign to have the Act dismantled. I hoped that the Minister would support that, but I have already evidence through our Irish Embassy in London to suggest, that he has demonstrated his lack of concern — I can describe it in no other words — for the plight of these communities. I am very dissatisfied, indeed, at his refusal to be more forthcoming and helpful and to show more concern and co-operation with this group who, after all, are his responsibility as our Foreign Minister.

I shall go very quickly through a number of issues which this pressure group raised with our Embassy in London. I must first endorse Deputy Collin's sentiments that our Embassy has sometimes come in for unfair criticism. Of course it has. Our Embassy is the ventilator of the policy of the Government of the day. Unfortunately, our Embassy sometimes has to take the stick for what turn out to be inadequate, unconcerned and unrealistic approaches to Anglo-Irish affairs. I am extremely disappointed that an approach made by this group to the Embassy to make contact with our Minister on 5 July 1984 met with no results. The group made the case for a number of structures to be established within the Embassy to enable the more adequate monitoring of the overall implementation of this Act. I regard the response of the Government, via the Embassy, to these submissions and representations as a sad betrayal of the legitimate interests of this isolated group of communities in Britain. They refused a public condemnation of the PTA and the Minister is refusing that here. He is couching his response in terms of being political and diplomatic. However, the day has gone when we can afford to do that.

We must stand up and frankly and directly take on the British and tell them that we do not accept this Act because of the way it impinges on the Irish communities in Britain and on Irish citizens who travel to Britain. These travellers have heretofore had the freedom to travel to their friends and relatives in Britain and have them return here. The implementation of this Act is so discriminatory and selective that it is a cause of serious concern. Unless there is a very fundamental change of attitude in terms of its implementation and selectivity, we call for its withdrawal. The Minister ignored the fact that almost 6,000 innocent Irish people have been detained under the Act since 1974. He makes a rather grandiose and spurious statement, in my opinion, that diplomatic action on a case basis has more positive results than some of the methods suggested.

When the Minister replies I hope he will give us details of the discussions he had yesterday with the British Foreign Secretary, indicating whether he brought up the matter of this Act with him. He also made the point that he put a number of fundamental issues in relation to the Act to the British Government and that he got concessions thereon. I should like the Minister to give the House details thereof.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Dáil Éireann remains fully committed to combating the use of violence for political ends from whatever source, expresses deep concern at the possibilities of abuse inherent in some of the provisions of the British Prevention of Terrorism Act, and of their application in a discriminatory manner to Irish citizens, deplores in particular the regular practice of denying legal access to detainees and information to relatives for a period of 48 hours or longer, and strongly supports the efforts of the Government to uphold the rights of Irish citizens in Britain and Northern Ireland, as in other countries, at all times.

I would hope that the Opposition, who have been very foolish in putting down this motion, would look at that amendment again and answer it. Unfortunately the mover of the motion, Deputy G. Collins, has now left the House, as has Deputy Wilson. Both those gentlemen were members of Governments, one as Minister for Foreign Affairs and previously as Minister for Justice and the other as Minister for Education and Minister for Transport during the time this Act was in operation. Not once — I stress not once — did that Government or either of those gentlemen say one word in condemnation of the Act, and they should remember that. Any former Minister who stands up on the Opposition side this evening or tomorrow evening I intend asking precisely what he did when he was a member of the Government to condemn this Act to the British Government, because they did nothing. This is a bit of gross hypocrisy and, as I shall point out later, a playing into certain people's hands in putting down this motion this evening, totally irresponsible——

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Has the Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not interrupt the Minister.

Mr. P. Barry

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act came into force in November 1974. The Act was introduced by the British Government as a temporary measure responding to the Birmingham bombings. In the face of further terrorist violence in Britain, including the murder of Mr. Airey Neave, the bomb attacks at Hyde Park and at Harrods, and, most recently, the attempted assassination of the British Cabinet at Brighton, the Act has been renewed and has become a semi-permanent feature of British criminal legislation. It is important to note, therefore, that the terrorism of the Provisional IRA led to this Act and has kept this Act in force. All Irish Governments since 1974 have recognised this fact, including the Governments of which these two former Ministers were members, that the Prevention of Terrorism Act arose from the security problems faced by the British authorities in the wake of terrorist violence connected for the most part with the Northern Ireland situation.

Successive Irish Governments — again Governments of which these two former Ministers, now departed from the House, were members — have therefore not condemned the Prevention of Terrorism Act outright. There is not one word on record from Deputy G. Collins, Deputy Wilson, or any of the Fianna Fáil Governments, not one word of condemnation of this Act. Therefore to come in here and talk as they did this evening is total hypocrisy. We have all recognised the right of the British Parliament and people and their regrettable need to determine what measures they should take to defend themselves against acts of terrorist violence on their own soil. Indeed, we ourselves have legislation to counter the use of violence for political ends.

It is the duty of all of us in this House, who are committed to the pursuit of progress through peaceful, democratic, political means, to disown and condemn those who attempt to further their own ends through violence. Having myself met with many of the representatives of the Irish community in Britain — many of them, far more than Deputy L. Fitzgerald has met — I know that the Irish community there——

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

Did the Minister's party put down a motion? It is on record what the Minister did.

Mr. P. Barry

I did not open my mouth when the Deputy spoke. He might please afford me the same courtesy. Having myself met with many of the representatives of the Irish community in Britain I know that the Irish community there is equally opposed to violence, and is similarly committed to the principles of peaceful political progress.

This makes it all the more difficult for the Irish community to bear the anti-Irish feeling to which they have in the past been subjected as a result of the terrorist outrages perpetrated in Britain by so-called Irish nationalists. I am deeply concerned about the position of the Irish community in Britain, exposed as it is on the front line of Anglo-Irish relations. I realise too that the anti-terrorist legislation in Britain has cast its heavy shadow over members of the Irish community there. But let us be quite clear who it is that puts the Irish community under this pressure, who it is that creates the violence and the bitterness — the Provisional IRA. It is they who have maimed and destroyed, not merely human life, but also human relations, most particularly the relations between the Irish and their British neighbours.

It is a tribute to the good sense of both the Irish and the British peoples that, following the Brighton outrage, a clear distinction was made between the vast majority of true, peace-loving Irish people, and that unrepresentative and tiny minority who besmirch the very name of Irishman. I am sure that all the Irish in Britain, as well as all of us in this House — and I include Deputy L. Fitzgerald — who represent the people of Ireland, will join me in wishing that those responsible for the cynical and heartless carnage of the Brighton and Harrods bombings had been caught under the British anti-terrorist legislation. At the same time, while we recognise the right of a democratic society under attack to enact anti-terrorist legislation, we also have in relation to the PTA a clear and important duty to protect Irish citizens who may be adversely affected by the operation of the Act. We, like our predecessors in Government since 1974 — and this is the record — have been fully conscious of this duty, and right, to ensure that the legislation as far as Irish citizens are concerned is applied in an equitable and sympathetic manner consistent with civil liberties and that abuses are avoided.

In this task the Irish Embassy in London has a role to play: the Embassy has in the past ten years closely monitored the operation of the legislation both through the numerous individual cases in which Irish people have sought consular assistance and through the close contacts which the Embassy maintains with the Irish community in Britain.

As a result we take action on two levels. First, in relation to individual cases: the Embassy regularly receives requests for information and help from families and friends of those detained under the PTA. Among the most common requests are those for information about where the person is held, whether the detention is going to be extended, whether the person detained has access to a lawyer. In all these cases an immediate approach is made to the British authorities seeking details of the detention and urging that the rights of the person concerned be respected. In addition the Embassy also receives complaints from Irish citizens who feel they have been mistreated or abused under the Act. These are pursued by the Embassy with the British authorities. Deputies will appreciate that, since it is important to respect the right of detainees and their families to confidentiality, much of our activity in this area goes unpublicised.

This has led in some recent cases to unwarranted criticism of the efforts of my Department on behalf of those detained. The reality is that details of much of the Embassy's work cannot and should not be disclosed. I have already mentioned in public, as an example, that on one Sunday early in January an official at the Embassy in London spent 14 continuous hours dealing with PTA cases, involving repeated calls to the family involved, the British authorities and my Department in Dublin. At midnight on New Year's Eve the Embassy were making representations to the British authorities about another case. Deputies may wish to note that members of the Irish community in Britain, who are aware of the efforts of the Embassy staff in helping people detained under the PTA, have on several occasions recently expressed their appreciation for what we do.

Though the need to preserve confidentiality prevents me from going into detail about our efforts in individual cases, I can, however, be more specific about the second level at which the Government deals with the PTA: the formal approaches we make to the British authorities about the operation of the Act. From our experience with the individual cases brought to our notice, and as a result of the concerns expressed to us by the Irish community in Britain, it has become apparent over the years that certain aspects of the Act and its operation have caused particular difficulties for Irish citizens.

When problems are brought to our notice we raise these with the British authorities and seek a solution. These contacts take place on a regular basis — the PTA is discussed on most occasions when I meet with British Ministers — but on two occasions in particular Irish Governments have made lengthy written submissions detailing our concern about the operation of the Act, based upon the representations we had received from Irish people affected by the legislation. The first occasion was in 1978, when Shackleton conducted a review of the operation of the Act. The second occasion was in 1983, when Jellicoe further reviewed its operation. Among the topics we raised in our submissions were the following: the numbers of innocent Irish people detained at points of entry and exit; the delays encountered while the identity of people was established; the importance of a sympathetic approach to the relatives and friends of those detained; the vital question of access to legal advice; the importance of notifying the Embassy when an Irish citizen is detained; aspects of the operation of the exclusion orders; the danger that the Act might be seen as harassing or intimidating the Irish community; the need to avoid discrimination against Irish citizens in matters such as the requirement to fill in landing cards; the need to avoid the use of the Act merely to gain information from those detained; difficulties encountered about the detention of minors; problems experienced by persons with names in Irish; the need to avoid publicity and respect individuals' right to privacy; the right of those detained to adequate treatment and conditions.

As a result of our representations and those made by others concerned with the legislation and its effects, there have been significant changes in the provisions of the Act and its operation, which go some way to alleviating the difficulties encountered by Irish citizens. First of all several of the petty difficulties which were regularly brought to the notice of the Embassy in the early seventies are now rarely the subject of complaint: the detention of children, the difficulties encountered by people with Irish names, or the lengthy delays while the identity of individuals was established.

There have also been improvements following our representations about four matters of major importance. First, a complaint which has been frequently brought to our notice, and which the Government have, in their turn, raised with the British authorities, is that the Act discriminates against Irish citizens. Statistics are not available to indicate what percentage of those detained under the Act were Irish citizens: the experience of the Embassy would suggest that a large number have been. Furthermore, the concentration of police activity within Britain upon members of the Irish community has led to a belief within that community that the effect of the Act is discriminatory.

There are two problems here: the Act itself, and the way in which it is implemented. With regard to the Act, I think that it is important that it should not be seen to be directed purely against Irish terrorism but against all terrorism, whether originating abroad or coming from within Britain. Terrorist violence in Britain is not confined to violence related to Northern Ireland and it would be more appropriate in principle, as well as more reflective of the situation as it exists, that the Act should apply to all terrorist acts regardless of the nationality of the suspected perpetrators. The new Act which came into force in March 1984 dealt for the first time with international terrorist violence as well as violence related to Northern Ireland. I have welcomed this and have proposed to the British authorities that they should take one step further in the next review of the legislation and apply the Act to all acts of terrorism, whether international or domestic.

Fears about unfair discrimination also arise from any insensitive, arbitrary or intimidatory application of the Act by the police forces charged with its enforcement. This is a particular problem in relation to police action within the Irish community in Britain. We have stressed that the Act must be applied with discretion and respect for the reputation of persons within their local community. The number of complaints from the Irish community on this point has decreased substantially over the past two years.

Problems have also arisen in relation to landing cards. Some confusion has been caused because the use of landing cards is discretionary to local police forces. That is why passengers may be asked to fill in cards at some ports and airports and not others, or at certain periods and not others. The British authorities have assured my Department recently that, whether or not all passengers on a particular flight or sailing are "carded", there is no question of discrimination against Irish citizens since British passport holders are as likely to be asked to fill in landing cards as anyone else.

The second major change in the Act relates to its operation. There has in recent years been a marked improvement in the selectivity with which the Act has been used. In both 1975 and 1976 over a thousand people were detained under the Act, and only 5 per cent of these charged with an offence. In 1984 only 159 people — the lowest figure since the Act's introduction — were arrested under the PTA in connection with Irish terrorism, and 16 per cent of these were subsequently charged with an offence. This represents progress on three issues which we have raised with the British authorities: fewer people are being detained — only a tiny proportion of those resident in Britain or who travel back and forth between Britain and Ireland; and more of those are being charged with an offence and found guilty, that is, fewer innocent people are being detained; and finally, as the reduction in the number of innocent people detained shows, there appears to be less use of the Act for the purpose of trawling for information.

The third major change in the PTA has been in the system of exclusion orders. As an administrative rather than judicial process, exclusion has in the past created difficulties for Irish citizens. Persons who had once been involved in terrorism but who had abandoned violence found that they could not appeal against the imposition of an exclusion order. Some found themselves excluded from Britain, where they had lived for a number of years and where their families remained. Following submissions made by the Irish Government and other interested parties, Shackleton and Jellicoe both recommended changes in the system, which have been accepted by the British authorities. As a result orders are now limited to three years, cannot be used against persons normally resident in Britain, and the provisions for appeal against such orders have been improved. The number of exclusion orders has dropped significantly from 49 in 1978 to only one last year.

Finally, perhaps the most important issue about which the Irish Government have made representations has been that of access to solicitors and the right to inform someone that one has been detained. This, in the Government's view, is a basic right of people in detention. To quote the words of my amendment "we strongly deplore the regular practice of denying legal access to detainees and information to relatives for a period of 48 hours or longer". I ask Dáil Éireann to support the Government in this view, which we have of course made clear without any possible room for doubt to the British Government.

The Government, in their submission to Jellicoe, particularly stressed the right of Irish citizens in this regard. Jellicoe's recommendation that those detained should have an absolute right to consult a solicitor and inform a member of their family or a friend of their detention was accepted by the British Home Secretary and incorporated in sections 56 and 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which will come into force in January 1986. As a result those detained will have a right to consult a solicitor and to inform a friend or member of their family within 48 hours of their detention.

This is progress and has been welcomed by all those who have sought to improve the operation of the Act as it affects Irish citizens. But major difficulties still remain, and my Department will not cease in its efforts to alleviate these, and to deal with cases of harassment or unfair treatment.

Two difficulties in particular have been raised again in recent contacts with the British authorities. I, like several of my predecessors, have urged the British authorities to agree to notify the Embassy whenever an Irish citizen is detained under the PTA. The British authorities have been reluctant to agree to this in all cases, pointing to the need in certain circumstances to withhold such information for fear of impeding their investigations. It may also be pointed out that the embassies of other nationals arrested under the PTA are not informed of their detention automatically.

I can assure Deputies, however, that I have pressed this point with the British authorities, seeking to reach an agreement which will improve the situation for those families anxiously seeking to ascertain whether a member has been detained under the PTA. I can now announce that, as a result of this pressure, the British authorities have agreed to a systematic improvement in the communication of information to the Irish Embassy regarding those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This will greatly increase our capacity to respond to the queries of relatives in almost all cases within the first 48 hours. I will continue to press for the Irish Embassy to be informed automatically and without exception when an Irish citizen is detained under the Act.

A second issue upon which I will continue to press the British authorities are the conditions under which those detained under the Act are held. As was pointed out in our submissions to Shackleton and Jellicoe, the special nature of the PTA, and the fact that people can be detained for up to seven days and then released without charge, makes it particularly important that special care should be paid to the conditions of detention, such as diet, exercise and general comfort. This point was accepted by both Shackleton and Jellicoe. Complaints, however, have been received by the Irish authorities that their recommendations on this count have not always been followed. The Irish Embassy and my Department will continue to monitor such complaints very carefully, and protest vigorously when we have grounds for concern.

I wish here to take the opportunity to encourage both individual Irish people and interested Irish groups or representatives in Britain and Ireland to communicate with the Irish Embassy in London or with the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin about any cases which come to their attention which involve abuses, or arbitrary or unsympathetic application of the legislation to Irish citizens. It is specific information of this kind which has allowed us in the past both to intervene effectively in individual cases, and to bring to the attention of the British authorities problems which give rise to general concern.

I have described the policy of successive Governments, policy which has been implemented by the Opposition when they were in power as well as ourselves. The motion put down by the Opposition seeks radically to change that policy. I can understand the strong feelings prompted by reports of recent alleged abuses and I am fully aware that this legislation is, in the words of the British Home Secretary, "draconian". It is a matter of great concern to me, however, that the Dáil should recognise that it was a campaign of bombing and murder which led to this draconian legislation.

We should also recognise that it is precisely the objective of those who engage in such violence to encourage repressive measures. They recently confirmed this. They thereby hope to cause dissension between Irish and British people, and create an atmosphere in which their evil acts will be tolerated and even flourish, and so ensure that the aim of every Irish Government to achieve political progress on the issue of Northern Ireland will never be fulfilled. I remind the House of what was said after the Brighton bombing. The IRA said it was by repressive legislation they would be assisted to go on to achieve their ambition to take over this country, North and South. I hope the House will remember that.

The motion put down by the Opposition is regrettable and I am sorry that they cannot support our amendment. I ask them to think again. A blanket condemnation of the Act ignores the violence which led to the legislation; it ignores the right of the British Parliament and people to defend themselves on their own soil against violence which has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians and violence which has been aimed at the heart of democracy as we know it in these islands; it ignores the fact that Irish citizens in Britain have the right to participate in the political process there; have the right to join political parties, gain election to Parliament and openly campaign against this legislation; finally, a blanket condemnation ignores the efforts made by Irish Governments, including the Opposition when in power, to have changes made in the scope and the operation of the legislation, and ignores the positive results which have been achieved by successive Governments.

In a recent issue, the principal newspaper of the Irish community in Britain, The Irish Post, featured a letters page which was headed “Keeping the PTA in proportion”. Against the background of the terrorist violence in Britain and of the fact that the vast majority of the Irish who have gone to Britain have been fairly treated and have led satisfactory lives, one correspondent stated, and I quote,

...Lets keep things in proportion. Let's protest at the Act in a positive and accurately directed manner, rather than over-reacting by believing or trying to convey that the entire Irish community is under a state of siege.

I think this is very good advice. I think I have shown in my statement this evening that I am as concerned as anybody else about problems experienced by Irish people in Britain under the prevention of terrorism legislation and that I am fully determined to uphold the rights of Irish citizens in Britain and elsewhere.

Recent public statements and media attention, however, may have given ordinary Irish people, who are completely innocent of any association with terrorist groups, the impression that it is dangerous for them to travel to Britain in current circumstances. When this Act first came into force in 1974, the number of detentions was far greater than it is now. More than 1,000 were detained in 1975 and over 1,000 were again detained in 1976. In 1978, 622 people were detained, and only 19 charged with an offence. In response to the representations of successive Irish Governments and particularly to our efforts of the past two years, the number of arrests has been falling and, as I have stated, amounted to 159 in 1984.

Therefore, I find it regrettable that the Opposition should choose this time to condemn the Act outright. When the Opposition were in Government in 1978, when only 19 out of the 622 people arrested under the Act were charged, they carefully maintained the position of successive Irish Governments, and of this Government, in accepting that the passing of anti-terrorist legislation was a matter for the British Government and Parliament to decide, and that the main task of the Irish Government was to protect the rights of Irish citizens and ensure that they were not mistreated. Yet now, when the Act itself has been amended substantially, and its operation has reached the level that far fewer people are detained, and, of these, a much higher proportion are actually charged, the Opposition are seeking to have it condemned outright.

The Opposition's motion states that the prevention of terrorism legislation is in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. I think we should be very careful about making a judgment like that in this particular case. I would simply note that aspects of the Act have already been tested before the European Human Rights institutions in the McVeigh case and that the legislation was found not to be in contravention of the relevant articles of the convention. This decision was made by the Committee of

Ministers on 24 March 1982. I understand that there are further cases, brought by individuals, at present before the Commission and of course I await the outcome of these cases with close interest.

I have given a summary of the activities of this and previous Irish Governments on the PTA. I would stress that I have not been able to mention all the issues which I have raised with the British authorities, but I have, I hope, dealt with the most important, and explained the seriousness with which the Government take their responsibility to help Irish citizens. I hope too that I have given those Deputies who criticise the Government some food for thought. Negative criticism is easy: what we have sought to do in relation to this Act is to propose constructive ways in which the burden borne by innocent Irish citizens in the fight against terrorism in Britain can be lightened. Let me repeat that if there are other points which Members of the Dáil or other responsible persons consider should be raised with the British authorities, whether in regard to the scope of the legislation, or in regard to its operation, I shall be very glad to consider doing so. I would hope that such concerns as exist would be raised during this debate.

Mr. Wilson

In practice it is a cliché of political action that when the argument is weak there is an indulgence in the argumentum ad hominem. Consequently, the Minister in starting his speech chose to take up a number of minutes attacking Deputy Gerry Collins and myself. In fact, he spent more time making a personal attack on Deputy Collins and me than he did in dealing with the European Convention on Human Rights. In itself that is an indication of the priorities in the Minister's mind with regard to the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is with great pleasure that I support our motion:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Prevention of Terrorism Act in its provisions and in its implementation—

more so in its implementation— as clearly discriminatory against Irish citizens and being in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and calls on the Government as a matter of urgency to seek the repeal of this legislation and to insist, in accordance with normal diplomatic practice elsewhere, that the Irish Embassy in London be immediately notified of any arrests of Irish citizens made under this Act.

In making the personal attack on Deputy Gerry Collins and me the Minister coupled Deputy Liam Fitzgerald. He vaunted and boasted that he had more contact with the Irish community than Deputy Fitzgerald and beat the drum about his acquaintance with them. If boasting is in order from the Minister I should like to tell him that I spent some time in the United Kingdom. I graduated from one of their universities and married a woman from the Anglo-Irish community in London. I am closely in touch with the position there and with the sentiments of the people. They are not the quiet bourgeois opinions that the Minister has put before the House tonight. For that reason all the more should Dáil Éireann pay attention to our motion and pass it with a resounding majority.

I am aware that there are Members of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party who in their heart of hearts support the sentiments and the ideas we have put forward in our motion. I should like to call the attention of the House to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states:

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law; (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

I should like to ask the House to pay attention to the statistics in that regard.

The article continues:

(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

Innocent citizens from here who travel to the UK by air or sea are not people who are detained for non-compliance of the lawful order of a court. They are ordinary citizens going about their business. They have incurred a certain odium in the community in which they live because they have been arrested without cause only to be released because no charges could be brought against them. Trawling for information has been mentioned and I am convinced that there is a great deal of that. I am convinced that the information is computerised and that Orwell's 1984 is in existence in so far as that little part of the national life in the UK is concerned. The article continues:

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

I ask the House to consider ex-Deputy Richie Ryan, Deputy Niall Andrews and Deputy Michael O'Kenedy in this context. One has to have a reductio ad absurdum to show how the Act is operating against our citizens.

Article 5 continues:

(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition;

The small number of people who have been charged and the even smaller number of those who have been convicted shows that the action of the UK under the PTA is not in accordance with the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 10 of the Convention states:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

My contacts among the Irish community in the United Kingdom are convinced that anyone who holds strongly republican principles vis-à-vis this country absolutely unconnected with violence and pursuing their philosophy in accordance with ordinary political activity are hauled in under this Act, humiliated and deprived of their liberty for a short or long period just to satisfy the UK Government and trawl for information.

Article 10 continues:

This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

I should now like to call the House's attention to Article 14 which states:

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

I must stress that sophisticated people who understand the workings of the society in which they live in the UK are convinced that the holding of certain political opinions causes people to be dragged in under the PTA. I am putting that before the House as something which I am sure the Minister and his officials know is true.

During Question Time I mentioned the denial of a telephone facility to people arrested under the 48 hours detention permitted under the Act. If the people who detain Irish citizens, or Anglo-Irish as the case may be, are acting in accordance with law why will they not make a telephone available to the citizens concerned so that they can get in touch with a legal adviser or some other person to inform them that they have been detained? What are they trying to hide if they are acting in accordance with law? The Minister referred to the Fianna Fáil Governments and their actions or lack of actions in the past but I should like to remind the House that the PTA was passed in the House of Commons at a time when the Coalition Government of 1973-77 was in office. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was a member of that Government. Legislation was put on the Statute Book in this part of the country at that time, with a seven days' detention, which pointed the way for the British Government.

It is important that we do not allow anybody to tar us with any type of violence brush because of the motion before the House. The motion before the House has been moved by a party that has condemned violence on all occasions. I submit humbly to the House that, were it not for the fact that Fianna Fáil held that philosophy from 1926 on, the country would have had a serious violence problem. Everybody knows how the Fianna Fáil Party was born and nurtured. The fact that we have the largest political party in the country with branches in every half parish had a consolidating effect on the country particularly as we adhered to that philosophy through thick and thin over the years.

This legislation has been called draconian. Draco would turn in his grave because of the use that is made of this Prevention of Terrorism Act. I intend to go through that quickly. I have already mentioned the articles in the Convention on Human Rights which I think are relevant to this motion.

Part I of the Act proscribes organisations. The United Kingdom Government have every right to take whatever steps, within reason, they wish to protect themselves. Nobody in this House condones bombing in Brighton, Birmingham or anywhere else, although I would like to reiterate the statement on this side of the House that there are grave doubts about conviction in the case of the Birmingham bombing. The organisations that are proscribed are interesting. There are other terrorist organisations operating in what is called the United Kingdom which are not mentioned. In a matter like this definitions are important. If terrorism is mentioned we are entitled to a definition of terrorism.

I was in the Six Counties when the Westminster elections were on and I saw terrorism being perpetrated by the people who are mentioned as the enforcers of this law on teenagers around the town of Newry, Crossmaglen and south Armagh. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We should be very careful that we know the definitions of terrorism. Institutional terrorism is as reprehensible as individual terrorism and if the institutions of State are used for terrorist purposes they deserve the same condemnation as those who planted the bomb in Brighton.

Part I section 2 reads:

(1) Any person who in a public place—

(a) wears any item of dress; or

I am not joking, this is in the Act——

(b) wears, carries or displays any article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, shall be guilty of an offence,...

The one thing a person learns when he lives in Britain is how little people know, even people you think should know, about this country. I think in many ways the media are to blame. They have the most sycophantic popular media in the world. It reminds me of the story of Lord Halifax and Goebbels. Lord Halifax charged Goebbels and said; "Why can you not allow freedom of the Press?" The notorious Nazi Minister replied: "If I had a Press like the one you have I would not have to censor it." Somebody walking down the Strand or Oxford Street on St. Patrick's Day wearing the shamrock in his lapel is in grave danger under this Act which says that "any person who in a public place wears any item of dress or wears, carries, or displays any article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable apprehension...". In an English bobby's mind the shamrock could be such an offensive emblem. The Irish Post should be warned that if citizens are wearing large bunches of shamrock — and exiles tend to wear huge bunches of shamrock — they should have their solicitors' phone numbers at the ready on St. Patrick's Day.

I want to deal now with exclusion orders which were covered well by Deputy Fitzgerald. I have a photostat of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1984, but I do not know if this is the amended Act. From reading section 4 it appears that the British are very anxious that only people from Ireland should be covered in this legislation. Deputy Fitzgerald said he thinks there were some amendments and that the Act has been extended to other nationalities but the burden of the Act indicates that it was aimed specifically at Irish citizens. I do not know why English people are excluded. It is not so long since we had a British terrorist here who held up a family, robbed a bank and was associating with certain members of the British aristocracy. We all know the voyeuristic way British aristocrats on occasion like to consort with such people.

A law which does not extend to everybody seems to be discriminatory. If an exclusion order is in question, where do they exclude them to? Let us take the example of Northern Ireland. They claim that all citizens of the Six Counties are British citizens although many of them, as we all know, carry Irish passports. What is the legal significance of that? We do not know but we do know that English jurists condemned a twisting of English law before in order to condemn William Joyce, but I do not know what a British citizen is in the context of Northern Ireland and if they are to be excluded by an exclusion order, where are they to be excluded from? Will they be sent to an unknown country? The Republic of Ireland is not mentioned, but it seems that in many provisions of this Act the finger is pointing towards the Irish Republic.

One of the jokes of the Act is that people are entitled to a personal interview. I suppose this is a sop to the great system of democracy about which we read so much in the English context but frankly it is the kind of personal interview I would not like to have with the United Kingdom authorities if and when I was arrested. A list of miscellaneous offences is also mentioned at Part III, section 10, which reads:

(1) If any person—

(a) solicits or invites any other person to give, lend or otherwise make available, whether for consideration or not, any money or other property...

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine...

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to a fine, or both...

(5) The acts of terrorism to which this part of this Act applies are acts of terrorism connected with Northern Irish affairs.

Section 11 raises hackles in every Irish circle and deals with information. It reads:

(1) If a person who has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance—

(a) in preventing the commission by any other person of an act of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies; or

(b) in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for an offence involving the commission...

It has been mentioned from this side of the House that information gathering is essential to the purpose of this Act and for that reason I am very suspicious of that section. The framers of that Bill must not know anything of the Irish ethos if they think they can make it respectable by putting it into a British Act that an informer is in some way to be rewarded. Information is given in most countries which have not the kind of history we have. An ordinary well meaning English citizen will help the forces of law and order to the full extent of his ability but in Ireland we have had a tradition which is contrary to that ethos and that is why, as well as the fact that it was a perversion of law and justice, we took such a strong line on the supergrass trials which have taken place in the Six Counties.

Debate adjourned.