The order of speakers shall be: 7 p.m. to 7.10 p.m., Deputy P. Gallagher; 7.10 p.m. to 7.25 p.m., Deputy Kenny; 7.25 p.m. to 7.40 p.m., Deputy Michael O'Leary; 7.40 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., a Fianna Fáil speaker; 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m., Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and the debate will be concluded in the remaining 15 minutes by a speaker of the Opposition.
Private Members' Business. - UK Prevention of Terrorism Act: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy G. Collins on Tuesday, 5 February 1985:
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.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
(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.
—(Minister for Foreign Affairs.)
Acting Chairman
In the few moments available to me I wish to refer briefly to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which in its operation and application is essentially a racist Act. It is aimed primarily, indeed only, at the Irish people. The Act is used unjustifiably and indiscriminately not only against the Irish community in Britain but against Irish people travelling to and from Britain. We must appreciate that there are many Irish people living in that country who have contributed enormously to its welfare and life. The normal rights of individuals are being suspended by this Act. It allows for the detention of persons incommunicado for up to seven days. People detained under the Act can be left without legal advice for up to 48 hours and in some cases for even longer.
The Act is used on most occasions as an information gathering operation and not necessarily to question people suspected of having committed a crime, as a brief reference to statistics between November 1974 and September 1983 will prove. During that time almost 6,000 people were arrested but only about 2½ per cent of those were charged and of those charged only about 9 per cent were found guilty.
I should like to refer briefly to the exclusion order which applied, especially in the past, to Northern Ireland. That was a system of deportation within the jurisdiction of the UK. People suspected under the Prevention of Terrorism Act have no redress. There is no financial compensation for such items as loss of earnings, travelling expenses and so on. We must spare a thought for the many lorry drivers who, while carrying perishable goods between Ireland and the UK, are detained without there being any compensation for those goods in the event of their deteriorating and not being usable as a result of the delay. What is of vital importance is that those 6,000 people who were detained for questioning for the period I have mentioned will be suspect forever more. Those 6,000 people are suspect and their character and reputation has been tarnished as a result of this Act.
The landing card, which is part of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1976, is aimed at the Irish people. It is an infringement of civil liberties. It does not apply to the British travelling to or from this country. This suggests that all the problems are coming from this side but all the problems are within what they like to call the UK jurisdiction and they should be able to contain it within the UK without harrassing Irish people day in and day out. Indeed, Irish people travelling to the Continent from Britain are hauled in on the west side of the UK. It is having a serious effect not alone on the individuals but on business generally here. At one time when we had a flight from Dublin to Derry it was necessary to fill in a card such as this. No Government should condone this system. I refused to sign the card at Derry Airport and there were no problems. I would ask the masses to refuse to sign it but I would only do so if they had the support of the Government.
From my experience and from the experiences related to me by persons travelling from my county through Northern Ireland and to the United Kingdom I know that people are experiencing tremendous difficulties. They are finding themselves held in detention for up to seven days. Their families are not alerted and neither is the Irish Embassy. They are completely isolated. If the Act cannot be repealed we suggest that the Irish Embassy must be informed immediately some Irish citizen, whether they be living here or the UK, is arrested. The Act clearly discriminates against Irish citizens. It violates the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act should be repealed, as recommended in the Fianna Fáil motion. The Government should accept our motion and exert every pressure on the British Government to appeal this Act. The Minister for Foreign Affairs last night referred to a sympathetic improvement in the communication of information to the Embassy. We are not satisfied with that. We want the Irish Embassy to be informed immediately any Irish citizen is hauled in under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The Deputy has a minute left.
The Government must accept our motion and condemn this Act outright. There is no point in condemning it reservedly. We must stop this policy of appeasement pursued by the present Government in relation to the UK Government. We must stand up and be counted.
There are threads of reason running through the Fianna Fáil motion and Deputy Gallagher has just conceded the case by stating that the Government should put pressure on the British Government to "appeal" the Act. Those were the Deputy's words and they deviate substantially from the wording of the Fianna Fáil motion. The Deputy did not choose his words too carefully.
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I have listened to the Fianna Fáil speakers for the last two evenings and there has been substantial deviation from the terms of their motion. Deputy Collins referred to the alleged fudging by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, of the plastic bullets issue, in relation to the supergrass trials and so on. This has nothing to do with the motion in their name.
It is important to understand, as the Minister pointed out last night, that the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism Act is not a good Act and the 1984 legislation is better. The previous one was written, in the main, by Roy Jenkins who was then seen to be a good, liberal person. It seems that many are in the catch 22 situation and cannot speak out in relation to possible or alleged abuses of the legislation for fear of giving offence and because of the necessity for silence. The 1974 legislation entitles the British Home Secretary or the Government to proscribe an organisation, to exclude individuals and to arrest individuals on the grounds of reason for belief of foul intent. I came into this House in 1975, and I noted that 1,057 people had been arrested in that year. The percentage rate charged was 5.9 per cent. The numbers dropped in 1979 to 857, with 12.6 percentage rate of charge. In 1983 the number was 191, with 16.2 percentage rate of charge. While one might say that the changes in the law have led to an increased rate of charge and, therefore, greater detectability under the Act, and while they speak well from a factual point of view, there are indications that the Irish Embassy and our Government have had quite a lot of work to do over the last number of years.
In all that time since 1975, I do not remember Fianna Fáil Governments of those years calling for the condemnation and repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I do not recall motions having been put down by their then Minister for Foreign Affairs calling for such measures. It is rather coincidental that Fianna Fáil speakers should now put down motions calling for such condemnation and repeal. They had their chance on more occasions than one and chose not to take it. To stand on the Opposition benches and call for these measures is hypocrisy.
The Deputy is not in favour of it?
As the Minister pointed out last night, the Provisional IRA are, in the main, responsible for keeping this legislation on the books. They have a vested interest in keeping on the books what is a natural weapon of propaganda for themselves. One must tread with caution in these areas.
The first basic principle is that the rule of law must be preserved in any democratic country and it must win out in any civilised society. That principle operates here, too, with the Offences against the State Act. I do not hear the Fianna Fáil members calling for the condemnation and repeal of that Act, also. Whatever legislation is on the books, it does not mean that the establishment of the day must not also be bound by the rule of law. The people charged with the responsibility of keeping that law must be extremely careful in protecting it. Some years ago, in Dublin, 22 people were killed. That must never be allowed to happen again. The same situation arose in Britain where we had the Hyde Park, Harrods and Brighton bombings. These must not be allowed to happen. This Government agree that it is necessary to have legislation in civilised societies for the protection of their own people. However, its implementation must be carried out with extreme caution and care. There must be a controlling agent. That it is possible for madmen masquerading as Irish patriots to break into the hotel headquarters in Brighton of the ruling party of a nation of 56 million people, the equivalent of our own Ard Fheis, and kill and maim indiscriminately warns us. That people who were misguided in their own interests could get into this Chamber some years ago also warns us. The responsibility vested in the Government must be treated with due care. The right Honourable Member for Finchley, Margaret Thatcher, must behave. If the gross excesses of subversives, with their foul and dastardly deeds, might tempt her to exceed her duties, that would always be wrong and would have to be condemned.
It is sad that the central corps of justice, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Justice, the Taoiseach of the day, protectors of our civil rights and liberties have to deal in secret and silent ways with these matters. It has been pointed out that when persons are arrested, knowledge of these facts cannot be given too freely to the public because of the cloud of suspicion which hangs over families, friends and relations.
Deputy Gallagher is misguided in his interpretation of this Act. It is not discriminatory against Irish people, because it also applies to international terrorism, having been updated to take account of this. Introduced originally in 1974 as a result of the Birmingham bombings, it could have been said to have been implemented for that specific reason, but the Act as it now stands takes into account all international terrorism. Because of having to deal in silence and behind the scenes, the public perception often grows, on arrest, that it is discriminatory towards certain people or a certain nationality. Because of the cloud of suspicion that can hang over families, the Embassy and the Department must proceed with great care. There have been cases where people arrested and detained might not have families or friends to look after them and avoidable situations have to be treated with great care by the staff of the Embassy. The Minister pointed out the valuable work done by the staff of the embassy in London. He gave a case of one person having to deal with a 14 hour case very close to the end of the year. It is fair to say that there is a clear degree of concern and understanding on the part of the Government and the Embassy in relation to these cases. The Minister has made it perfectly clear that this Government will not stand for abuse in so far as our people are concerned in the implementation of the legislation.
I happen to be vice-president of the Irish Club in Eaton Square and have contact with many thousands of Irish people. As was pointed out recently by our Ambassador in London, there are 750,000 Irish people living in Britain, many have built the cities and highways of that country, having served in her army with distinction and gained honours in that field. They have gained achievements in politics, business and practically every facet of life in Britain. These people have had a part to play and are still playing that part. They are proceeding in their normal life without undue hindrance to their daily work. That is something about which we can be justly proud. However, the small minority who are terribly misguided in their efforts have branded us all as bad eggs. It is necessary to have such legislation on the books, but to prevent abuses in its implementation it is necessary to point out these facts.
The concern of the Minister has been voiced that there is still a disproportion between the numbers detained and the numbers charged. Those who have been detained and not charged afterwards can live under a cloud of suspicion if facts are made public. When they cannot be made public, the perception grows that the Act in its implementation is discriminatory. The shadow of the Act may hang over many Irish people in Britain and it is probably fair to say that every time a bombing occurs, carried out by the Provisional IRA, that leads to suspicion of ordinary Irish people in their everyday work in Britain. I am sure that the Minister and his British counterpart have discussed this matter in detail and that a degree of understanding has been shown by the British but there is still some way to go down that road. The trend of Government is to continue in that manner.
I have not up to date figures of the numbers of people arrested, detained and charged who come from other terrorist organisations but to contend that it is discriminatory against Irish people only is not a true statement. The Act will be updated by way of the 1984 legislation which has not yet come into effect and will introduce various changes. The Taoiseach and Minister have already told the British Prime Minister and the Minister's counterpart of the necessity for the implementation of the provisions of the legislation with understanding and concern. We on this side of the House certainly do not want to see the ordinary rights and liberties of our citizens discriminated against in any way through misunderstanding on the far side of the water. I am quite confident in the Minister's ability to continue in that vein, to ensure that the legislation is amended further in the context in which he is at present speaking to the British authorities.
It is quite appropriate that this House should be discussing the Prevention of Terrorism Act here this evening since it was recently the subject of discussion in the British House of Commons. That Act, described as draconian by some of its critics in the Commons means that this House, likewise, must record its disapproval of many of its provisions in so far as they impinge on Irish citizens and their rights.
Perhaps it is not for us in this House to question the competence of the British authorities in devising legislation for their territory even if such offends against due process and other articles of legal right held sacred in this country. It is right for us to be vigilant, to ensure that no inequity arises in relation to Irish citizens as a result of any measure of the British Parliament. There is no doubt but that the Prevention of Terrorism Act poses a great reversal of the concept of due process and the rule of law. There is the power to ban organisations on secret evidence without a hearing or right of appeal. There is the vague offence of supporting such banned groups. It is ironic that when the United Kingdom Government criticise the USSR for the internal exile of Anton Sakharov and other dissidents that the British Government themselves possess the very same identical power of exile within their territory.
The matter that concerns us here for the most part is the power of arrest and detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That represents the largest infringement of civil liberties as far as I am concerned. Judging by the contributions of many in this debate, that would appear to be the feeling of many Deputies who contributed. According to the Jellicoe Report, which examined the operations of the Act in February 1983, of those arrested, a very small proportion, 5 per cent only, were ever convicted of offences. In general this Act is designed to fish for information, to detain for long periods those whom the police are anxious to interrogate. Nobody in this debate would wish to question the right of a democratic administration to react to measures of terrorism, none of us would do that. But we must be on our guard that any measure decided on in the British Parliament — in relation to our nationals at any rate — should not treat them in an inequitable fashion or discriminate against them particularly. We must not forget that the provisions of the Act permit great power to the Home Secretary, particularly the provision that concerns us most, the holding of a person without recourse to legal advice for up to 48 hours. I came into the Chamber as Deputy Kenny was making the point that, admittedly under the new Police Criminal Evidence Act, after 48 hours, there will be this right to legal advice. There has been no statutory incorporation of the right of legal access in Britain. It is a constitutional right within our jurisdiction but that is not the case in Britain. But it will follow, under the Police Criminal Evidence Act, once it comes into operation, that there will be this right of access after 48 hours.
The question has been raised in this debate whether our embassy in London should be notified of the arrest of Irish citizens under the Act. We must continue our pressure to ensure that the embassy is notified automatically in any case of the arrest of any of our nationals under this Act. It would be helpful also to understand that at least under two administrations representations have been made to the British authorities. There was the Shackleton examination of the working of this Act in 1978 when representations were made by the then Government to the Shackleton Commission on the Irish Government's reservations about the operations of the Act as of then. Recently we made similar representations to the Jellicoe Committee who again reviewed the working of the Act. I would suggest that the Minister should consider the releasing of the material presented by the Irish Government, the kinds of criticisms we offered in 1978, and most recently in relation to the review by Earl Jellicoe, that we should release those two sets of representations and ensure that people are made aware that the Irish Government, whatever their political complexion, are maintaining a viligant eye on the operation of this Act.
There was a recent debate in the House of Commons when a member for the Liverpool constituency — I think speaking in a Commons debate — said that innocent people had had their fingerprints and photographs taken and kept on file, that people detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act has lost the opportunity of promotion at work. I should like to see these statements of that member for Liverpool — where there is a large Irish community — investigated further. I know it is the position that our embassy in London have officials working more or less full time on examination of the operation of this Act. But the Irish Government at this point should draw up their own case file on its operation, ascertaining whether there is any substance in these very serious charges brought in the British House of Commons by a member for Liverpool, that people are discriminated against by way of promotion in their jobs. The very fact of them having been called in to be questioned under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, in itself, represents a blow to these Irish people who have been living in Britain for many years in local communities and, he maintains, in some instances, led to questions about their ability to obtain promotion in their positions. That is a matter to which the full time attention of our embassy in London should be devoted.
If one can talk about improvement of a measure which makes such heavy incursions into the liberties of the citizen, one might contend that there has been some improvement in its operation over the years. For example, in 1978 there were 622 detentions and 19 people charged; in 1984 150 people were detained and 23 charged. If one is to talk about some improvement of an Act which has such far-reaching powers, which abridges so radically the liberties of the ordinary citizen, over the years — perhaps as a result of representations by various Irish Governments, various review bodies and the concern of the British House of Commons on the matter — then the fact is that there has been at least this reduction in the ratio between the numbers detained and those charged, that at least that has improved and is not quite as bad as it was in 1978. This House must continue to keep a very close eye indeed on its operation. None of us on any side of this House would support the winning by force or by violence of political results, which is the essence of what terrorism is about. None of us on any side of the House supports the obtaining of political ends by these violent means.
We must ensure that in defending democratic freedoms the State does not go overboard in abridging the rights of ordinary citizens. There is some evidence that the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Britain has had an anti-Irish bias in its operation to date. Our Embassy in London must be very vigilant. Perhaps it is not necessary to appoint a full time lawyer attached to the Embassy to watch the operation of the Act, but it requires the attention, if it has not got it already, of a full time official in the Embassy.
Perhaps it would be advisable for us to release the representations made by the Government in 1978 to the Shackleton committee and to release our recent representations to the Jellicoe committee about the working of this Act. That would reassure the public that the Irish Government remain concerned and vigilant about this very important matter.
Deputy Woods has 15 minutes and Deputy O'Hanlon has 15 minutes.
Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion in the name of Deputy Vincent Brady:
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.
I was somewhat surprised at the approach of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. His amendment:
, ... 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,...
The Minister knows that the period is seven days and the first 48 hours are only the initial period. Towards the end of his own speech he raised that point. The attitude of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Government in meekly accepting the continuation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is an abrogation of their duty to protect Irish citizens both while travelling and living abroad. Deputies on both sides of the House have made this point very clearly and have given very good examples in the course of this debate.
The Minister failed to grasp the real significance and impact of this price of legislation which violates the internationally respected civil rights of Irish citizens. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is almost exclusively directed against the Irish communities in the Republic, the North of Ireland and Great Britain. The Republic is repeatedly mentioned in the revised Act of 1984 and is the only other country to which the Act specifically applies. I heard Deputy Kenny say there was some amelioration in the 1984 Act. I will refer to that later and show that the amelioration is very minor.
The Republic is mentioned repeatedly in the revised Act. The Act repeatedly excludes acts of terrorism not related to the British Government's policies concerning the North of Ireland. The power to stop, search and detain suspects in relation to exclusion orders only applies to acts "designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland." In defence of the Government's stance which effectively supports the Prevention of Terrorism Act, while expressing deep concern, the Minister referred to our own legislation which is designed to counter the use of violence for political ends. The essential difference which he has failed to grasp and to outline to Members of the House is that our legislation applies to any person whose actions are calculated to undermine public order and the authority of the State. I quote that from the Act. It is not selectively applied against any communities and it is accompanied by safeguards for persons in custody such as the safeguard of having recourse to a solicitor.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act has been the subject of widespread condemnation in Britain by both politicians and the public. So concerned was the British Parliament with this selective and repressive legislation that it directed that the Prevention of Terrorism Act may only continue in force for a maximum of four more years. The Act is dated 22 March 1984. The total period is five years. Since one year has elapsed, we can take it that it can remain in force for four more years only. Its principal provisions will expire on 22 March 1985 unless there is a difference in the implementation date of some of the provisions. The Secretary of State may then renew any or all of these offensive provisions, or may allow them to lapse. There is that option. That is set out in the Act in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State. He has the power of renewal which he can exercise. Under section 13 the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide for the examination of persons, and so on. He has power to renew it if he considers that necessary.
It is important that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should make it quite clear to his counterpart in Britain that he should not renew these offensive provisions and that he should allow them to lapse. The Minister made no reference to this option in his speech last night. He obviously does not want the Oireachtas to be aware of this. He cannot, therefore, have any intention of pressing the British Government to dispense with even the most degrading and discriminatory provisions of the Act. What confidence can the Irish public and the Irish communities in Britain and the North of Ireland have in a Minister who so obviously fails to represent their interest and their basic human right to just and fair treatment?
Anything less than a blanket condemnation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act as currently in force ignores the very serious deficiencies of this draconian measure. The Prevention of Terrorism Act must not continue in its present form. It could be superseded by an Act which would apply more equally. The following are some of the steps which should be taken:— (1) The Act must be expanded to cover all forms of terrorism and the aspects that discriminate against the Irish communities must be removed. (2) The right of immediate access to a solicitor must be guaranteed now. (3) Habeus Corpus must be restored in Prevention of Terrorism Act cases. (4) Evidence not conforming to normal rules of evidence must be excluded. (5) Adequate safeguards against harassment must be established. (6) The Embassy must be informed without delay of all arrests of Irish citizens under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. (7) The aspects of this Act which require citizens to inform on neighbours and relatives must be removed to prevent extraordinary invasions of privacy, for instance the fishing expeditions.
We know there have been changes but very often they are peripheral to the main powers given in the Act. For instance, you can now only be arrested on warrant under the information section whereas previously you could be arrested without warrant. That is a invasion into the privacy of the Irish citizens. We have heard from Deputies on both sides of the House how that Act has operated to frighten innocent people and to put them at a disadvantage.
Until all these provisions are in force nothing less than a blanket condemnation will suffice. The watered down amendment the Minister has proposed ignores the most odious aspects of the Act. The Act is so clearly and widely deficient in its safeguards of human rights that it must be condemned and should be repealed. The expiration of the major provisions of this Act next month gives the Minister an opportunity to make major advances in regard to improving the Act. The Minister should be discussing this matter urgently with the British Government. Should he fail to achieve real improvements he should then bring the matter to a higher court.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act and its discriminatory enforcement should be brought before the Commission on Human Rights for either a friendly settlement or a full court hearing. Many aspects of the Prevention of Terrorism Act appear to contravene EC rules and regulations. The Government must not rest until this Act is repealed. If this Government will not speak in defence of Irish interests, then who will?
I was surprised at the Minister's approach to this Act. He seemed to be so pleased that some concessions had been awarded that he was very meekly accepting them and advising us to recognise the benefits we gained through the crumbs thrown to us. This Act is clearly discriminatory. No free country in the world would not recognise that this Act discriminates specifically against Irish people. Part II section 3 (6) says that the acts of terrorism to which this part of the Act applies are acts of terrorism designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to affairs in Northern Ireland. This provision still remains in the Act. Let us not cod ourselves into thinking that other people have been brought into this Act thus making it more equal. There is no equality in this legislation. There has been a minor amendment in that regard but it remains to be seen if and when it will be implemented. I do not have time to go through each section and point out where it discriminates against the Irish people but if anybody wants me to point out the sections, I will be willing to do so later. I am surprised the Minister did not examine these sections because they stand out like lights in the middle of a bog.
Part IV deals with arrest, detention and port powers. Section 12 (3) says that the acts of terrorism to which this Part of this Act applies are acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and acts of terrorism of any other description except acts connected solely with the affairs of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland. If we look through this legislation we will see many references to Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the North of Ireland and there is no doubt about the intentions behind this Act. The territories affected under this Act are once again the North of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and they mention us yet another time. There is no doubt that even as it stands this Act relates particularly to the Irish communities.
Part II, section 7 (9) says:
In subsection (8) above "an appropriate country or territory" means—
(a) Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland....
(b) Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland....
(c) the Republic of Ireland....
There is no mention of terrorists from any other country. Any change made in that respect has been very minor.
I am not satisfied with the Minister's expression of deep concern at the possibilities of abuse. We want him to ask for a major repeal of this Act. Those who are sensible and honourable on the other side of the ocean are also looking for this legislation to be repealed and that is the least the Minister should look for. I totally reject his suggestion that we are asking for too much at this stage.
I agree with my colleague, Deputy Woods, that this Act is used against the Irish people. It is a racist Act against the Irish people which is causing serious problems for the Irish in Britain, the people who did a lot to build the British economy and infrastructure over the years. These people now find themselves the victims of this very repressive legislation. We all deplore violence used to further any aims, and this has been condemned in this House time and again, but the fact that there has been violence in Britain is no justification for this legislation where persons can be lifted and inprisoned for up to seven days, and for 48 hours without having access to legal advice or to anybody else.
Under this legislation 6,000 people have been arrested but only 150, 2½ per cent, were charged. That is an indication of the misue of this legislation because if appears people are being lifted not because they are suspected of being involved in violence or subversive activity, but because the police may gather information from them. Many people have been taken for questioning about their neighbours and people in their own towns. There was a case reported in the media today of somebody going from Sligo to Castleblayney who was taken by the UDR. They described horrific scenes of the way they were treated and questioned about the people in their neighbourhood. This is something we are totally opposed to.
The police are entitled to do their work but this type of legislation is used solely against one particular community. Last night the Minister told us that while there were not exact figures of the numbers or the citizenship of the various people this Act was used against, the Irish Embassy was satisfied that in the main it was used against people. It appears that this legislation is being used mainly to try to collect information because I have no doubt that many of the people taken in are innocent of any charge. The Government here are not discharging their responsibilities and have taken a softly softly line. If we see injustice anywhere we should not be afraid to stand up in this House and condemn it. We are satisfied that injustice is being done to Irish citizens under this legislation.
In the last Dáil session the Government did not condemn supergrass trials. Fianna Fáil put down a moderate motion condemning the supergrass trials structure which is totally against the concept of justice or the legal system anywhere else in the civilised world. The Government did not see fit to support that condemnation. They put down an amendment which they carried through the House although many of their backbenchers had spoken in favour of our motion to condemn the system. The Government's amendment was merely to note the system. Since then, the Raymond Gilmour trial collapsed in Belfast and the comments made by Mr. Justice Lowry at the conclusion of the case should have made the Government and those who supported the amendment ashamed of themselves for not condemning the system out of hand. The same applied to plastic bullets and the Government have an amendment to this motion also which will not condemn the Prevention of Terrorism Act even though it discriminates against our citizens in the UK for whom we have responsibility.
The exclusion orders made under the Act contain an element of hypocrisy because, in many cases, they exclude people from Britain and return them to another part of the United Kingdom, the Six Counties. It is extraordinary that you can implement an exclusion order from one part of a country to another. I am not happy that the Six Counties is part of the United Kingdom but the Prime Minister referred to the Six Counties as being as much a part of Britain as Finchley. I am sure that the British Government would not consider sending somebody to Finchley, telling them that they could remain there but that they could not go to any other part of Britain. That is the ludicrous situation that exists as a result of this Act.
Another serious aspect is that people who are detained for seven days are not entitled to compensation or have no redress if they are incorrectly held. A lorry driver with a perishable load could be arrested at a port on arrival and held for seven days. His load of perishable goods would probably have to be destroyed and he gets nothing by way of compensation. The Minister told us last night about the various topics which had been raised by the Government with the British Government arising out of the operation of this Act. He went on to say that there had been significant changes. He enumerated some which are now rarely the subject of complaint, the detention of children, the difficulties encountered by people with Irish names or lengthy delays while identification of individuals is established. I do not see those as significant changes except perhaps the non-detention of children. The others are not significant changes in the context of the effects of being held for seven days, particularly when one considers that many of these people were going about their normal, legitimate business. I gave the example of the lorry driver with the perishable load.
The other serious implication is the number of young people detained under this Act. If only 2½ per cent of the total number held since 1974 have been charged, one could conclude that many of these people were incorrectly held in custody. This is not in the interests of young people and will certainly not instil in them the respect which they should have for a legal system. The British perception of justice is that their judicial system compares favourably with anything in the civilised world. That is not the experience of Irish people living over there or of people here who are interested in justice. While we all condemn violence, nevertheless justice should be administered in a humane way. I will give one or two examples in which no humanity was shown. The Gillespie sisters from Donegal were within six weeks of being released from jail in Birmingham. Their father died during that six weeks and they were not allowed out for his funeral. I do not condone their crimes but I believe that if any other nationality had been involved, the British authorities would have allowed them to attend the funeral. Shane Doherty has done nine years of a 14 years sentence. He has been transferred from one prison to another and totally reformed and rehabilitated. Numerous representations have been made by very responsible people opposed to violence, including Cardinal Ó Fiaich, to have him transferred to the North where his aged mother could visit him. There is also the case of Giuseppi Conlon who was arrested and charged when he went to England to visit his son. He was imprisoned on evidence which many people said was very dubious. He died in prison as a result of tuberculosis. These are examples where humane treatment was not given to Irish prisoners and I believe if they had been from any other country they would have received better treatment.
We have the extraordinary situation where persons cleared by the RUC in the North can travel to Britain and are arrested by Scotland Yard under this Act. I should like to ask the Minister of State if citizens of other countries have to fill in this pink landing card when they arrive in Britain. We have an agreement regarding common movement between the two countries and one is allowed to move freely without carrying a passport. In spite of this it says at the end of this card you may be required to furnish proof of identity. Either you have to have proof of identity or you do not. I do not see why Irish people should be subjected to having to produce proof of identity when there is agreement about common movement between the two countries.
I have a letter here which was sent to a Deputy. It is from an Irish couple living in England and expresses the anxiety felt by them in relation to this Act. The last three lines of the letter read:
I would also ask that in the event of anything happening to Tommy and myself that you would help to get Carla, our 3½ year old daughter, back to Ireland.
That is the kind of fear Irish people are living in as a result of this legislation. I appeal to the Government, instead of telling us that they have resolved the difficulties of people with Irish names having to endure lengthy delays in establishing their identities, to do something positive to ensure that Irish citizens will not be harassed.
The central focus of this motion is a call on the Government to seek the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It seems as if Fianna Fáil are guilty of gross political opportunism in making this demand. There is an old saying "by their fruits you shall know them". This Act has been in force since 1974. When Fianna Fáil were in office at a time when four times the number of Irish people were being detained under this Act as are being detained at present they made no such call. Now freed from the duties and responsibilities of office they consider it politically opportune to call for a repeal of this Act. One can fairly ask why a party, which now feels free to make this call from the Opposition benches, notably failed to do so while in office.
The central objective of my Government in this connection is to ensure that the rights of Irish citizens are fully protected whether in the UK or elsewhere. Specifically in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act we, as did the Opposition when in office, have sought, in many cases successfully, to bring about amendments to the Act. Additionally we have sought, as also did the Opposition when in office, to ensure that the Act was implemented in a manner which would not discriminate against Irish citizens or be used to harass them. The success of our efforts is borne out by the record.
At this stage Government policy is to continue our efforts as heretofore and specifically to ensure that the Embassy in London is informed automatically of the detention of any Irish citizen so that we may inform the relatives immediately. We are seeking access to legal representation on request. We also insist that those detained should be well treated and in particular should have access to medical facilities if required. These are but a few of our demands in relation to the amendment of the Act. Additionally we have immediately investigated every complaint brought to our attention relating to insensitive or discriminate application of the Act and have sought explanations from the UK Government. We have raised these matters with the British from time to time and they have investigated complaints where we have been able to furnish specific information.
Unfortunately terrorism is a fact of modern political life. It is something which democracies in particular need to protect themselves against. We know this, and we have adopted legislation to defend ourselves against those who would work to destroy the institutions of our State by violent means. I am speaking of the Provisional IRA and other subversive organisations. Is the suggestion of the Opposition now that we should not have such legislation or that other Governments are not similarly entitled to defend themselves from terrorist violence?
To give a short brief reply, no. We do not discriminate against British citizens.
I will deal with the Deputy's contribution shortly. No Irish Government have condemned the Act outright or sought its total repeal. All Irish Governments have sought amendments to the Act and improvements in its implementation. Having said that, it does not mean that I or the Government like the Act or approve of all its details. Like previous Governments we have sought to have changes made to specific provisions of the Act and to the way in which it is implemented. Appeasement of the British Government is no part of my or the Government's approach. Neither is appeasement of terrorists part of our approach.
This Act was originally enacted because of terrorism, and the continuation of terrorism has kept it in force. It is relevant to recall who has suffered from this terrorism. While the victims have in many instances been selected on an indiscriminate basis it is clear that in some cases directly and in many other cases indirectly, the Irish community in the UK have suffered from in particular Provo terrorism in that country. Three quarters of a million of our citizens are in the UK and there are many more of Irish descent. Our concern must be, above all, to look after their interests.
I listened to the contribution made by Deputy Woods and, as with other speakers from the opposition, he began by referring to the terms of the motion and by repeating the request for a repeal of this legislation. Then the inconsistency of his approach, which is the inconsistency underlining the whole approach in this motion and of the Fianna Fáil contributions, came to the surface. He said "This Act must not continue in its present form". That would seem to mean that Deputy Woods would like to see amendments made to the Act. If an Act is repealed it is taken off the Statute Book, but if one says it must not continue in its present form one suggests amendments to it.
It was repealed twice, once in 1976 and again in 1984. There was no problem repealing it then. Read the Act.
Less of the semantics. Tell us what will be done.
The Minister sounds like a British establishment politician in the best Tory tradition.
Deputy Woods suggested the type of changes he would like to see made to the Act. There is a large measure of common ground between the Opposition and the Government. While I did not have an opportunity, not knowing shorthand, to note down each of the specific points made, it seemed to me when he referred to the need for access to lawyers and the need to inform the embassy that these are the very amendments we are seeking. On that basis it seems that while the motion is termed in a certain way the Opposition are in a large measure of agreement with the approach that was adopted by them when in office. I will not get into the area of dispute but we think we are making greater efforts to seek amendments to the Act.
The Government are friendlier and they co-operate more.
I do not want any of the Deputy's cheap political jibes. He had his opportunity to speak.
I have already made my point clear. I have made known my views in public.
If it is part of the Deputy's approach to prevent other speakers from making their views known I do not accept it.
My approach is to protect Irish citizens.
The Minister of State should be allowed to continue without interruption.
It seems that the points raised by Deputy Woods when he spoke about the Act not continuing in its present form are largely along the lines that were clearly set out by the Minister last night. On that basis I suggest that the terms in which the motion is couched are entirely incorrect. They are not supported by the arguments adduced by the Opposition. The amendment put down by the Government should be supported by the Opposition in the light of the arguments they put forward. The amendment by the Government should be supported by all sides. I do not like the Act——
Why not do something about it.?
We are doing something about it. Having said I do not like the Act, even more I do not like the acts of violence and terrorism that are the basis for this Act.
Neither do we like them.
Good. I am glad we have that on the record. Amendments have been made to the Act and more should be made.
Two different issues.
We will continue to press for these amendments. This seems to be a more sensible course of action and more beneficial to the Irish in the UK than an ill-argued opportunistic call for the repeal of the Act.
We have heard from the Minister of State, as we heard from the Minister last night, contributions that, in the Irish Parliament, amount to a disgraceful defence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That Act requires from an Irish Parliament and an Irish Government a positive initiative and response such as is envisaged in our motion. In that motion we condemn the Act both in regard to its provisions and its implementation. That is the approach that is required here. It should be condemned in regard to its discriminatory nature and also because it is in violation of European Convention on Human Rights.
This Act is absolutely indefensible by reference to any national or international cannon of law and to the Convention on Human Rights, because of its discriminatory nature. If the British Government in their wisdom want general anti-terrorist legislation that is their business but this legislation deals specifically with Irish citizens. It is discriminatory so far as they are concerned.
Apart from being discriminatory it is also arbitrary in regard to the detention provision. This enables the detention of any Irish citizen without any legal reason being given. It is also arbitrary because an Irish citizen may be detained for seven days on the basis of mere suspicion without any legal proof or reason being advanced. That person may be detained in circumstances that do not place any obligation on the authorities to communicate with relatives or his legal advisers.
These arbitrary and discriminatory procedures are possible under this Act. It should be roundly condemned both in regard to its provisions and its implementation because primarily it breaches two fundamental legal principles of nondiscrimination and of a non-arbitrary approach to arrest, detention and explosion. The arbitrary nature of the powers given in this instance to the security forces in Britain runs counter to all legal principles as do the discriminatory aspects to which I have referred.
Therefore, there is every reason for Dáil Éireann to roundly condemn a measure that has meant that in the past ten years 5,683 Irish citizens have been arrested. Showing the totally haphazard nature of the arrests, of that figure only 2.5 per cent were charged and a mere handful found guilty. Not alone does the Act operate in a discriminatory and an arbitrary way, but it is being used deliberately by the British security forces as a harassment and a constant irritant so far as more than 97 per cent of the people arrested are concerned. People have been harassed, detained and irritated and they have been deprived of fundamental human and civil rights, primarily because they are Irish citizens.
It is no excuse for the Minister or for the Minister for State to say the IRA are solely responsible for the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I hold no brief whatever for the Provisional IRA but if the argument of the Minister and of the Minister of State is carried to its logical conclusion, the British would have the right to bring in any legislation they wished and we could still not condemn it on the grounds that it was necessary because of the presence of the Provisional IRA. That does not give carte blanche to the British Government to introduce legislation willy-nilly and to implement it in the way I have outlined. By not acceding to our motion, the Minister and the Government are making themselves a party to giving the British Government carte blanche to act in whatever way they like against our citizens while the troubles in Northern Ireland continue. In other words, the troubles in Northern Ireland are being used as an excuse by the British Government to act in a continuing discriminatory and arbitrary manner against Irish citizens who are totally innocent of any involvement in violence or anything approaching a crime of violence.
The Minister last night also tried to suggest that there is some parallel in Irish legislation. There was, and it lasted one year. In 1976 the then Coalition introduced the Emergency Power's Act with similar type provisions in it, and the revulsion in public opinion here against it was a major factor in putting that Coalition Government out in 1977, the following year, when we promptly repealed it. Our argument was that the Act was completely unnecessary, superfluous and redundant to the real job at hand. Rightly, we refused to accept that seven or nine days were required, as they were required under that Act, for interrogation.
The Minister also alleges that successive Governments here have accepted that the Prevention of Terrorism Act and anti-terrorist legislation generally were a matter for the British Government and Parliament to decide. We all know that that is a truism that within their own jurisdiction the British Government and Parliament have a right to do as they see fit. But that does not in any way impinge on our right to make our views known where the protection of Irish citizens is involved, nor does it impinge in any way on the rights of an Irish Parliament or Government to condemn measures directed exclusively against Irish citizens.
Why did the Deputy not do so when he was a Minister?
We would be failing in our duty if we did not so condemn. That does not in any way take from the British Government's ultimate sovereign right to pass legislation that they wish to pass. We are trying to help improve relations within this island and between the two islands and we suggest, as we are entitled to suggest, that legislation which causes a substantial number of Irish citizens totally innocent of any terrorist activity to be pursued, harrassed, detained and expelled from British jurisdiction does not help peace and reconciliation on this island and between our two islands.
It is a bit late in the day to be saying that.
In the course of my researches I was glad to get some backup support from a recent House of Commons inquiry where a former Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall was giving evidence into the Special Branch in Britain and their operations. I quote from the English newspaper The Times of 14 January 1985:
.... some individuals and groups are marked out for surveillance and recording because they criticise the "established order".
In the eyes of some Special Branch officers, all "activists" may be subversive and therefore warrant such deliberate monitoring....
It is the same thing here with the Special Branch.
He was being rightly critical of the whole approach in regard to Special Branch activity in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
(Interruptions.)
I saw Deputy Mac Giolla two nights in a place where he should not have not been.
There is a new and rather frightening Orwellian dimension to all of this. Now not alone can innocent Irish citizens, totally unassociated with violence or crime of any kind, be detained and interrogated, but they are being put permanently into a police computer where they will remain on permanent police record for the rest of their lives, to be disgorged by the computer whenever the particular security officer so wills. No matter what their occupation or business in Britain, innocent Irish people are now on record, computerised and tabulated for future examination and investigation.
The Minister claimed last night to have obtained some improvement. What improvement? I would like the Minister to be specific about the improvements he spoke about.
The Deputy has some of them.
He stated that the British authorities have agreed to a systematic improvement in the communication of information to the Irish Embassy. In the very next sentence the Minister made it clear that the British, contrary to general international practice in cases of this kind, have not agreed, despite all the alleged representations and all the chitchat between the Minister and his counterpart, to inform the Irish Embassy automatically and without exception when an Irish citizen is detained under the Act. The Minister has failed to obtain this vital minimum improvement. We want the Act repealed absolutely in regard to its arbitrary and discriminatory aspects. We, on the Minister's own terms, see that he has failed, even within the context of the existing legislation, to get this minimum improvement of the reporting to the Irish Embassy of Irish citizens being detained or expelled under the legislation.
Failure to follow up this matter in a resolute fashion on the part of this Government results in the constant stream of endless complaints in regard to individual incidents, the constant irritation of Anglo-Irish friction — which nobody wants — because of these incidents and all of this individual hardship, growing tension and discordance between the two sovereign states. All this is caused by refusal to tackle the source of the incidents and the refusal by our Government to ensure in consultation with the British Government that the matter is approached in this radical way. The whole system of law and law enforcement epitomised by the supergrass trials, the operation of the UVF and the operation of this Act amounts to corruption of the law, which is only making the restoration of peace and reconciliation within this island and between the two islands infinitely more difficult to achieve. This corruption of the law, leading to the virtual abandonment of the rule of law in regard to legislation, law enforcement agencies and now the courts in Northern Ireland, is a very serious situation and makes it very difficult to restore civilised practices and a civilised rule of law in this island and between the two islands. This is why we are calling on Dáil Éireann to condemn this Act and not to pussyfoot around introducing meaningless amendments such as the Government have suggested here tonight——
And the Deputy's colleague.
——and not for the first time. We have the same approach by the Government in regard to the supergrass trials. These are matters of a high moral and legal content. They call for Government to stand up and be counted. The Government should not run away from these matters because they are concerned with basic and special principles that guide civilised living in this island and between the two islands. This Government are reneging on their duty in not protesting vehemently, in not making it quite clear that we are opposed to certain aspects of any anti-terrorist legislation. We are opposed to them being directed at Irish citizens in an arbitrary, selective manner. We are opposed totally to any approach of that kind. We say that such legislation is anathema to Ireland should be anathema to Britain, and is certainly no way for two civilised states to carry out the business of their citizens' welfare as between the two states concerned. In the interest of the protection of our citizens we have a bounden duty to take a strong line in this respect, and this motion of ours emphasises a strong line condemning the Act in its provisions and its implementation and calls for the removal of the essential elements I have just mentioned of discrimination and arbitrariness that are inherent in the legislation.
Repeal. That is what the Deputy is looking for.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Nil, 66.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West.)
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.