Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. a1:
In page 2, before section 1, to insert the following new section:
1. — The following section is hereby substituted for section 22 of the Act of 1965—
22 —(1) Where extradition is requested for the purpose of proceeding against any person, to whom this section applies, for an offence, the requesting country shall produce signed statements of witnesses, which, if the person were being prosecuted for a similar or corresponding offence under the laws of the State in respect of an act committed in the State, would be required to be tendered at a preliminary examination before a Justice of the District Court, in order that an order returning the person for trial on indictment might be made.
(2) An order for commital under section 29 of this Act shall not be made unless the Justice is satisfied on the basis of the said statements and other documents that the person claimed would be returned for trial in the State if the offence had taken place in the State.
(3) This section applies to persons who are Irish citizens and to any other persons to whom the relevant extradition provisions provide that it shall apply'."
— (Deputy O'Malley)

Last night the Minister gave us a clear statement of the position he is taking in relation to the certification of warrants to be used for the extradition of Irish citizens. He said that the agreement is that a warrant for the return of a fugitive would be sought only where the Crown prosecution service in England and Wales or the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland is satisfied that there is a clear probability of prosecution, founded on a sufficiency of admissible evidence. It seems that the arrangement the Minister is coming to, which probably is not of any great value because it is not a statutory arrangement, only an administrative arrangement, will have no statutory authority. Nevertheless, it is an arrangement that sets aside the authority of the Irish courts. That authority, in our view, should not be subsumed under the DPP in Northern Ireland or the Crown prosecution service in England and Wales. Both are prosecuting authorities, whose vested interest is in prosecuting. Surely in these circumstances the Government will be failing in their duty to vindicate the rights of Irish citizens through such an arrangement, because the courts here would be used only as a rubber stamp for the certification, or whatever one wishes to call it. The Minister called it that in a press releases but he is calling it something else now.

It seems very clear that the Government are ignoring their duty and setting aside their obligation to vindicate the rights of Irish citizens. I do not believe there is a political consensus in Ireland for that approach. I do not believe that even people in the Minister's party would support and endorse that approach if they were made fully aware of it. If this Bill had been given the time which a Bill of its importance requires, the Minister would have been advised by his own backbenchers and by learned and experienced members of his party that this is a foolish step and most inadvisable.

One would have thought the Minister would be a little wiser in the light of recent events. It has been pointed out clearly that these and similar functions are judicial and that it is not acceptable to have an administrative arrangement to cover them unless it is in line with the Constitution. In the Supreme Court on Friday last five Supreme Court judges sat — Judges Finlay, Walsh, Griffin, Hederman and McCarthy — and judgment was given by the Chief Justice in the case of the State, at the prosecution of Garda John Clarke as prosecutorversus District Justice Maura Roche and Peter Senezio, responding. The Chief Justice said:

I am satisfied that on the terms of section 10 of the 1851 Act it is an inescapable conclusion that the issue of a summons upon the making of a complaint was a judicial as distinct from an administrative act.

In other words, the issuing of a summons, whether for car parking or drunken driving, was a judicial function, and whatever may have been the position in the past the Minister now would need to make the appropriate changes to ensure that the judicial nature of this function is fully recognised. That must ring a warning bell with the Minister in relation to the actions he is taking on the extradition of Irish citizens. There is another very interesting case, Maherversus the Attorney General, 1973, reported in Irish Reports, 140:

The administration of justice which, in criminal matters, is confined exclusively by our Constitution to the courts and judges set up under the Constitution necessarily reserves to those courts and judges the determination of all the essential ingredients of any offence charged against an accused person. In so far as the statutory provision purports to remove such determination from the judges or the courts appointed and established under the Constitution, it is an invalid infringement of the judicial power.

That was the judgment given in Maherversus the Attorney General in 1973 and is very relevant to the steps the Minister is taking now.

In the case of the State — Lynchversus District Justice Ballagh — the Supreme Court held, among other things, in May 1986 that “the Garda Síochána, is not in any sense part of the judicial system nor does it participate in the exercise of the judicial powers of the District Court in its administration of justice.”

The Minister is proposing that there be some form of certification by the British authorities coming before the Garda Commissioner here and that, presumably, the Commissioner and the Attorney General — as the Minister mentioned in his remarks yesterday — would examine this case to ascertain whether there was a reasonable one to be answered. But, in putting forward this kind of scheme, in effect the Minister is proposing that prosecuting authorities here, however great may be their individual integrity, would be the people who would decide whether there was aprima facie kind of case or one which is the sort of case that these amendments seek to have written into the Bill. In so doing the Minister is in danger of running against the clear signal from the Supreme Court as recently as May 1986 in the case of the State — Lynch versus District Justice Ballagh. That judgment makes it very clear that “the Garda Síochána is not in any sense part of the judicial system nor does it participate in the exercise of the judicial powers of the District Court in its administration of justice”. The Minister is at least suggesting that some form of quasi-judicial function would be given to the Garda in this respect. In so far as that decision is in any way judicial surely it must be left to the courts. It would appear to be a matter properly within the confine of the courts.

Until March 1984 the power to send persons forward for trial was given to the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 62 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936. That provision was amended by section 3 of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, which power was exercisable where the district justice did not send a person forward for trial. Therefore, in a case where the district justice decided not to send a person forward for trial the Director of Public Prosecutions had an overriding power. In March 1984, in a judgment given by the then Chief Justice O'Higgins, the Supreme Court held that that power was unconstitutional because it gave to the Director of Public Prosecutions a power that was an invasion of the judicial demesne and an attempt to exercise the judicial power of the Government otherwise than by the organ of the State established for this purpose by the law. If such power in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions was seen to be unconstitutional, surely the giving of similar powers in relation to an extradition must also be unconstitutional. This is a matter to which the Minister would need to devote attention.

Again and again the courts have said that the exercise of judicial power is for the courts. In that respect, if there is to be a decision as to whether there is what is in effect aprima facie case against a person whose extradition is sought, it seems quite clear that that decision should be taken by the courts rather than by administrative or executive officers either here or in the requesting country.

Having listened to the Minister I am not convinced of his argument. The case made in favour of aprima facie case being presented before the courts is a strong one. I believe our amendment meets these requirements. I believe also that it is the least we should offer our citizens in the circumstances in which they may find themselves if there is a request made for an extradition.

Subsection (2) of our amendment says:

No order for the extradition of an Irish citizen shall be made unless the District Court is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that there is a sufficient case which would warrant the sending forward for trial of that person...

Deputy O'Malley points to the fact that, in his amendment, he talks about statements being laid before the court and that such would be adequate. He suggested that the inclusion of the words "on the evidence before it" would necessitate the production of witnesses. That is not the case; it merely leaves the District Court on the evidence, which would normally be the book of evidence and the written statements which are required to base a decision. Of course one could conceivably have a situation in which the District Court might not find the evidence before it reliable, or might question it. We have suggested, further down in our amendment, at subsection (3) (c):

A document served pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be received in evidence without further proof if it purports to be signed or certified by a judge, magistrate or other judicial officer of the requesting country or place and to be authenticated by the oath of some witness.

One could contend that there could be certain circumstances in which the justice in the District Court might want to see something more. That would be a matter for the District Court. It would be a matter for the court to be satisfied on the evidence before it that there was a basis for the extradition of an Irish citizen. The Minister has pointed out that in most cases this would in effect be much the same as what would happen under his proposal. If so, why is he so reluctant to accept these amendments? We believe this is a reasonable proposal and nothing the Minister has said has changed our view. Since we are now reviewing the law in relation to extradition, this is the time to review it fully and properly and to build into our extradition laws the measures which we believe are appropriate. The provision about which I am speaking is one we believe to be essential and we will be pressing our amendment. It has been very well debated in the House in the time available, but the Minister's approach would appear to be settled above his head and consequently he is not prepared to accept any amendments. Therefore we will have to divide on the matter.

We have another amendment which deals with the question of fair trial and fair proceedings in the jurisdiction to which an Irish person would be taken on extradition. There will be an opportunity to discuss that aspect under that amendment. As far as theprima facie requirement is concerned, we stand by our amendment. We believe it is appropriate and right and we will be voting in favour of it.

This debate on reform of the law on extradition has underlined the shortcomings of this Government perhaps more clearly than many other issues in recent times. Every party in this House have, as far as I know, stated unequivocally that they support the ratification of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. The Government have rocked themselves and their conscience into a fretful sleep by clutching in a warm embrace what turns out to be a complete falsehood — that the provision of aprima facie case safeguard would make extradition unworkable.

It is manifestly clear that the Minister is ill at ease both with the concepts and the technicalities of this issue. One had only to observe him here at length yesterday to realise the truth of what I say and the extent of his uneasiness. One has only to look at the empty benches behind him today, as yesterday, to realise the lack of support for his views. The advice the Minister has received is clearly to the effect that any safeguard is a potential loophole and that to maintain any small constitutional protection for our citizens is to make this country a bolthole, allegedly, for international terrorism. That advice is wrong. The intellectual bankruptcy of the Minister's position has been exposed by this debate. His preoccupation with loopholes and boltholes has blinded him to the real issues.

We are entitled to ask this question: if aprima facie requirement effectually eviscerates the extradition process, why is it that this Government and this House agreed to such an arrangement in the case of the recent Irish-US extradition treaty, certainly in the case of Irish requests to extradite from America, while conceding that no such requirement would bind the United States in seeking the extradition of Irish citizens? If that requirement makes extradition unworkable, why did the Government seek and get the approval of this House? If it is unworkable within Europe or among the signatories to these two Conventions, how suddenly does it become workable where the United States is concerned? Why is it that both the United States and Britain, the people who are supposed to be so opposed to safeguards of this kind, have such a safeguard in their respective arrangements in regard to extradition? Why is it that this Government in their dealings with the United States agreed on a unilateral basis to a procedure which they now claim makes extradition unworkable, not just in a European context but, according to the Minister, in any context? That question has been asked repeatedly during this debate but it has never been answered. Unhappily, it looks now as if it will not be answered. The fact that it is not answered does not obviate the need for an answer and it underlines the untenable position the Minister and the Government are now seeking to take up. It is a position they do not wish to adopt but it is forced upon them by external pressures greater than themselves.

There is a summary on the front page of this morning's edition ofThe Irish Times written by their political correspondent, Mr. Cooney. He says that essentially this boils down to the fact that if the Government make any change at all in this arrangement as dictated to them by the British, then the British will regard it as a breach of faith in respect of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; that this is part and parcel of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, while extradition is only subsidiary to it and of lesser importance. It is tragic that the Government should choose to use a matter of this kind for a different purpose.

The answer to the question I posed about how extradition is workable with the United States but not with Britain and how extradition is workable as between Britain and the United States but not between Britain and Ireland is that the requirement forprima facie evidence does not make extradition unworkable here or anywhere else. It merely makes it slightly less easy than the slot machine legal process to which this Government have apparently become addicted. It is slightly less easy, slightly less automatic and puts some colour of judicial consideration into the matter rather than leaving it as an arrangement between policeman or civil servants for automatic extradition whether there is sufficient evidence or not.

The Minister in his reply to the Second Stage debate put forward the proposition that if amendments of the type that I and others were suggesting were made, extradition would no longer be a reality and we would be seeking to give a safe haven in the Republic to those who carried out the Darkley murders. That is an idiotic suggestion for the Minister for Justice or anybody else to make. Tragically, it is the Minister's belief that if a warrant is sent here from Britain or Northern Ireland charging people with those murders, whether or not there is any evidence they should be automatically extradited. If a warrant arrived here for me tomorrow morning charging me with the murder of six people in a church in Darkley in County Armagh, the Minister for Justice says that I have no entitlement to have any evidence or statement produced against me, that all that can be looked into is whether the technicalities are correct, or whether the warrant is properly signed, whether it was properly sworn and whether the approprite words have been written on the form and whether those procedures have been certified by the DPP in the North and the Attorney General in England. The Minister for Justice regards that as justice, even if there is no evidence. The Minister says we are not entitled to evidence. Even if I had nothing to do with the Darkley murders I can be extradited and so can any other citizen who had nothing to do with them.

What kind of thinking is it that reduces this whole process to one of purely automatic movement of people around on the basis of a warrant without evidence or aprima facie case? There are many good reasons why we should have a prima facie case but there are no good reasons why we should not have one. Good reasons have not been given because they cannot be given. The Minister's absent friends who support him on this issue are not prepared to come in and say so because they know they have lost the argument, as the Minister has lost the argument, in so far as they understand the argument at all. The Minister and his supporters have not, will not and cannot advance a single argument as to why it should be possible to send an Irish citizen in custody to await trial on indictment in a foreign jail for 18 or 24 months without any safeguards or a prima facie case, when that same citizen could not be sent for trial here for the theft even of a packet of cigarettes without the establishment of a prima facie case against him. This shameful anomaly cannot be explained by the Minister nor by his press handlers or his Cabinet colleagues. It drives one to a sad conclusion that this Bill is intended for a very different purpose from the apparent reason of acceding to a European Convention on terrorism. In off-the-record briefings to journalists, the Government are prepared to concede that this Bill is regarded as a quid pro quo part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was said that the Bill would be passed here in consideration of a reform in the Diplock courts and the rejection of such reforms by the British Government will require a rethink by the press handlers about this argument for passing the Bill. It is no secret that the commencement section was designed to pressure the British into making concessions.

This is a limited debate which must conclude at 1 o'clock and it is the Chair's duty to see that if possible those who want to contribute may contribute, therefore I am afraid I have to confine the Deputy.

Is it at 12 o'clock?

Yes, at 12 o'clock. I will have to confine the Deputy to a Committee Stage debate. The Deputy's contribution has developed into a longer Second Stage type contribution.

The amendments before the House really go to the kernel of this whole thing. I accept that speeches on it have been wider than might be normal on Committee Stage but if this set of amendments, mine and the others, which are roughly similar, are turned down, the Bill in effect will be passed in a way that is grossly unsatisfactory and which is widely recognised as being grossly unsatisfactory. I do not blame the Minister for not making a real effort to defend his position, because it is impossible to defend it, but the consequences of this if passed will be extremely serious.

Last night the Minister sought to deal in some fashion with the amendment in my name, and if one consults the record as to what he said, apart from a general observation more or less to the effect that it is unworkable he gave no reason for turning it down. The Minister advanced the old argument about the British never using aprima facie requirement. That position and those statements of the Minister are demonstrably false. They are clearly incorrect and if the Minister has no valid inherent reason for turning down this amendment, he should not do it. The Minister made a rather curious suggestion, that because the amendment entails statements of evidence against the defendant being handed to him and to the court and being considered by the court, the defendant would be put at a disadvantage because witnesses from abroad would not be available for crossexamination. I pointed out to the Minister that under a case decided here last year, even in an Irish case where someone has been returned for trial here, he does not have the right to cross-examine the witnesses.

To say that the defendant is at a disadvantage because he is given details of the offence against him, and that therefore this amendment must be refused is laughable, because he has had the enormous advantage that he will have the evidence against him disclosed to him and to a district justice and he will have the advantage that a district justice will have to adjudicate as to whether or not there is aprima facie case, before he decides to extradite him. How one can argue that therefore the defendant is at a disadvantage is beyond me. The Minister for Justice has this facility to give out something, whether it is right or wrong, as if that were the only thing that could be said about the matter and that therefore it must be accepted. The entire weight of the evidence and the entire weight of the argument is against him.

The Minister should throw off the shackles of the external pressures to which he is now subjected and realise that long after the Anglo-Irish Agreement has hopefully changed into another form, and is no longer relevant, this Bill if it is enacted in this form will remain our law. This is grossly unsatisfactory and that is pretty well the unanimous decision of anyone who has examined it. For that reason, I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. If there are any technical deficiencies in it, let the Minister say so and we will rectify them, but the Minister should and will have to accept the spirit of this amendment. If he fails to accept the spirit of this amendment he will demonstrate that the real decision-making power is neither in this House nor in the Government but somewhere else. This matter where the fundamental rights and liberties of Irish citizens are at stake is being used in order to achieve something greater. I say to the Minister that that is too high a price to pay to achieve it. You cannot trade the fundamental liberties of your own citizens to achieve something else. If you do, you will pay a heavy price for it as will many of our own citizens. I do not think it is something which is going to be tolerated in the longer term.

Deputy O'Malley is engaging in a fairly normal and on the whole a fairly acceptable parliamentary tactic in that he has tried both last night and today a form of parliamentary guerilla warfare which is not going to work. I have been through it with the Deputy on a number of Finance Bills in the past. It did not impress me particularly then and it does not impress me particularly now and I will not be put off my stroke by these kinds of waspish and arrogant comments from Deputy O'Malley. I am not going to follow up his comments about octopi and clouds of ink because they are totally irrelevant to the argument.

Deputy O'Malley should simply accept the fact that there are occasions in a debate like this when the Minister in reply is not going to agree with him or look at the arguments. There are also occasions in a debate like this when the Minister is going to spend some time talking about points made by somebody else and if that does not happen to suit Deputy O'Malley it is just too bad. Therefore, I am not going to get into that area or rise to that kind of bait. If Deputy O'Malley thought I was uneasy yesterday during the course of the debate he seems to have been a great deal more uneasy because he was in and out of the Chamber like a yo-yo. It is not relevant to the discussion we are having.

Deputy O'Malley again this morning suggested that I was wrong in contending that in a preliminary hearing a person before the court has the right to examine witnesses. In the case to which he refered, the State (Sherry)versus District Justice Hubert Wine which was reported in The Irish Law Reports Monthly, volume 5, No. 4, there is a lot of interesting comment from Judge McCarthy in giving his judgment. He said for example, and I will limit myself to this:

The plain meaning of s. 7 (2) is that either the prosecutor or the accused or both of them is entitled "to require the attendance before the justice of any person, whether included in the supplied list of witnesses or not, and to examine him by way of sworn deposition". This admits of no meaning other than the right of either party to have a listed witness attend, such witness is to be examined by way of sworn deposition and may be cross-examined or re-examined on his evidence.

There is a great deal more but that establishes that the person is entitled to require the attendance before the justice of any person whether included in the supplied list of witnesses or not. To the extent that Deputy O'Malley took a different view of that and playing on the basis of a different view that a difficulty I suggested would exist with the procedure he is requiring, he is just wrong.

I have also made the point that our extradition procedures with the UK do not deprive the requested person of a committal hearing. That is relevant to the question which Deputy Taylor raised. The procedure as we have it requires, first of all, that in Northern Ireland or in Britain a warrant be issued by a judicial authority, a magistrate. Information must be laid before the magistrate and sworn. We have provided as I indicated to the House that that warrant should be scrutinised and the application be scrutinised for a sufficiency of evidence by the Crown prosecution service in the UK and that it should be confirmed by the attorney general in the UK. It should be sent over here for execution. The person who is requested under our law has the right to contest the execution of the warrant and to go before the court here, in which case the court here makes a decision on the basis of the law on whether or not extradition will take place.

If extradition takes place that person goes to the requesting jurisdiction and in the case of the UK that person in the requesting jurisdiction goes before a court for a commital hearing before the trial can take place. Nobody can suggest that that process in any way takes away the rights of that requested person to have his case examined judically in a court and to allow him the freedom he should have to make his own case in his own defence.

Deputy Woods' suggestion that there was in some way something unconstitutional about all of that is totally unfounded. The procedures we operate in relation to the backing of warrants have been examined on many occasions by our courts and they have been held to be constitutional. As I have said, they are procedures which provide for a necessary degree of inspection and supervision all the way through the system. There is no question of any administrative arrangement carrying out a judicial function and if Deputy Woods would simply look back through the procedure he would come to the conclusion that that is the case.

Deputy O'Malley claims that the system set out in Part III of the 1965 Act is not appropriate to two sovereign independent countries. I can see no reason whatever why two sovereign independent countries should not agree to a system like this or should not decide to maintain a system like this. It is a reciprocal arrangement which puts the same obligations on both sides and produces the same result for both sides as I indicated in my statement last evening. Deputy O'Malley has put forward a different system which would create obstacles and which would not be in conformity with our obligations under international conventions. Deputy O'Malley keeps asserting that his system would be. The plain fact of the matter is that it would not and I do not think there is any room for doubt on that.

If we are to change the system and review it fundamentally as Deputy O'Malley and now Deputy Woods seem to want to do, I am quite happy to participate in that, but they will have to find some other method of approach as the one they are proposing is not in conformity with our international obligations. It is a departure for no good reason from the system we already have.

Which of our international obligations?

The European Convention on Extradition.

Which article?

The whole convention does not admit of aprima facie requirement——

What about article 6?

——which was proposed by you in relation to the extradition of citizens.

What about article 6?

It does not admit of that requirement in relation to citizens. That is the simple fact of the matter.

Deputy O'Malley was allowed to make his speech. When the Minister is replying he should be allowed to make his without interruption.

I asked the Minister a question.

I have answered the question——

The section allows you to extradite your own nationals.

——twice on Second Stage and at least twice, if not three times, during the course of this debate. Deputy O'Malley does not like the answer because it does not suit the amendment he is putting forward.

What about article 6?

Deputy O'Malley is now interrupting and he should not.

I am sorry if Deputy O'Malley is upset but that is the way it is.

There is no answer other than a bald assertion. What about article 6?

It would be the system Deputy O'Malley is putting forward.

Deputy O'Malley should not go on talking about Article 6. It sounds like a very well known election meeting interruption.

The system put forward by Deputy O'Malley would be introducing an element into our extradition arrangements that is not related to any of the fundamental aspects of the convention and that would be contrary to the fundamental intentions of that convention.

What, article 6? It is part of the convention.

Deputy O'Malley will have to restrain himself.

Deputy O'Malley may make his argument in relation to one bit of his proposal or in relation to another bit of his proposal. I am looking at his proposal taken all together which is the only sensible way to look at his amendment. I do not think that I should go into any more detail into the difficulties that would arise in the kind of system that Deputy O'Malley has tried to produce. I mentioned them yesterday in relation to what would happen in a court here if it were looking at thatprima facie requirement. The Deputy knows that there are difficulties there, that that would create an extra obstacle, that the system that we have now in operation already includes the proper judicial process and that the extra assurances we have added into it add on extra guarantees for anybody whose extradition is requested from this country.

Would the Minister explain to us how the Americans and the British can operate all this if it is inoperable?

You have less than half an hour, Minister.

I will come to the Americans in a moment, but first I want to make a couple of points. Deputy Cowen took the view last night that the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, should be used as a basis for trying a person here for an offence committed in Northern Ireland or Britain. I should point out as a matter of detail that the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act would allow us to try people here for offences committed in Northern Ireland and only for explosives offences committed in Britain. Therefore, if Deputy Cowen was under the impression that that would cover all of the possible cases he is mistaken.

Deputy Mac Giolla asked what the situation would be in relation to section 22 when this Bill is passed. Section 22 would not apply to our extradition arrangements with other convention countries. It might apply to non-convention countries with which we negotiated a new extradition treaty.

I mentioned the heady mixture of sherry and wine. I do not intend to go any further into that. I have also touched on Deputy Woods' comments of this morning. He seemed to feel that the arrangements that we have are unconstitutional in that they give judicial functions to administrative persons. That is not the case. The system we have in operation, as I have mentioned several times during this debate, is a backing of warrants procedure. There is no unconstitutionality in the system as it operates now or the system as it would continue to operate after the passage of this Bill. It is idle for Deputy O'Malley to come in here, as he did this morning, and suggest that in some way under the system as it has operated up to now and as it will continue to operate he could find himself being requested for extradition for the theft of a packet of cigarettes without evidence. That is preposterous and far away from the system that is there, and Deputy O'Malley knows that that is the case.

I did not say it.

He suggested also that——

I did not say it.

——his extradition might be asked for in relation to the Darkley murders, for example, even though there was no evidence that he had done that. He knows that that is patently not the case. His argument is a far better one than to be served by that type of nonsensical comparison which is totally irrelevant.

The Deputy wants the support of courts and not just the assurance of the Minister.

Deputy Woods known perfectly well that there is a proper judicial involvement in these procedures all the way through. If for once he just sat down and reflected on the system that is there, he would know that many of the things he has said are without foundation.

Reference was made to the treaty with the US. Why have they aprima facie requirement in their treaty with us while we do not have a reciprocal prima facie requirement with them? What is required in the US treaty is that an affidavit must be produced to the US authorities to the effect that there is evidence. That is something the US authorities believe they should ask for from other countries. We on our side operate it on the basis of the normal extradition type arrangement that we have with all other countries.

It is relevant that I conclude by quoting a passage from the judgment in Shannonversus the Attorney General in the 1985 Irish Law Monthly Reports No. 449. The present Chief Justice said:

I am satisfied that there is no want of constitutional protection of the rights of the plaintiff arising from the acceptance under the procedures contained in Part III of the Act of 1965 of the warrant, as evidence that the judicial authority in Northern Ireland has foundprima facie grounds for the issuing of a warrant.

That is the situation as it exists at the moment under that arrangement. That will continue, as I have said. The only change we are making in relation to that arrangement is that we have strengthened the assurances and the inspection of the sufficiency of evidence before the warrant arrives in our jurisdiction. That being the case, and because the system that is proposed in this amendment does not fit in with our international obligations, I am rejecting that amendment.

The Minister in concluding said that the system being proposed in the amendment does not fit in with our international obligations. Either the Minister has been wrongly advised or he does not understand the advice he has been given. For the record let me refer to the international obligation and particularly Article 6 here which states that a contracting party shall have the right to refuse extradition to its nationals. Nothing could be clearer than that. Therefore, for the Minister of the day in introducing this legislation to suggest thatprima facie evidence before extraditing your nationals is not in conformity with your international obligations is patently a misstatement——

Hear, hear.

Read the rest of the convention.

——and should not be allowed to go unchallenged in this House. I can read the rest as well. It says what each contracting party may do within that. Clearly that Article was designed in conformity with our international obligations and those of the signatory members to allow any of the member states to refuse to extradite their citizens anyway. It is sad that the Minister has such a bad grasp of the international obligations that he would attempt to argue against that fact. These amendments clearly do not go that far. They do not seek to exclude the extradition of nationals. What they seek to do is, in that we are not excluding nationals from extradition — which we are entitled to do in conformity with our international obligations — to introduce a balancing consideration where our courts, our procedures would determine whether there is aprima facie basis for extradition of our nationals. That is not only reasonable but absolutely essential in the circumstances in which we find ourselves here. If we decide not to do as Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden did in conformity with international obligations and exclude nationals from extradition, then at least we have an obligation to protect those nationals in conformity with our law.

The Minister said that a court here on the basis of the law then makes a decision. He seems to suggest that the court here, if these amendments are not adopted, will be acting on the basis of the law, with full protection of our citizens. In case the Minister does not understand, what we want to ensure is that the law on which the court acts will include a provision forprima facie evidence in respect of our citizens. If there is no such provision in the law on which the courts must act then the court has no right whatsoever to consider the question of prima facie evidence. He must know that. What effectively the Minister is doing is excluding our courts in this instance, in the application of their functions and in the exercise of the law, as he says, from considering the question of prima facie evidence in respect of our citizens. That is outrageous in the light of the circumstances which exist elsewhere. The Minister is proposing that the law be framed on such a basis that the courts in the exercise of the law will be excluded from considering prima facie evidence.

I am proposing to maintain the law as it is now framed, as it has been since 1965.

The Minister may answer many things in a moment. The circumstances that have arisen since 1965 have been well argued here for some considerable time. The Minister is not going to have me go back down that avenue. The next point I want to make is in terms of the pressure that has been brought on all of us here and that has made us in a sense a target. Last evening I found myself in the company of a number of ambassadors from the European Community, including the ambassador for the German Federal Republic, and from Europe generally. Each of them understands perfectly that Ireland would be acting fully in conformity with international obligations if we did as many of them have done and refused to extradite our own citizens. They certainly accept that if we enter a reservation or a condition in terms ofprima facie evidence which these terms seem to suggest——

The Chair does not think it is in order to introduce diplomatic personages in favour of or against an argument in this House.

I just said it in passing. I regret that the implication being put out from the opposite side of the House by Deputies and even by the Minister is that if we do not do this we are setting ourselves apart from the international community, that we are not acting in conformity with our international obligations. I reject that. The representatives of the member states know that to be untrue. Therefore, why should it be stated by our Minister here as if, doing what we are obliged to in protection of our citizens and our principles, we then set ourselves outside the standards of international law? That is not a reasonable argument to bring before this House.

That is not the argument which is being brought forward.

Mr. Cowen

Yes, it is.

No. European law is outside the function.

The Minister should let Deputy O'Kennedy continue.

Could I remind the Minister that if we decide in conformity with the principleaut dedere aut judicare, that instead of judging here, which we are allowed to do, we extradite, there is another principle of international law that applies. That is that there should be the same balance of consideration between the countries to which we extradite and ourselves. If their procedures require certain protections for their citizens then our procedures should require similar protections, at least, for our citizens, otherwise we are not entering into a mutually fair and balanced agreement. It is reasonable that these countries have entered reservations, but this Minister is telling us it is unreasonable for us to do so. That is an outrageous assertion which will be proved in time to be so. It will be proved not only to be contrary to our obligations in the interests of our citizens but to set us outside the whole practice of international law. What the Minister is saying is that if the Germans do not extradite their citizens to us, there is no reason why we should not extradite our citizens to them. Similarly with other countries.

Surely we have sufficient knowledge of what sovereignty really means in terms of our obligations to other countries. That is part of sovereignty, but equally balanced should be our obligation to our own citizens. By discharging that properly here we would not in any way limit the obligation we have to other countries to attack this menace to international law. Only our Government and the Government Deputies suggest that in doing so we would be limiting our commitment to attacking international terrorism.

The Minister has stated that if he were to adopt these amendments, which the whole force of argument used here in this House demands that he should, he would be going against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, of which this is a conditioned precedent, an essential condition. If that is the case then the Anglo-Irish Agreement on this alone, apart from other issues, was a bad agreement hastily entered into without being properly thought through as to its implications. I do not remember seeing this stated as a condition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

I recall the Taoiseach in a rather typical statement afterwards — not very considered, it must be said — indicating that as part of the general consensus and understanding of the Anglo-Irish Agreement we would now implement this convention without reservations. That is sad. The Taoiseach did not know what it was he was committing us to. He did not really understand the implications. Because of that hasty conclusion we are now being asked to do something here that no other country will do in respect of their citizens. We are being asked to set ourselves outside the whole framework of protecting our citizens and in our amendments we are not even going as far as they. These amendments ask simply that there would beprima facie evidence.

The Minister talks about procedures. He seems to suggest that procedures adopted elsewhere should be sufficient to satisfy us in the discharge of our sovereign obligation. I could not care less what procedures were adopted elsewhere, even if they were fully judicial procedures unless and until they satisfy our procedures and particularly our judicial procedures. The fact that the DPP in Britain and the prosecuting authorities would suggest that there seems to be a reasonable basis on which we could expect a prosecution is not anything like adequate. Does the Minister realise that he is telling our independent courts under our jurisdiction that even we have not the right to interfere in this matter? He is telling them that their judicial function, in terms of inquiring intoprima facie evidence, must be set aside because an executive or administrative authority elsewhere comes to a certain conclusion and that we must back the warrants. It is and offence to our independent Judiciary——

How did the Deputy manage to live with it since 1965?

The present circumstances are different from those obtaining in 1965.

That is no answer, the Deputy knows perfectly well——

Business should be conducted in an orderly way.

I have not been impressed by the Minister's response to the arguments and his remarksad hominem in respect of Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Woods, in trying to imply certain things about them personally. That is not the way a Minister should reply to issues.

I was telling Deputy O'Malley that I did not intend following him down the road.

The record will show that the Minister did not address the issues, either because he was incapable of understanding them or because he chose to ignore them. The fact that our courts should be influenced by administrative decisions elsewhere is outrageous and we resent and reject it. There is a consensus outside the House that there should be protection in the Bill but the Minister has not advanced even one decent argument to justify his position. Perhaps he was influenced by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Article 8 of which states that the conference shall also be concerned with policy aspects of extradition and extraterritorial jurisdictions between North and South. The Minister seems to be saying, "To hell with the fundamental rights of the judicial functions".

I received a letter from the Federation of Irish Societies dated 9 December and I know that the Taoiseach and representatives of each party also received a copy.

Does it deal with the amendments?

Yes, only four lines deal with another matter. It states:

At its national meeting held in London on Saturday, 6th December last, the Federation of Irish Societies resolved that I should bring to your notice the Federation's opposition to the ratification at this time of the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Bill, 1986. The Federation of Irish Societies is actively involved in the massive campaign in Britain to achieve justice for those imprisoned for the Birmingham and Guildford bombings and for the Maguire family. While all three cases remain unresolved we believe that the proposed Bill should not be given effect by Dáil Éireann. The Federation further believes that the interests of Irish citizens are not adequately protected in the Bill because of the absence on the part of the requesting country to present aprima facie case in an Irish court in respect of extradition proceedings. The Federation is the largest and most representative organisation within the Irish community in Britain comprising 17 societies whose combined membership is in excess of 60,000. I can vouch for that.

This is a respected organistion which has general reservations about the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family and its members are against this proposal unless and until there is a provision in relation toprima facie evidence. Have we any sense of pride? We are prepared to say to the British authorities that we will extradite our citizens to them without prima facie evidence although they will not extradite their citizens to us without such evidence. Apparently, they have indicated that they will review the whole position in regard to prima facie evidence. We all know what that means. While they are reviewing the case we will immediately extradite our citizens without prima facie evidence in respect of their jurisdiction. What kind of balance of justice is that? What kind of sovereignty is it? What kind of understanding does it show from a Government who clearly do not seem to be able to address the fundamental issues of the role of a sovereign State, either through Parliament or by the exercise of the judicial function?

The Minister said that the court, on the basis of law, makes a decision. However, he is tying the hands of our courts and limiting their function in regard to the law, which is very hard to accept. If these amendments are adopted, we would be in excellent company and I hope that the Minister will publicly assert to Britain and to our partners in Europe, who do not need to be convinced, that we are acting in conformity with the convention in the fullest possible way. No one can suggest that what we are doing is showing any sense of lack of commitment in dealing with the problems of international terrorism in the context of the European convention.

It is unfortunate that important legislation is introduced at the end of a session when it is passed with indecent haste. Perhaps we are all to blame as we delay other legislation. The Minister indicated last night that he felt the British would shortly be changing their procedures in respect of the provision of evidence regarding the establishment of aprima facie case. Has he any indication as to when such a change is contemplated?

I should also like to query the provision that the designated officer will state that there is a clear probability of prosecution. Is there any guarantee that such a certificate will not just be rubber stamping because the designating officer wants to get his man? I hope consideration will be on the basis of the evidence offered. It would be unfortunate if the Bill was regarded as a possible trade-off or bargaining issue in relation to matters being discussed in some other forum. I hope it will be judged in its own context. While we hope for progress in relation to other matters they should not be intertwined with this issue. We would not like to see our citizens extradited to any jurisdiction which has a history of defects in regard to its law and where questions remain unanswered. I should like the Minister to deal with the matter in relation to the changing of procedures in the UK.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 80.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil Terence.
  • 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.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Jim.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Gregory-Independent, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • 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.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McCartin, Joe.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • 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'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • 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.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Harney and Wyse: Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

2. —(1) No citizen of Ireland shall be extradited pursuant to the provisions of this Act, or the Act of 1965, unless the provisions of subsection (2) of this section have been satisfied.

(2) No order for the extradition of an Irish citizen shall be made unless the District Court is satisfied, on the evidence before it, that there is a sufficient case which would warrant the sending forward for trial of that person as if the offence alleged were an indictable offence and had been committed within the State.

(3) (a) For the purpose of subsection (2) hereof evidence may include or consist of documents referred to in section 6 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967.

(b) The said documents shall be served on the person whose extradition is sought and copies shall be furnished to the Court.

(c) A document served pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be received in evidence without further proof if it purports to be signed or certified by a judge, magistrate or other judicial officer of the requesting country or place and to be authenticated by the oath of some witness.

(4) (a) Where the extradition of an Irish citizen is being sought in respect of an offence for which that person has already been convicted in the requesting State, subsection (2) of this section shall be deemed to have been complied with if evidence is tendered which satisfies the District Court of the fact of that conviction.

(b) Provided always that no person shall be extradited if that person has been tried and convicted in absentia.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 80 80; Níl, 80.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil Terence.
  • 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.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • 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.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Jim.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Gregory-Independent, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McCartin, Joe.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • 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'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • 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.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.

There is an equality of votes. Pursuant to Article 15.11.2º of the Constitution I have a casting vote and I am required by the Constitution to exercise that vote. I exercise it against the question and declare the question lost. The amendment is rejected.

Amendment No. 7 is consequential on amendment No.al, and accordingly falls.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.
NEW SECTION

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—Where a request is received for the extradition of a person under this Act, the requesting country shall be required to provide evidence as to the commission by the person claimed of the offence for which extradition is requested, and extradition shall not be granted unless sufficient evidence is produced to satisfy the request."

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá 80 80; Níl, 80.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil Terence.
  • 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.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Jim.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Gregory-Independent, Tony.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • 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.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McCartin, Joe.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • 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'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • 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.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa; Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.

There is an equality of votes. In accordance with Article 15.11.2º of the Constitution I have a casting vote and I am required by the Constitution to exercise that vote. I exercise it against the question, declare the question lost and the amendment rejected.

SECTION 1.

Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Deputy Woods. Amendment No. 2 is related. Therefore amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, lines 34 to 36, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following:

"(4) This Act shall apply only in relation to an offence committed or alleged to have been committed after the commencement of this Act.".

Section 1 (4) of the Bill provides that:

This Act applies, except where otherwise provided, in relation to an offence whether committed or alleged to have been committed before or after the passing of this Act.

We are proposing that this Act shall apply only in relation to an offence committed or alleged to have been committed after commencement of the Act.

Deputies will note that we are changing two words here. One is the word "before" and the other is "passing". We are saying in this amendment that after the date on which the Act commences the Act should apply only in relation to an offence committed or alleged to have been committed after the commencement date.

The Bill turns offences which were previously regarded as political offences into offences which will not be accepted as political. It limits the political exception which is in the 1965 Act. If we look at the commencement procedures we will see that the Bill also clearly requires that an improved system for the administration of justice be introduced especially in the northern Six Counties before it is implemented. The commencement section states that very clearly and in addition the Minister has now, as we know, put the commencement date back to December. Section 12 (2) of the Bill provides that:

If, after the passing of this Act but before the 1st day of June, 1987, a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas declaring that this Act should come into operation...

The Minister has now put that date back to 1 December. The commencement provisions in the Bill themselves indicate that the Government want to see change in the administration of justice in the North before they are prepared to agree to the commencement of the Act. The coming into operation of the Act has, therefore, been linked by the Government to improvement in the standard of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. It is implicit in such a linkage that even the Government are dissatisfied with those standards. A primary objective of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the securing of improvements in the system of justice in the Six Counties.

All the political parties in Dáil Éireann accept that gross injustices have been perpetrated by the Diplock courts. It is accepted generally that the use of uncorroborated evidence has undermined confidence in the standard of justice prevailing in the Northern Ireland. It is also generally accepted that convictions have in the past been obtained in confessions extracted under duress. Nevertheless, the Government's position is that if improvements are made in the future administration of justice in Northern Ireland they are willing to extradite persons convicted under a system which they acknowledge was and still is unsatisfactory. Therefore, unless this measure is non-retroactive this State could end up in the ludicrous situation of having to extradite people to Northern Ireland who were originally convicted on the basis of interrogations which we have protested about publicly or of supergrass trials which again we have protested about. Were those still in English prisons for the Birmingham bombings to escape in the morning and be found here we would have to return them to prison in England regardless of the fact that not a single person in this House believes them to be guilty. Many Deputies, including members of the Government, have campaigned for their release.

As the section stands it is retrospective. I know the Minister will say that it will not make an offence in the past into an offence now. It will not change the base of offence. It changes the fact that one can be extradited for particular offences. That is why I advisably do not use the word "retrospective". I use the word "retroactive". This measure should not be retroactive. There is a way of dealing with any person taking refuge here against whom there is evidence. Such a person can be dealt with under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. I remind the Minister of the many young people who were caught up in the violence of the seventies, who may have been only alleged accomplices to acts traditionally regarded as political and who have escaped from the violence of the North often to settle and marry in the Republic or in England, turning their backs on the past and becoming useful citizens. They could now find themselves at the mercy of an RUC warrant based on no evidence, issued often for the purposes of interrogation only but receiving the automatic backing of the Irish authorities. Is this what the House wants? How far back do we allow this to go? Will it affect a 15-year old who hid an Armalite after Bloody Sunday, who could be sought as an accomplice? A young woman wanted by the British authorities and named in the British press as the most wanted woman in Britain was sought for extradition purposes but the Irish authorities at the time insisted that if there was evidence she would be put on trial here under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. No evidence was forthcoming because there was none and later other parties confirmed her innocence. She would now be liable to extradition on an RUC warrant, without supporting evidence. What sense of security can she have, if we allow this section to go unamended? A number of people came to me in the last ten days saying they were innocently involved in the troubles but that they had succeeded in getting away and had settled in this jurisdiction but because they had brothers and sisters involved they felt they would be pursued for interrogation so that they would give information about others. They have left all that behind, but now what is to happen? This measure is to be retrospective and retroactive. The Minister should amend the Bill so that it will operate only from the time when it is passed. Other methods can be used to deal with other circumstances.

Surely the Labour Party must be concerned about this measure even if the Minister and his colleagues are not. Does anyone on the Government side support civil liberties? Surely they cannot support a provision which applies 1986 law to conditions which prevailed in 1971, 15 years ago. The Minister will say that the cornerstone of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is reconciliation and that is the basis on which all parties support it. If that is the spirit of the agreement how do the Government justify giving an open door to the British authorities to go back into the past and demand the surrender of people who have escaped that past, and against whom there are merely allegations? This section should not be retroactive and I would ask the Minister to consider this seriously on Report Stage. I am sure this is not the Minister's intention, but the Minister will be faced with many circumstances over which he will find it difficult to stand if this Bill is passed as it stands. The Minister should accept our amendment which merely proposes that the Act will apply in relation to offences committed or alleged to have been committed after the passing of this Act.

I am quite willing to support Deputy Woods's amendment, but the difference between the two amendments is that we would allow the words "passing of the Act" to remain. It is only right that if a Bill is passed, no matter what the opposition against it was, it should have effect from then even though it is deferred for 12 months. I agree with the argument put forward by Deputy Woods. After defeating the very core of the opposition to this Bill, after throwing out the need for any evidence to be produced, one should be very strong in deleting this "before or" so that it will not relate to the past, particularly as the Minister has admitted that section 22 of the 1965 Act will no longer apply when this Bill is passed and that extradition will be easier. The Minister should look at this section because it is essential to remove retrospection from the Bill. There is already very substantial unease about the Minister's refusal to move on the need for evidence to be produced, but this in addition will cause quite an outcry. I ask the Minister to look at this now and to delete the provision making this law retrospective.

Neither of these two amendments is acceptable and it would be unwise for the House to adopt either of them. They would have the effect, now that the Government propose to put back the commencement date of the Act until 1 December next, of allowing terrorists to commit crimes and come back into this jurisdiction and claim they were political offences or that they were offences connected with political offences. That defence would still be open to them and there would be a danger of an invitation to such people to try to avail of the long period before the Act comes into effect. That would be wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong in retrospectively doing away with the defence of alleged political motivation for terrorist type offences of the kind set out in articles 1 and 2 of the Convention and in sections 3 and 4 of this Bill. This is not a question of making an offence something which was not already an offence. This is simply taking away the colour of political defence from a request for extradition. I was glad to see that the law was, at least in part, changed by the Supreme Court some years ago in the McGlinchey case as it reflects the reality we have to face today. I do not see why that rather peculiar method that terrorists had of getting out of responsibility for their crimes should be retained any longer.

Whatever about it being done retrospectively if this amendment were accepted it would have the effect — I am sure the drafter did not intend this — of leaving the political defence open to somebody who commits a terrorist type offence between now and 1 December 1987. Quite frankly, I do not think that is right. Accordingly, the Progressive Democrats will vote against acceptance of this amendment. Like Deputy Mac Giolla. I think it is a great pity that the core of what is needed in this Bill, a safeguard, has now been voted down, admittedly by the slenderest possible margin, the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle, in two successive votes. That is a tragedy but it should not affect our judgment of individual sections and individual amendments.

The Government were grossly wrong in their refusal to accept the earlier amendments which have been defeated only by the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle but that fact should not colour our judgment on subsequent individual amendments and sections. Accordingly, we take the view I have now expressed.

I can readily see the points made by Deputy O'Malley, that if these amendments were accepted it is possible they would give acarte blanche to terrorists to act accordingly in the next year or so. On the other hand, we must look at how far back we are going to go as regards retrospection. Should we insert some date, say, 1 January 1970 or 1 January 1980? The authorities in the United Kingdom may have someone on their books whom they have wanted to extradite since the fifties or the sixties. This may be for something that we would not regard as a crime here. There may be Members in this House who were involved in activities 30 years ago and perhaps whom the British authorities may still wish to have extradited to their jurisdiction.

I accept the validity of the points raised by Deputy O'Malley that we cannot provide in this legislation acarte blanche for terrorists to commit horrendous crimes in the next 12 months and to say the offences were committed before the commencement date of the Act and, therefore, they cannot be extradited. On the other hand, we cannot go as far back as the UK authorities think fit. There may still be people alive who were involved in the troubles of 1918 to 1920. While it is very unlikely that the UK authorities would want to extradite any such persons it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it would happen. A certain date, say 1975, should be inserted into the Bill in the matter of offences that can no longer be regarded as political. We cannot leave the Bill open in this regard to the extent that any country can go as far back as they want.

We must remember that the political climate in this country has changed. Deputy O'Malley is glad to see that the concept of a political offence is being thrown out the window, that a crime which was inspired by political motives will no longer be regarded as political. Deputy O'Malley is well aware that he was a member of successive Governments who point blank refused to change the extradition law and who, back in the seventies, refused to change the political offence concept. Members on the other side of the House were members of a Government in the seventies who also refused to do away with that concept. We are talking now in 1986 and with the benefit of hindsight we are able to say that we should have done away with that concept a long time ago but that in the conditions which prevailed in those earlier years we were not able to do so.

I accept that the political climate and that people's thinking have changed but we also have to accept that the political thinking of Members in this House has changed not alone during the past 30 years but during the past ten years. We cannot have a section in the Bill which allows another jurisdiction to present us with warrants for crimes committed in 1956 or in 1976 and requesting the extradition of the persons concerned. We rejected the earlier amendments by a slender margin thereby leaving us without anycaveats as to when a warrant is presented. We have done away with the idea of a prima facie case and we are saying that on presentation of a warrant, regardless of whether there is evidence against a person, we will extradite. I do not think we can do that. There are people around this House, not all of them Members, who were activists in illegal organisations but who have changed their political thinking during the past ten to 15 years. We must insert some date in the Bill in regard to retrospection but that must not be any old date.

If the Minister is not going to accept the amendments in the name of Deputy Woods or the amendments in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa some amendment should be inserted specifying some date, perhaps 1975. It cannot be left as open as it is now.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, can I make a point before the Minister replies?

I wish to make a point or two.

There are only ten minutes remaining in the debate.

There is a point of confusion. Deputy O'Malley has mentioned that if we were to adopt this amendment——

If the Deputy believes there is a point of confusion I would be happy to hear it when I have finished what I want to say. I can assure the Deputy that I do not intend to take ten minutes. Neither do I intend to be sitting here at 1.30 p.m. without having made a reply.

The position is that sections 3 and 4 of the Bill would apply only in relation to a request made for the surrender of a person or a warrant issued after the commencement of the Act but because of the provisions of section 1 that request or warrant may relate to an offence which was committed or alleged to have been committed before that date. There is one exception to that provided for in section 5 which establishes extra-territorial jurisdiction over offences committed outside the State. That section applies only to offences committed after the commencement of the Act. That is reasonable because it is creating new offences in terms of our jurisdiction.

Provisions of the kind contained in the Bill are quite normal when new extradition arrangements are being made. The Extradition Act, 1965, for example, applied to offences whether committed before or after its passing. Our extradition treaty with the United States, recently approved by the House, contains a similar provision. I might point out that none of the points now being made in support of these amendments was adverted to at all during the debate on that treaty. The recent Anglo-American treaty also contains a similar provision. Those provisions, as well as being normal, are perfectly reasonable.

If a state decides to put in place a particular agreement on extradition, it is thereby saying that in its view the interests of justice require that persons be extradited in accordance with the terms of that agreement. In that situation, the question of whether an offence was committed before the agreement was made or, as in this case, before the legislation was passed is irrelevant. There is no injustice involved here. There would be an injustice involved if a new offence were being created and the Bill contained a provision to give it retrospective effect. That is not what is involved here. In this Bill where a new offence or the potential for a new offence is being created, that will arise under section 5 but only on the passing of the Act. There is no question under the Bill of making something criminal which was not an offence at the time it was done. Before a person can be liable for extradition, the act for which he is sought will have to be one that constituted an offence against the law of the requesting state and of the requested state at the time of its commission.

The plea that an offence is a political offence is available only for the purpose of extradition. It is not a defence to a charge of the offence it self to say that it was a political offence. Accordingly, it is irrelevant from the point of view of criminal liability whether an offence was or was not within the scope of the political offence exception. The scope of that exception is a consideration that arises only in relation to the decision whether or not to extradite a person for a particular offence. Accordingly, it is quite proper and in accordance with principle that the time of the commission of the offence concerned should be immaterial.

I would point out to the Deputy McCreevy that there is not a statute of limitation in relation to serious criminal offences, nor do I think Deputy McCreevy would make the argument that we should automatically decide not to undertake proceedings in the case of a murder committed 15 years ago if new evidence should become available. That is not the argument Deputy McCreevy would make and he should apply the same logic to this discussion.

Neither is it true to allege, as Deputy Woods did, that people who have turned their backs on their past would now find themselves at the mercy of RUC warrants, based on no evidence, seeking them for questioning only. The system does not allow for warrants based on no evidence seeking people for questioning only. To say the least, it is disingenuous of Deputy Woods to throw in that allegation at this point in the discussion. It seems to be an attempt to find the merest corner of what looks as if if might be a green flag and to take it out and wave it. It is not an allegation founded in any way on the practice we have since 1965. For those reasons I would agree on this occasion with Deputy O'Malley and reject the two amendments.

I have listened to the Minister and to Deputy O'Malley. It seems very reasonable and proper in a legalistic way to make the argument that there would be a vacuum within which a licence would be granted to do anything and everything and scut back here. This Bill will be forced through as it stands by the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle. We are not dealing here with France, Germany, Belgium or Holland. In effect, we are dealing with part of our own country in which there is a very flawed Judiciary, a flawed police force and flawed activities within those two realms about which we have complained in the past and got a verdict in the European Court. These are the special circumstances and background against which we are talking, not just the legalistic situation which might arise in what we would regard as relations between normal countries or jurisdictions. We are talking about an occupied part of our country which is held in subjection, which has a flawed Judiciary, a flawed police force, and a verdict of the European Court against the inhuman treatment, involving unnecessary strip-searching and so forth, that has been meted out in Gough Barracks and other such places. It is to these people that we are giving the right virtually to create an internment situation if they so wish, going back as far as they can in the files of people who are still alive. That is what we are doing.

If the Minister has any leanings towards trying to allay the real fears and the real injustice of the retroactive aspect of this Bill, he does not have to take the wording of either of the two amendments before us. He could propose his own formula somewhere in between, agreeing to the spirit behind the two amendments. Those people who are here, in respect of some of whom extradition proceedings have failed, must not be put at second risk. That could be done if the Minister had the wish to do it by implementing such a formula from the passage of this Bill through this House today.

That is what Deputy Mac Giolla's amendment says.

If that is so, then Deputy O'Malley's argument which has great legal force would go out of the window. I am totally against this measure being applied to the Six Counties administration or to England, Wales, Scotland and the Isle of Man because their system has discriminated against Irish citizens in its application in recent years. I take it that the delayed coming into force of this Bill is a clear admission and acceptance by the Minister and the Government that this is so.

On a point of order, I would agree to the changing of my amendment to refer to the date of the passing of the Act rather than the commencement. It would thus read: "to have been committed after the passing of the Act."— that is, from today. That would meet what Deputies Blaney, O'Malley and Mac Giolla require.

Not in my case.

It would partly meet what Deputy O'Malley wishes. That is fair enough. Our time has run out. I take it there is no disagreement to that course.

Amendment No. 1 amended, by leave, by the substitution of "passing" for "commencement".

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 75.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McCartin, Joe.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • 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.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, Niall.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil Terence.
  • 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.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Jim.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geogheghan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Gregory-Independent, Tony.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • 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.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Amendment declared carried.

As the question on amendment No. 1 has been agreed to, amendment No. 2 cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.