Private Members' Business. - Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Bill, 1986: Report and Final Stages.

Amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputies O'Malley and Harney has been ruled out of order. Amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputies O'Malley and Harney.

It is not moved. They do not care about the parliamentary process.

My amendment reads:

In page 2, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"1. —Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or of the Act of 1965 no person shall be ordered to be extradited for the purpose of proceeding against him for an offence pursuant to the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1965, nor shall any person be committed pursuant to a warrant endorsed pursuant to the provisions of Part III of the Act of 1965, unless statements of proposed evidence of witnesses, authenticated in a manner prescribed by regulations to be made by the Minister pursuant to the provisions of the Act of 1965, shall have been produced to the District Court and unless the District Court, on production of such statements, is satisfied that such statements of proposed evidence would suffice to return that person for trial, if the person were being prosecuted for a similar or corresponding offence, in respect of an act committed within the State."

This is not the same as the amendments which were defeated earlier today on Committee Stage but it has in part at least the same general purpose of seeking to achieve the introduction of aprima facie requirement in so far as the extradition of people from this country is concerned. Largely the same arguments that were made already in respect of this matter can be adduced again, and they have to be adduced because no real response has been made to them. In substance what the Minister said in reply did not deal with the merits or demerits of the amendments as such but he looked at them from a broader point of view and said that if amendments of this kind were accepted — I am sorry, Sir, is amendment No. 1 disallowed?

Yes. I was beginning to think the Deputy did not realise that amendment No.1 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"1.—The following section is hereby substituted for section 4 of the Act of 1965:

‘4. —Every order made by the Government under this Act after the commencement of this section shall be laid before Dáil Éireann and shall not have effect until Dáil Éireann has approved the terms of such Order by resolution in that behalf.'.",

Amendment No. 2 is a different matter altogether. I am sorry, I thought at first that you called amendment No. 1. Unfortunately, amendment No. 1 is disallowed apparently and that is by far the more important one if I could have moved it, but I will have to go on to amendment No. 2. That is regrettable in a way because I would prefer to have moved amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 is a much simpler matter, a matter which I hope the Minister is prepared to accept. It is important that the Minister would show some willingness to have some flexibility in regard to these matters and our efforts to try to introduce safeguards into them. The effect of amendment No. 2 is simply to change section 4 of the 1965 Act which deals with the making of orders by the Government. In practice it means the ratification of extradition agreements. This amendment in my name and in the name of Deputy Harney will have the effect of requiring that each such extradition agreement with whatever country it is made, would have to be laid before the House and would not have effect until the Dáil had approved the terms of such an extradition agreement. It is called an order in the amendment because that is what it is called the 1965 Act, which this seeks to amend.

Extradition is a matter which causes and has caused considerable concern, particularly in recent years, to many of our citizens, not just to those who are directly affected, but to ordinary citizens who are concerned for the preservation of civil liberties. It causes concern to Members of this House, as is evidenced by the length and intensity of debates on this Bill over the last number of days, the closeness of the votes, and the continual tied votes that have been taking place in the House today. It is quite evident that it is necessary and appropriate that all extradition agreements that this State enters into with foreign states should be laid before this House and should need the approval of the House. That is the practice in the US where every such agreement is regarded as a foreign treaty and requires the approval of the US Senate, which is the House within the US Congress which has particular powers in relation to foreign relations. If the Amercans feel that it is necessary that every such treaty or agreement should be subject to the approval of their Senate, which is the more important of the two Houses for the purpose of foreign relations at least, it is quite appropriate that similar agreements made by our Government should have the approval of this House. The Constitution provides, in Article 29, that all such agreements with foreign countries be laid before the Dáil, but it only requires, constitutionally, that agreements which involve a charge on the people or expenditure of money by the State require the express approval of the Dáil.

We had the instance three weeks ago in this House that the 1983 extradition agreement which this country entered into with the US, had to come here as a result of the Supreme Court having held that it was invalid because it had not been passed by this House. The reason was that it involved the expenditure of public money and therefore under the Constitution required the approval of the House to make it valid as a binding foreign agreement. That is probably likely to happen with all future extradition agreements that the State enters into, but is is not necessarily going to happen. There may be instances where it does not. For example, if the Government of the day for some reason chose to leave out that clause that entailed expenditure it would not be constitutionally necessary for it to come to this House. Therefore it should be made legally necessary whether or not there is a clause in the extradition agreement.

As a result of this debate on this Bill, and as a result of the many contested, disputed and botched extraditions that have taken place from this country in the last several years, extradition agreements from now on will be matters of considerable public interest and should be subject to the scrutiny and approval of this House before becoming binding on the State. It is a reasonable requirement. It does not infringe any of our international obligations or run counter to any of our practices. It is perfectly feasible for the Minister to accept this and he cannot even attempt to make any of the arguments he made on the substantive amendments on Committee Stage regarding theprima facie requirement. The Minister cannot conceiveably allege that this will be damaging to the Anglo-Irish Agreement or that to go ahead with this would in some way put the Anglo-Irish Agreement in some jeopardy or doubt. These were the ridiculous statements the Minister made with regard to the amendments we moved on Committee Stage. None of these sorts of arguments can conceiveably be made. It will not cause any inconveniences to anybody. It will probably happen in the majority of cases anyway, but obviously if the Government have the opportunity of not having to bring such an extradition agreement before the House they will not.

The agreement signed in July 1983 was not brought before this House until the Supreme Court declared it invalid because that had not been done. The 1983 agreement would not have been brought here but for the fact that the Supreme Court decided as it did. It is interesting that the Australian agreement does not seem to have come before this House and the circumstances in which that agreement was made were so dubious that it would indeed have been appropriate that it should have been brought before this House, because the authorities here, presumably under the direction of the Minister for Justice of the day and his Department, directed that a man be arrested under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 and be detained for 48 hours while an agreement was cobbled together between Australia and Ireland for the purpose of arresting him under that extradition agreement on the expiration of the 48 hours. That blatant misuse of the powers in the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 was never contemplated. Because of the dubious circumstances of the birth of that agreement it is appropriate that it should be subject to the scrutiny of this House.

I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It is straightforward, it stands on its own, it does not affect anything else or run counter to our international obligations and, above all, they will not be displeased in London if the Minister accepts it, because it is a matter that is immaterial to London and therefore the Minister is free to accept it. The Minister might now make an effort to accommodate in some way the reasonable views expressed on all sides of the House except in the case of some of the Government backbenchers who cannot express them publicly, but they are certainly expressing them freely in private.

It is appropriate that the Minister should accept this amendment after three or four tied votes today on major substantive amendments to this Bill and because a clear majority of Members of this House do not want this Bill without the safeguards we have sought to import into it. I gave warning before in respect of the Fifth Stage of this Bill which will be taken tonight before 11 p.m., that if the reasonable views being put forward by the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil, and in private by a large number of Government backbenchers, were not accommodated in some reasonable way, then we would have to consider our position in regard to the Fifth Stage. We have already voted for this Bill on Second Stage because we approve the principle of it. We gave the Minister the opportunity to remedy what not just we but many people and commentators thought were serious defects in the Bill. The Minister has turned his face against every effort to insert reasonable safeguards which nobody reasonably could object to.

We have to take that into account in making up our minds between now and 11 p.m. as to what to do on Fifth Stage. If this Bill is to receive a Fifth and Final Reading on the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle yet again today it is a Bill which is perhaps without parallel in the history of this Oireachtas for the doubtful democratic nature of its passage. It could never have been envisaged that a normal Government in normal circumstances would attempt to push through a Bill by having to rely on the Ceann Comhairle five or six times in the one day during the course of its passage.

The Minister has an opportunity, even though this is only a relatively minor matter by comparision with these other matters, to remedy the ridiculously inflexible attitude he has taken. He has some opportunity to encourage the Progressive Democrat Deputies as well as other Deputies who at present are forced into the position, against our own instincts in many respects, of voting against this Bill. It is a matter of some concern to me that I find myself being put in that position but I am being put in it by the foolish inflexibility of the Minister. This is a relatively minor matter and there is no reason it cannot be accepted. It is par for the course in other countries where it is perfectly normal and it should be normal here. It will happen in most cases but not in all. I simply want to have the legal requirement that it will happen in all.

It will be the desire of all Members of this House in the future to scrutinise each extradition agreement. It is well they might do so because these agreements, particularly those which are likely to be made with Britain and Northern Ireland over the next number of years, will require careful scrutiny. It should be the legal right of this House to do that and it should be put in such a way that until such time as this House approves of it it does not become law domestically and does not become binding on this State.

I would like to support this amendment probably for different reasons from those put forward by Deputy O'Malley. I would not agree with all his arguments but it has been very disappointing that the Minister has not acceded in any way to the very reasonable demands made on him. It did seem last weekend that the Minister — perhaps we should not blame him personally — was about to make some alteration on Committee Stage which would have gone some way towards meeting the fears expressed on Second Stage.

The Taoiseach came out very strongly at the weekend to bone up the Minister and make sure he would not make any changes. He made the outrageous allegation that Deputies knowingly and deliberately put down amendments with regard toprima facie evidence in order to prevent the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism from being ratified. The Taoiseach was being deliberately and knowingly insulting to Deputies by making that allegation but his intervention was to ensure that the Minister would not make any concessions to Deputies on Committee Stage. He has succeeded because the Minister has stonewalled on every issue.

The main purpose of the Bill and of the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism is to remove certain criminal and terrorist acts from the cover of being political crimes. The Workers' Party are in general support of that provision and have constantly asserted our total opposition to terrorism and to the effect which terrorist acts have as attacks on democracy. Basically, they are anti-republican as well as being anti-human. However, because of the major changes in our extradition procedures we must be more careful than ever in protecting the rights of citizens because our purpose is to protect the innocent and not the guilty from being extradited without reasonable evidence being given. The Minister has not in any way acceded to that.

This amendment is in accord with amendments we have put down to similar sections in Bills which come at regular intervals before this House, that is, that an order is laid before the House and passed unless an annulling order is put before the House within 21 days. This procedure is most unsatisfactory because as far as most backbench Deputies are concerned the order would be before the House for some days before they would know about it. The procedure does not assist us as we discovered on one occasion when we were unable to get an annulling order through the House. It is far better procedure to have the positive element that the order is laid before the Dáil and shall not have effect until the Dáil approves its terms.

The amendment is most reasonable. Its effect would be to restore the power to the Dáil which it should have on every Bill where such orders are referred to with the order not coming into effect until the Dáil has approved it rather than having it go through unless somebody succeeds in obtaining an order disapproving of it. It is on that basis that I support the amendment. Again, this is not a major change in the Bill. The Minister cannot say it is preventing us from ratifying the convention as he said when we proposed theprima facie case. It should be a normal procedure and it is the best procedure for Deputies.

I am very much afraid that Deputy O'Malley may be entering one of his slightly waspish phases like the one he seemed to have last night. He said a few things during the course of his speech which I would regard as somewhat provocative, not to say outrageous, but I do not intend to follow him down that line. I will stick to the amendment before us.

The Chair is glad to hear it.

I thought you might be, Sir. Section 4 of the 1965 Act provides that every order made by the Government under that Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and that if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder. The amendment would provide that every order made by the Government under this Act after the commencement of the section would be laid before Dáil Éireann and would not have effect until Dáil Éireann had approved the terms of such order by resolution in that behalf.

I take the view that the procedure set out in the amendment is infinitely preferable in parliamentary terms to the other procedure. Deputy O'Malley knows as well as I do that the procedure that is followed in section 4 of the 1965 Act at present is one that has a good deal to do with the convenience of business in the Dáil, in that by and large in the normal course of events orders can be laid before the House and made without there being a requirement to have a debate in the House unless an annulling motion is put forward. While that procedure has its value in areas such as the one we are talking about, the affirmative procedure has its own particular and, in my view, superior value for reasons much like those set out by Deputy O'Malley. For that reason I am very much inclined to accept the amendment. However, there is one question that it raises and it might be worth while looking at for a minute or two. The present procedure providing for the annulling order provides that the order shall be annulled if a resolution annulling it is passed by either House within the next 21 days on which it sits. The proposal in the amendment before us requiring an affirmative order to be made specifies that the order shall not have effect until Dáil Éireann has approved the terms of such order. On the one hand the negative road provides in relation to either House passing an annulling motion. The amendment before us specifies Dáil Éireann.

I am not sure if it would be appropriate to use the same wording in the affirmative order as in the negative one, unless Deputy O'Malley is particularly attached to the idea that it should be Dáil Éireann which should pass it. Perhaps he really has in mind the situation where either House would make it. I believe it is better that the matter be brought before the Oireachtas and positively decided one way or the other. While I accept the spirit and intent of the amendment, there is a question mark in my mind. Perhaps Deputy O'Malley would comment before we finally conclude on this.

I am not entirely clear as to what the Minister's difficulty is. Does he want to have approval by both Houses rather than just by the Dáil? Is that the point he is making? Perhaps I could ask this by way of a query so that I will not lose my opportunity to reply.

I am taking it that Deputy O'Malley is not concluding but is replying to a question asked by the Minister.

I am sorry. I did not intend to set a procedural trap for the Deputy. Section 9 (3) of the Bill before us deals with powers to apply the provisions of the Act to non-Convention countries and provides as follows:

A draft of any order proposed to be made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.

That would be in keeping with the intention Deputy O'Malley has set out and if that is the case I would be inclined to favour and accept an amendment in those terms.

That seems satisfactory. It is just a question of how we word it.

Would the Minister or Deputy O'Malley make it clear what exactly is proposed?

The agreement will be signed when it is brought to the House and there may be some difficulty in dealing with it as a draft. As far as the other country is concerned, it is a final document which their plenipotentiary signed. The difficulty would arise if, for example, this House wished to amend it.

In order to bring the matter more into order, I would suggest that the Minister might consider recommitting this amendment. We are on Report Stage and can only have one intervention by each person and a concluding intervention by the proposer of an amendment. If the House wishes, the House can recommit the Bill, which means it can go back into Committee to deal with this amendment and then each person may make interventions.

If that is in order, I would agree.

Is that agreed?

Is there any time limit on that?

We could do it in three minutes.

Not more than ten minutes.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 2.

I suggest that we use the same wording as appears in section 9 (3). On the point Deputy O'Malley has just raised, it is not unusual in the event of agreements signed internationally to have a requirement for a ratification procedure after signature. It would seem to be not at all unusual or out of the way to provide that ratification would have to come about by the type of order we are now discussing laid before the Oireachtas after signature.

Thank you. Could I call out what I think would be an alternative draft?

I think the Deputy should write it out.

I was trying to save time. It would read as follows:

The following section is hereby substituted for section 4 of the Act of 1965:

"A draft of any order proposed to be made by the Government under this Act after the commencement of this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House."

Would the Deputy say where he proposes to insert that new section?

Section 4 of the 1965 Act.

The Report Stage amendment was to be in page 2, between lines 12 and 13, but the more appropriate place would be after section 1, so that it would become section 2. It is more appropriate after section 1 rather than before it.

"In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following..."

That is correct and it would be numbered as section 2.

It might be more appropriate to insert it after section 6 because it is after section 6 that we begin to deal with amendments to the 1965 Act.

That is all right by me. Before section 7, after line 32.

May the amendment be taken in this form: "That the following section is hereby substituted for section 4 of the Act of 1965"? Then the subsection will read: "A draft of any order proposed to be made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House."

I think the words "by the Government" should go in. They are in the original section 4 of the 1965 Act. It should read "under this Act" rather than the section.

"An order proposed to be made under this Act..."

I move amendment No. 2:

A draft of any order proposed to be made by the Government under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.

Am I to take it that the original amendment No. 2 is withdrawn and that the amendment which was read out is substituted therefor?

That is correct.

And it is to be inserted on page seven before section 7?

That is correct.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 3, before line 1, to insert the following:

"2.—Section 50 of the Act of 1965 is amended by the insertion, after subsection (4), of the following subsection:

‘(5) A direction under this section may be given by the Minister, if he—

(a) is not satisfied that the person concerned will receive a fair trial within a reasonable period,

(b) is not satisfied, that the general standards which prevail in the administration of justice in the place to which the person is to be removed are satisfactory and acceptable, or

(c) has reasonable grounds for believing that the person concerned may be subjected to methods of interrogation which, if operated within the State would be unlawful or which are in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.'.".

This amendment deals with the question of a fair trial and the general standards of administrative justice which prevail in the places to which an individual is to be sent. The amendment which has been accepted by the Minister now says that a draft order proposed to be made by the Government under this Act shall come before both Houses of the Oireachtas and this is something which we said was very desirable in relation to the American order. We support that amendment. However, it does not affect the obligations which are entered into by the Government under the Bill which we are discussing now.

If the Government are committed, without safeguards, to the measures which are included in this Bill, then the Government will have to honour their obligations. The Government of the day will be required to honour those obligations by way of the appropriate order. One will still be faced with the situation where one has either to agree or not under the terms which are already agreed in this Bill which we are considering now. While this is an amendment which we would welcome generally and it gives an opportunity to propose to the Minister of the day the kinds of reservations or declarations which might be made in relation to any order which he is planning to proceed with, nevertheless if these reservations and declarations are not included, either at the signing or at the ratification of any such agreement, then they cannot be included subsequently unless one is to denunciate, or find some other similar means.

We have had a good deal of discussion here today and yesterday on this very important Bill. I should like to point out that we live in a constitutional democracy. The Government are bound to vindicate the rights of citizens. They are bound to protect and vindicate and look after those rights. In this convention on terrorism the Government have refused to include any of the safeguards which we have suggested. The main question which we must ask oursleves is how this Bill protects and vindicates the rights of Irish citizens.

We supported Second Stage because we are in favour of playing our part with our international partners in tackling the problem of international terrorism, but we are not in favour of givingcarte blanche to the Minister, or to the crown prosecutor in Britain, or to the DPP in Northern Ireland, or to any foreign prosecuting authority. No self-respecting sovereign country would do less than insist that there be safeguards included in these measures, nor have they done any less. All our partners have insisted on one kind of safeguard or another. We have gone through those fairly exhaustively. We talked about the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Denmark and Norway, who all require prima facie cases to be established before they will agree to an extradition. We also have Germany, France, Belgium, Austria and The Netherlands who will not extradite their own nationals at all. Then we have various other safeguards which we dealt with fairly exhaustively during the course of this debate. The Government here have proceeded with far too much haste, which indicates a certain amount of irresponsibility on their part. For instance, on Committee Stage we did not get past the first section. We have now had to go back to Committee Stage as an emergency measure to try to fit in a very reasonable amendment. We did not even discuss section 2 and, clearly, none of the other sections was discussed.

A measure of this kind requires a great deal of consideration and study and a good Committee Stage. There is a danger that laws made in haste will almost inevitably be endured bitterly for many years to come. This Bill will certainly generate conflict and a certain amount of misery. The courts will be bound by the measures in the Bill. We, very reasonably, proposed on Committee Stage that either the court or the Minister could give a direction under section 50 of the 1965 Act if the court or the Minister were not satisfied that the person concerned would receive a fair trial within a reasonable period and if they were not satisfied in several other respects. This was not accepted and indeed Deputy O'Malley felt that to have the courts involved would create too many difficulties. We are now proposing an amendment which will allow the Minister to make such a direction if he is not satisfied that the person concerned will receive a fair trial within a reasonable period, if he is not satisfied that the general standards which prevail in the administration of justice in the place to which the person is to be removed are satisfactory and acceptable or if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person concerned may be subjected to methods of interrogation which, if operated within the State, would be unlawful or in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We regard this as a particularly important protection.

We have a major objection to the Bill in that it proposes to extradite in circumstances where people would not even be sent for trial in this country. It proposes to remove from the Irish courts any effective decision-making in a whole expanded series of offences which previously would have been regarded as political. This is a downgrading of the function of our courts, to which we object. If somebody is to oversee extraditions, then rather than the British crown prosecutor, the DPP in Northern Ireland or any foreign prosecuting authority, the courts should protect and vindicate the rights of Irish citizens in this regard.

In deference to the views expressed here earlier, we are putting forward in this amendment a proposal restricting the provision to the Minister if he feels that a direction under this section should be given. It is not as comprehensive as we would have desired but it still gives control to the Minister. Indeed, I pointed out in looking at the British Bill which is still being discussed, that they reserve to the Secretary of State the final decision and the power to give direction. We are all very aware of the problems involved and I spelt them out at some length earlier on, our concern about the methods of interrogation in the Six Counties, the infamous Diplock courts which have been discredited and which are still upheld by the British authorities, even as recently as yesterday. They have expressed their satisfaction with the Diplock courts and they do not envisage changing the system in the foreseeable future.

The Minister also indicated that he is concerned about these areas and he, therefore, set the date for the implementation of the Bill back to 1 June and then, for some reason, put it back to 1 December, presumably in the hope that there will be some progress in relation to the methods of trial, questioning, interrogation, the holding of people in custody in Northern Ireland and the basis on which they are held. Learned, objective academics studied the problem as recently as 1980-81 and they found that one of the principal purposes of arresting people and taking them into custody is for interrogation and to get information about third parties. That is still a problem, the Minister seems to think it has gone and I would be very happy if he could substantiate that view. The Diplock courts are still in existence even though they have been discredited. Almost as if to thumb his nose at the Minister, Mr. King said yesterday that they will continue in the foreseeable future. Why did he say it yesterday? I know there was a debate in the House of Commons but he did not show much sensitivity in relation to a Minister who was struggling to meet commitments which the Taoiseach had given within the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Obviously, he was not concerned about getting headlines in our newspapers and the British press which were embarrassing for our Minister. It will be quite some time before the system of justice in Northern Ireland reaches an acceptable standard. The measure we proposed could be used as a means of ensuring that if the Minister is not satisfied a person will receive a fair trial within a reasonable period, if he is not satisfied with the general standards of the administration of justice and if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person may be subjected to methods of interrogation which are not acceptable from our point of view, he can issue the appropriate direction. This is exactly what the Minister has in mind. This is what concerns him and we are giving him an opportunity because we trust our own Minister in that respect——

That is the nicest thing the Deputy has said to me in the past two days.

I did not say anything about the Minister, he put his foot in it a few times, but——

The Deputy nearly paid me a compliment.

The Minister is really a nice fellow but he gets into some awkward situations. We will help him tomorrow with the emergency legislation. Is it ready yet?

It has gone to the printers.

But the Minister will let us have a copy so that we can look at it before tomorrow's debate? We go a long way to help the Minister——

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy does not turn up when I invite him.

I will explain that later, but if the Minister wants me to explain it again tonight I will.

We recognise that the Minister has these problems in mind and that he sees these difficulties. We want to give him the statutory authority to exercise control in this area. We believe that would be a very important safeguard for Irish citizens because they will know at least that the Irish Minister of the day will consider their position, that he will consider the requirements to which they will be subjected and he will ensure that they will be subjected to a fair system of administrative justice and a fair trial within a reasonable time.

We put this measure to the House and welcome the Minister. He is in a very friendly and helpful mood tonight and is looking for measures he can accept. Here is another one which will give him certain powers and control and we would be very happy if he accepted it and made it his own.

I am very concerned about the effects this Bill will have on the Irish people if it is enacted. Even at this late stage an amendment such as this will give some protection to our people should it be accepted. It is unfortunate that when we speak of extradition our attention is almost totally absorbed by the situation between Ireland and Britain. Yet the only major argument in favour of the Bill is the implementation of the measures claimed to be consistent with recent European moves to combat terrorism. The scale of terrorism throughout Europe and the suspected links between terrorist organisations in different European countries is a major problem for all. It also involves the liberty and freedom of movement of all EC nationals.

We must look very carefully at the safeguards which should have been built into this Bill, as suggested by many Members of this House, but even at this late stage some safeguards can be built into this Bill if this amendment is accepted. Other European countries — Germany, France, The Netherlands and so on — do not extradite their citizens as we propose to do if this Bill is enacted. This is a serious problem in Germany where they have to deal with refugees from East Germany but their legislation provides very reasonable safeguards.

This Bill will affect many people in this country, not alone in the Border counties but in Dublin as well. Many people have had to get out of the Six Counties and have tried to make a new life for themselves in the Republic. Over the last 16 or 17 years, unfortunately, the situation in the Six Counties has not improved. We could find ourselves once more dealing with many people from that part of Ireland seeking refuge here.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement has been referred to throughout this debate. It is claimed to have brought about a new approach between the Irish and British Governments in dealing with the politicalimpasse in the Six Counties, but there is no point in fooling ourselves that the position in the North has improved as a result of that agreement. It has not improved for the ordinary people just because the Irish and British Ministers meet periodically in their friendly “get togethers”. Anybody can see that the British Administration in the North is nothing better than a Berlin bunker. The Ministers heading that Administration in Stormont failed time and time again to deliver any significant support for the agreement from the pro-British element of the population in the North.

We must try to ensure that some safeguards are built into this Bill for the people who could be extradited to that part of Ireland. I would be very worried about the treatment of our people who would be extradited there. We cannot for a minute ignore the different political analyses arrived at over the years, both in Dublin and London, about the deteriorating situation in the Six Counties. We fully appreciate and understand that some misguided young people can get involved with terrorist godfathers because of the terrible experiences they suffer in the North. No one can condone any illegal actions in which they might participate but we can understand that they can be duped into thinking that the IRA or other terrorist organisations offer them a way of getting back at the regime which is not, and has not been, prepared to give them a chance.

It is necessary to look at the attitude of the British generally. There have been calls time and time again for extradition of our people to Britain. It is hard to understand the motivation behind this. The British have had little success with their anti-terrorism measures in the North. Their supporters tend to blame the Irish Republic for a situation which is of their own making. The British are clinging to the North without making any real effort to resolve the political situation there and the consequence is continuing violence which is affecting all sides of the community there. The different understanding of the problem by the British is best illustrated by the attitude that if we do not pass this Bill we are in sympathy with the terrorists. That seems to be the attitude the British want to accept. From my own experience of cases involving Irish people convicted in British courts, the British assumption is that if you are Irish you are guilty. We are all aware that in Northern Ireland or in Britain when an Irishman is arrested and he says he is Irish, he is guilty immediately. If an American or any other national is arrested he is not guilty.

On numerous occasions I visited our citizens in prisons in the UK. The story is always the same; they are guilty. In cases where an individual has an Irish background there are a number of years added to the sentence. If a person is second or third generation Irish and is reared in Britain it makes a vast difference when he is sentenced. How can we allow our citizens to be extradited, in particular to Britain, to be treated in that fashion? When one is convicted and imprisoned in London or in any other part of Britain that is convenient for their families to visit, immediately they are sent to the Isle of Wight. I had intended visiting some of my constituents this week who are imprisoned in London but I heard today that they are not there any longer. It was too easy for their families and for public representatives to visit them so they were sent to the Isle of Wight without any protest from Dublin.

The mere fact that extradition is a legal matter should not lead us to ignore that initiating a case is a matter for the police. Even if a suspect is extradited with the condition that it is not for the purpose of interrogation the case against them may rest on evidence gathered by the police in circumstances which Irish courts may not approve. Numerous cases have been referred to during the course of this debate. In British courts and in our own courts doubts have been cast on what was introduced as expert evidence, including forensic evidence, as well as on identification procedures and on the statements of witnesses implicating people in crime.

Our residents are entitled to the full protection of Irish law just as it is the duty of the law enforcement agencies to ensure that Irish laws are upheld, including those relating to offences committed in their own countries. Down the years we spent many billions of pounds patrolling the Border. These problems were created by the British blunders in the North. Are we now saying that our laws during those years were inadequate? The security forces on this side of the Border have done a good job in trying to ensure that the laws are observed. One of the biggest problems is as a direct result of the way the British behaved in the Six Counties for too many years. Whether the position in the North improves or gets worse the implications of this Extradition Bill could be very serious for this country. The security forces have almost universal support in combating terrorist crime.

We should not further compromise the legal rights of Irish citizens as is contemplated in this Bill. It is, at the least, unnecessary and, at the worst, may prove to be very embarrassing if any injustice is done to innocent people as a result of by-passing present procedures. Our courts have the necessary powers to decide questions which may involve the deprivation of liberty to individuals for long periods of time before they go on trial. That has happened already. People were handed over to the North and were subsequently acquitted on the original charge. That happened in the McGlinchey case. Serious charges were also pending against him in this State and he had to wait until he was returned to this jurisdiction for trial.

The Minister has an opportunity at this late stage to accept the amendment as proposed on Report Stage by Deputy Woods. The Minister has been inflexible in his attitude throughout this Bill. Apart from the principle of the Bill, one could not accept that our citizens can be literally dumped over the Border simply for interrogation. That is something we cannot accept. I ask the Minister to take this discretion upon himself, and upon future Ministers, to ensure that he is satisfied that the person concerned will get a fair trial within a reasonable period. I ask the Minister to give this every consideration and to include it in this section.

I thought the Minister was going to say something that would have obviated my saying anything. The idea of the Minister for Justice having this chore to do might appeal to him. He has been behaving in a draft manner at the direction of his Government led by a daft Taoiseach who produced to this House daft but dangerous legislation. It has been improved somewhat by the reasonableness of the Minister in accepting, after all the talk in the last few days, the amendment as reworded by Deputy O'Malley. In Deputy Woods's amendment, and with his agreement, instead of saying if the Minister "is not satisfied" I would be more in favour of saying "unless he is of the opinion". That might make it less difficult for the Minister to accept the various elements of this amendment which are absolutely essential to try to mitigate the great dangers that are inherent in the whole measure. This would go a lot of the way towards giving some assurance — whether by the present Minister acting in a non-daft manner as he is quite capable of doing most of the time or whoever — to many of our people who might have fears at the moment that those fears could be allayed. If the Minister is of the opinion or is not satisfied that a fair trial will not be forthcoming within a reasonable period; if he is of the opinion or is not satisfied that the general standards are acceptable or if he is of the opinion or has reasonable grounds for believing that the person concerned may be subjected to unacceptable methods of interrogation, he could give a direction on the matter. What is of most concern to us is the interrogation and the atmosphere — as was rightly stated by my colleague, Deputy Gallagher, and by all of us — in the Six Counties where there is a lack of any proper, acceptable or satisfactory dispensing of justice, particularly when the non-Loyalist element of the population may fall foul of the law and if they are extradited on foot of a mere request from the legal authorities there. The intervention of the Minister to satisfy himself that there will be a fair trial, that the system there is acceptable, has improved and is satisfactory in the dispensing of justice and, above all, that the interrogation methods have been radically altered, would be of great advantage. I hope we do not find some unfortunate being extradited and then having the lard beaten out of him in order to get a confession to convict him on, perhaps, spurious allegations which may have formed the basis of the request for extradition.

I appeal to the Minister to take on this task. In addition to the amendment he has already accepted he should adopt this amendment proposed by Deputy Woods. If the Minister does not agree to the wording suggested by Deputy Woods I have no doubt that suitable wording can be found. I will be less unhappy about the outcome of the application of this measure when it is passed if the amendment is accepted. The Minister should give this matter serious consideration. We are not dealing with a kindergarten or play school when we send somebody back up there. We are dealing with hard realities of which we have too much proof in the past. I will not detail the interrogation methods adopted up there or the inhuman treatment that has been meted out over the years night and day. It has not stopped and we have no assurance that it will. The Minister would be some bulwark between the unfortunates who might find themselves being sent back there to face that unjust administration that purports to be the administration of justice in those Six Counties of ours.

The amendment has some similarities to one Deputy Woods moved on Committee Stage but there is one major difference which meets the points I made when Deputy Woods's earlier amendment was discussed. On Committee Stage I said that provisions of this kind could not possibly be adjudicated upon by a court and that it was appropriate if decisions of this sort were to be made they would be made by a Minister rather than by a court. A court could not be expected to have knowledge in its judicial capacity of the sort of matters referred to here. It would be impossible to adduce evidence before a court as to these matters because one could be there until kingdom come trying to decide on the rights and wrongs of these matters.

If a provision of this kind is to be used as a safeguard, it is appropriate that it should be done by the Minister of the day who is more likely to be informed, or have sources of information that could keep him informed, on these matters. I should like to say to the Minister that this is very different from the amendment put forward on Committee Stage and it should be given serious consideration. If the amendments we put forward on Committee Stage in regard to theprima facie requirements had been accepted by the Minister I would say that the amendment before us was unnecessary but we have to look at the amendment in the context of the Bill as it stands without the safeguards that I, and I daresay a considerable majority of Members, think should have been written in. The fact is that they were not and, therefore, we have to look at a substitute.

Unfortunately, the amendment I sought to put down on Report Stage was disallowed and that prevents us putting forward in any form aprima facie requirement type of amendment or writing in any such safeguard of that type, which I think is an essential one, into the Bill. That is a pity but there is nothing I can do about it.

I see in this amendment a third best because it is far from ideal. It is very subjective and it will subject Ministers to a lot of pressure of a kind that they would prefer, speaking from my own experience in that Department, not to be subjected to. That is a pity but the Minister has only himself to blame for this. If he, and the Government, had acted more reasonably on Committee Stage in the way they were asked by an overwhelming number of people they would not have to consider this amendment. Although I have described this amendment advisedly as third best and unsatisfactory from several points of view nevertheless it has to be considered.

The Government have handled the Bill badly, particularly Committee Stage. They have left themselves open to severe and justifiable criticism. There may be some indication that the Minister is trying to mend his hand now at this late stage, that he realises the error of the Government's approach and the nature of this. In the context of where we stand now, at 10.17 p.m. with the Bill coming to an end at 11 p.m. and not having got into it what should have been put into it, this is some opportunity, even though to my mind it is not at all satisfactory, for the Minister to introduce a safeguard. This gives some flexibility to the Minister and for that reason he should consider it.

I am not sure which section in the 1965 Act pertains to a general ability of the Minister to give a direction. There is some section other than section 50 but I cannot find it at the moment under which a Minister can refuse to allow an extradition to go forward or to be processed if he has grounds for doing so. The Minister of the day will be helped by the three categories set out in this amendment because they are three that relate to the concerns most frequently expressed here. Almost all of the debate on all sides has related to Britain and Northern Ireland but one point made in the amendment is very valid as far as Spain is concerned. If the Minister is not satisfied that the person concerned will receive a fair trial within a reasonable period he can do something about it if the amendment is adopted. Is 25 months in jail waiting for one's trial a reasonable period? Would a Minister for Justice here not be justified in saying he would be slow to allow anybody to be extradited if he will be kept in custody for that length of time awaiting his trial? This does not apply exclusively to Britain and Northern Ireland.

I have considerable reservations about this. I have no doubt there are better ways that this could be done but the Minister has chosen to set his face against them, a fact that I regret very much. In my view it has done enormous harm to the Bill and to the whole concept of what we are trying to deal with. Given the circumstances we are in, in the last hour of debate on the Bill before it is guillotined, this is the third best alternative and the Minister should accept it.

I support the amendment of Deputy Woods. I do not see any good reason why the Minister will not accept it. It endeavours to put into the Bill in a legal way something that has been at the background of the Bill at all times. As initiated, there is nothing in the Bill to state that unless and until we are satisfied that the administration of justice in the Six Counties is satisfactory, including the abolition of the Diplock courts, we will not agree to extradite our citizens to that jurisdiction. It is obvious that when the Government brought forward this legislation they expected aquid pro quo from the UK. The original proposal was that the Act would not be put into operation until 30 June 1987, but that date has been put back to 31 December 1987, presumably in order to give time for the other jurisdiction to satisfy us that the administration of justice there would be brought into line.

Over the years when my party, or the Coalition were in Government, I have objected to the fact that we seemed to get most of our information regarding the background to legislation not from the Minister in the House but people now known as national handlers, Government sources or whatever they might be called. Since the Bill was published it has been under what is known as "the lobby system". We have read about Government sources giving the media to understand that the Government were awaiting a response from the British Government to the effect that they would abolish the Diplock courts and do various things regarding the administration of justice in the Six Counties. We have different ideas about who these unnamed persons might be, but it is an unsatisfactory procedure which seems to have grown up in the last seven or eight years. Those people seem to have more power than the elected Members.

I particularly object to a spokesman who was reported in last Monday's newspapers as saying that if the Minister accepted theprima facie requirement as set down by Deputies Woods, O'Malley and others, this State would be a haven for terrorists. That implied two things: that if the Minister allowed the prima facie provision, Ireland would be a haven for terrorists; but, more important, it implied that we have never had extradition here for political offences and the impression given to Ian Paisley and others in the North has been that this State has been a haven for terrorists. That was the most damaging thing I found about that report because it copper-fastened the idea that those people in the North have been putting forward for years: it implied that if we do not do something about extradition for political offences through this Bill we will continue to be a haven for terrorists in the future. That is not the case.

The amendment of Deputy Woods endeavours to put into the legislation what the Government are hoping will happen in any event. The Minister hinted at this in his Second Stage speech. When referring to the change in the judicial systems which he hoped the British authorities would bring about he said:

And so the changes I have referred to are still in the course of being brought into effect. The Government believe that further progress needs to be made and so do the British Government though, of course, I am not saying that both Governments have agreed about what further changes might take place. The important point is that the two Governments are agreed that dialogue will continue on measures to improve confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

Later on the Minister said:

We believe, therefore, that it is right to show a substantial response.

Later he said:

I want to stress that it is not the Government's intention that any direct and necessary linkage should be established between the bringing into operation of this legislation and any remedial reform in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.

It has been proved from the debate that we are hoping that it will be possible by 31 December next year for people who may be extradited to receive a fair trial, that we will be satisfied as to the general standards of the administration of justice and that we will have reasonable grounds to believe that a person who will be extradited will not be interrogated improperly.

All the amendment is doing is endeavouring to insert in the legislation some safeguard. The Minister has refused to accept amendments on Committee Stage regarding aprima facie requirement though the majority of Members of the House and of the people of the country are not satisfied that we are putting safeguards into the Bill. It is only reasonable that there should be some caveat. Such an amendment to the Bill would not make one whit of difference to the purpose of the Government. Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

I think I was the first Deputy to refer to the fact that this Bill will apply to many other countries as well as to Britain and Northern Ireland. Even though they will probably account for a very small percentage of extraditions from here or to Ireland, we are putting on the Statute Book something that will affect 21 other countries, and additional countries which the Minister for Foreign Affairs from time to time may designate. If we fear the administration of justice in the Six Counties how might we feel about justice in those other countries? It is bad to incorporate in any legislation this type ofcarte blanche provision without any safeguard with regard to Irish citizens.

The least the Minister could do would be to accept this amendment which would provide some safeguards for people in respect of whom extradition warrants are requested. I do not think anybody inside or outside this House would be satisfied with the system of justice that is operated in the Six Counties, or would have any confidence in it, good, bad or indifferent. I have absolutely none. First I do not believe that there would be a fair trial afforded, second, I would have no confidence in the system of justice as administered there and, third, I am not satisfied regarding the methods of interrogation there. I do not think any sensible person in this part of the island would have any confidence in the system there. We would want to remember that it is not so long ago the British Government were before the European Court and found guilty on many charges relating to incidents in the Six Counties. There have also been reports from Amnesty International and so on, all of which have come to the same conclusion. It is obvious that people there do not get a fair trial. I have no hesitation in saying that I have no confidence in the system of justice operated there at present. I would have to be shown without any doubt, before the provisions of this Bill come into effect on 1 December 1987, that that system had improved. I hope it will have and if the enactment of this Bill helps to further reform the system there, then it will have served some purpose.

Not one safeguard has been built into the provisions of this Bill. If Deputy Woods's amendment was accepted at least we would be inserting something, some little safeguard. In order to show some goodwill to all sides in the matter, as a minimum, the Minister should be prepared to accept this amendment.

Deputy Woods began by saying that he is not in favour of givingcarte blanche to the Minister, to the Crown Prosecution Service, to the DPP in Northern Ireland or to any other officers. Yet part of his amendment does just that, it gives carte blanche to the Minister. I shall revert to that in a moment.

Deputy Woods insists on safeguards. I have pointed out repeatedly in the course of this debate what is the system that is in operation under the 1965 Act, what it provides for, what safeguards there are in it and indeed the improved safeguards that now exist following the agreement on a non-statutory scheme of inspection and supervision of these warrants.

Deputy Woods referred to the position in Denmark and Norway where, he said, aprima facie requirement exists, about which we spoke at an earlier stage in this debate, and where the import of the scheme as operated by those two countries is very much more limited than Deputy Woods would suggest. He mentioned a number of contracting countries that do not extradite their own nationals, but he did not refer to the fact that all of the countries he mentioned are civil law countries, that they do not have the kinds of difficulties in relation to admissibility of evidence that would arise in our case and do not have the same position in relation to, if you like, cross-citizenship with a neighbouring country that we have. If Deputy Woods refers to all of these other cases he should refer to all aspects of them and not just to specific ones which, taken on their own, would appear to suit the case he is making but, when put in context, do not suit it at all.

Deputy Woods also complained that we did not get through all the sections of the Bill. He will have seen that I was very anxious to have a discussion on section 3 with Deputy Blaney. I think I can fairly say — even Deputy O'Malley would bear me out on this — that I am not the Member who trotted out long speeches, certainly not, on Committee Stage. I heard this evening two Second Stage speeches on Committee Stage; that was not my doing.

Then, Deputy Woods had the effrontery to suggest that this Bill was being put through, and I think I quote his exact words "to generate conflict and misery".

The Minister has the quotation wrong.

This is another example of Deputy Woods looking through all of his papers finding a little wee ‘biteen' of green and deciding that is a flag he might take out and wave. Deputy Woods also alleged that one of the principal functions of taking people into custody in Northern Ireland is for interrogation. I have made the point very clearly that extradition — whether under the backing of warrants procedure to any part of the United Kingdom or to any other country, is not, should not and cannot be simply for the purpose of questioning. Deputy Woods does not seem to recognise that that is the case. I am sorry he does not recognise the facts before him.

Deputy O'Malley seemed to believe that the change in this amendment, compared with its previous form on Committee Stage, meets some of his concerns, that while it is far from being ideal it is, I think he said, a third best. He went on to say that it is very subjective and he said, rightly, although without any tincture of sympathy in his voice, that it would place a great deal of pressure on the Minister. That is true also. It is the kind of situation in which one should not put a Minister, in a case like this, in the area about which we are talking. I speak, not with any concern for my own skin or comfort but from the general principle; I do not think it is particularly wise of the Legislature to put members of the Executive in positions where they are exposed to certain kinds of pressure, particularly where such is not necessary.

The amendment in its present form is different in some respects from its Committee Stage form. In its present form it would mean that there would be laid down statutory grounds for the refusal of extraditions in relation to which the Minister only would have the power to decide whether the person concerned should or should not be extradited. There exist already in the 1965 Act grounds on which the Minister can act in this regard. I think Deputy Woods had in mind particularly section 50 of that Act which provides that the High Court and the Minister should have certain discretion in relation to the release of persons arrested. The High Court has discretion in relation to all of the grounds set out there. In section 50(4) of the 1965 Act the Minister has discretion on two of the grounds set out; he does not have as wide a discretion as the court. The existing grounds for refusal of extradition may be acted on either by the Minister or by the court. In the case of the other existing grounds the Minister for Justice does not have the right to take the ultimate decision as to whether a person should or should not be extradited. Even in the case of those existing powers, even if the matter were to come before the Minister and he were to decide that he should not interfere and that therefore he should not prevent extradition, the court might still decide otherwise. If a court decided otherwise the person would not be extradited.

In the amendment as it is now the power to decide whether to extradite would rest solely with the Minister and the requested person would have no recourse to the court in the event that the Minister decided not to intervene and refused extradition. That would be an undesirable provision. Let me add that reflection to the comments that I made about this on Committee Stage, although those comments concerned the wider framework of the amendment as it was then. Taking account of the grounds that Deputy O'Malley indicated on Committee Stage regarding the amendment then, and which he indicated in part that he still has in relation to the amendment as it now is before us, I have to conclude that I could not accept this amendment.

The Minister seems to feel that he should not be left in the position of being the last defence of the citizen. Given the circumstances of this Bill, as it stands, and Act as it will become in a very short time, there is a need for somebody to stand in defence of the Irish citizen because there will be noprima facie case and a person can be taken out of this country to another place for trial without the presentation here of the normal book of evidence which would be required if the person were to go forward for trial here within the State. That is what we are facing in this Bill and it is frightening when you consider the extent to which the measures included in this Bill will limit the political offence and will include many more situations and many more people. As we said on Second Stage regarding section 2, we support that measure in principle but we have insisted on safeguards. The Minister is not prepared to give the prima facie measure as a safeguard. He is still insisting on making the measures retroactive and now he is not prepared to introduce this measure as a defence and a vindication of the position of the citizen in the circumstances which apply at the moment, although he knows that there are serious problems, particularly in the North. This is why he is postponing the application of this Bill.

Earlier I gave the finding of the National Council for Civil Liberties in the UK the Cobden Trust. Let us look at their conclusion in relation to the system of justice in the North of Ireland as given inThe Use and Abuse of Emergency Legislation in Northern Ireland, page 125:

But now, after 14 years of deaths from rubber, plastic and real bullets, internment, detention without trial, exclusion orders, repetitive early morning arrests for intelligence gathering, surveillance and harassment, oppressive interrogation sessions, house and body searches, aggressive policing policies by the RUC and army—

This is from an academic body who are not emotionally involved: they have done a cold academic study of the situation as it exists on the ground.

Diplock courts, long periods of remand in custody, the use of supergrasses, the abduction of families, convictions on the basis of suspect confessions and heavy prison sentences all in the name of law and order with little or no means or redress, one can hardly expect that their respect or confidence has increased.

On the contrary, this, of course has led to alienation. It goes on, in conclusion, to ask how this problem can be tackled. Mere tinkering with the system would produce no improvement at all. Nothing less than a radical overhaul is required of the whole legal system as it applies in the North. Nor should this overhaul be confined to the criminal justice system but should extend to a total reappraisal of how to tackle the situation in the North. It makes out how serious the problems are there. On page 126 it says, and I quote:

Police and army powers of stop and question, arrest and interrogation is one area in which reform is long overdue ...

The repetitive arrests for intelligence gathering...

The Minister has continued to deny here all night that these arrests are for intelligence gathering. I know he would not want people taken out of the country purely for intelligence gathering or for interrogation, but we fear that the system he is bringing in now will result in creating such a situation and to leave us open to it. However it may be veiled and covered, that is likely to come from it.

The report goes on to suggest necessary measures, such as reducing the length of time the police can hold a suspect in custody which would help to prevent abuse in the interrogation room. Much more is needed. The report suggests many other things but there is no need to go into them at great length. We are all aware of the problems and we have put down this measure to give the Minister the opportunity of acting as the last defence of the citizen in ensuring that he will be extradited only to a place where a fair trial and fair legal system will apply. I think that is a reasonable proposition and an important safeguard and I am pressing the amendment.

Before I put this amendment, I understand that the Minister wishes to intervene in relation to the amendment which was made in substitution for amendment No.2

The suggestion that was made and the text that we looked at read: "a draft of any order proposed to be made by the Government under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until the motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House". In order to square it with the intention, I suggest that first there should be a marginal note stating: "laying of orders in draft before Houses of the Oireachtas" and that the amendment should read "a draft of any order proposed to be made by the Government under this Act after the commencement of the Extradition (European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1986 shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the Order shall not be made until the motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House". I think that achieves the end that we want to bring about.

Is that agreed?

It is. I think that makes it clear. The word "such" is left out at the end. Is it "each such House"?

"of each such House" is there.

In the printed version I have it is left out.

It is in the one I read out.

It is there: "each such House".

May I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for what he has done?

I second that.

He is breaking his heart.

I understand that amendment No.3 is being pressed.

Amendment put.
The Dáil 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • 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 obliged to exercise that vote. I exercise it against the amendment and declare it lost.

In accordance with an order of the House I must now put the following question: "That the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".

The Dáil divided: Tá, 80 80; Níl, 80.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • 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.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • 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.

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, Gene.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies, F. O'Brien and Taylor: Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.

There is an equality of votes. Pursuant to Article 15.11.2º of the Constitution. I have a casting vote which I am required by the Constitution to exercise. I exercise it in favour of the question and declare the question carried and the Bill passed.

You are a one-man legislator.