I propose in respect of the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987, that the remaining amendments be grouped for the purposes of debate as follows: amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 8a, 9, 10, 10a, 10b, 10c and 20 and that the debate on this group of amendments should conclude not later than 10 p.m.; amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not later than 11 p.m.; amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 not later than 12 midnight; amendment No. 16 not later than 11.45 a.m. on Thursday; amendment No. 17 not later than 12.45 p.m. on Thursday; amendment No. 21 not later than 1 p.m. on Thursday and amendments Nos. 18, 22 and 23 not later than 1.30 p.m. on Thursday.
Private Members' Business. - Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987: Committee Stage (Resumed).
That seems quite ridiculous in terms of the times allowed and the groupings of the amendments because if votes are called on certain amendments there will not be any time to discuss the following amendments. Perhaps the Chief Whip might inform us if he has considered that. It seems totally unreasonable and I do not think it can be agreed to.
On a point of order, Deputy Howlin indicated his full agreement to these proposals. He did not participate in the meeting but gave the other Whips the go-ahead to proceed and on seeing these proposals accepted them fully.
The Whips' meeting which agreed to this procedure was in different circumstances and is not in the circumstance that we have spent half an hour voting on amendments here this evening. It means that we will have one hour and possibly three speakers on ten substantial amendments to do with basic issues of civil liberty and constitutional law. I regard it as a disgrace that the Whips should attempt to do that.
You were not here.
(Interruptions.)
There is not agreement in this House and those people in the gallery who are watching us know just how much of a joke this is.
(Interruptions.)
I do not agree with this because circumstances have changed. It is a parody of democracy to go on in this manner.
Say that to your Whip.
I have no alternative but to presume that these proposals had the approval of the Whips. I must now put the question to the House: "That the proposals made by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach in respect of dealing with the amendments before us on the Extradition Bill be agreed". Is that agreed?
To save time.
You have no option.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 6:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), to delete lines 11 to 27, and substitute the following:
"44A.—(1) A warrant for the arrest of a person accused of an offence under the law of a place in relation to which this Part applies shall only be endorsed for execution under this Part if a Judge of the High Court certifies that he is of the opinion that:
(a) there is a clear intention to prosecute or, as the case may be, to continue the prosecution of, the person named or described in the warrant concerned for the offences specified therein in a place in relation to which this Part applies,
and
(b) such intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence.
(2) A Judge of the High Court shall only certify a warrant under this section when a request for extradition is accompanied by a statement of fact, by way of affidavit or statutory declaration, which satisfies the Judge that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed, and that the person sought committed it.".
—(Deputy McCartan.)
Deputy McDowell.
As I indicated just a moment ago in a slightly different context, we are at this stage——
I was in possession.
With due respect, a Cheann Comhairle, I thought Deputy Barrett had concluded everything he had to say and had exhausted all his talents on this issue.
Deputy Seán Barrett.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy McDowell's arrogance never ceases to amaze me.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
He appealed to the people in the gallery about the lack of democracy and not having enough time to debate this Bill.
Is this the man who talks about procedure?
He was not here all day. He was in the courts earning vast sums of money while we were here debating this Bill for 12 hours. This sort of hypocrisy from him and his party will not go down with me.
Deputies
Hear hear.
I may not be a constitutional lawyer but I have represented the people in my constituency for 13 years and I will be here long after him.
He is only a humbug.
We must debate this matter devoid of personalities.
His party were set up to change the mould of Irish politics — what hypocrisy.
Why are you so angry?
I cannot stand that type of hypocrisy.
What did you do since you got up last?
The inconsistency of the PDs never ceases to amaze me. They came in here and voted against Second Stage so that they could not even move their amendment today. Then they came in behind the Labour Party and The Workers' Party. What sort of a rag bag have we now got? We are here to discuss this Bill in a practical way and to get amendments in the way we feel fit and we will not be intimidated by that sort of arrogance.
The 14 of us are inflicting a lot of hardship on you.
Let us now get down to the amendments in respect of section 2 of the Bill.
As I was saying before I reported progress, we on this side of the House felt it was impossible to support the PD's amendment, The Workers' Party amendment and the Labour Party's amendment for the simple reason that we regard those amendments as making extradition far more difficult than it is at present. We recognise, of course, that there is a need for safeguards. We would argue that those safeguards are already in existence by way of the administrative arrangements that are presently in place. As I have said it was up to the Government of the day to see to it that those administrative arrangements were operated. That obviously is not the case and, therefore, we put forward this amendment and we are seeking the support of all sides of the House in having it passed. I am conscious that there are others who want to speak and for that reason I will conclude for the present.
It is quite clear what is going on around here.
Amendment No. 8a which is in the names of Deputy Gregory and myself, states:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 15, after "directs", to insert "all such warrants shall be forwarded to the Attorney General in the first instance".
I believe that this amendment will be acceptable not only to the members of the Opposition but from what we have heard from the various speakers on the Government side they cannot possibly object to it. In various forms they have indicated that no warrant will be handled by the Garda Commissioner without the Attorney General being aware of it, that it is unthinkable that this should happen and that the precedent and procedure are implicit in the Act — wherever it is I do not know. Since that is the case and it has been the edict, of various speakers particularly those from the front bench, I see no reason whatsoever why the Government should not agree to such an amendment that all warrants shall be forwarded to the Attorney General in the first instance. If we could get the agreement of the Government on that I am sure the members of the Opposition would not create any great problem about it.
Amendment No. 10a in the names of Deputy Gregory and myself states:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 27, after "evidence", to insert "and such evidence is in existence at the date the Attorney General forms such opinion".
That all hinges on the Attorney General forming an opinion but that opinion can mean the extradition or a decision not to proceed with the extradition of a named or requested person. I am proposing that my amendment be added to the Bill so that there will be no possibility that evidence adduced after the extradition will be used in the prosecution of the person whose extradition is sought and who is extradited. It is the prevention of that gathering, seeking or, perhaps, interrogation for evidence that I want. That may be in the mind of the Minister, and may be contained in the Bill, but in order to make the position more clear we are seeking to add, in line 27, after the word "evidence", the following:
... and such evidence is in existence at the date the Attorney General forms such opinion.
In other words we do not want any digging up, no beating out of or supergrasses produced to give evidence in order to make a case stand up after an extradition application has been considered by the Attorney General and the person extradited. This is a protection for the person who is unfortunate enough to be sent into the maw of the jurisdiction of the maladministrators of justice either in the Six Counties or in Great Britain.
In the interest of saving time I should like to refer to other amendments in the name of Deputy Gregory and myself. Amendment No. 10b proposes:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"and,
(c) there is good and sufficient reason, where the offence under or pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 or is an offence specified in the Schedule to that Act, why the person named or described in the warrant should not be prosecuted in this jurisdiction under or by virtue of the said Act:
It is hereby declared that "good and sufficient reason" shall not include the fact that evidence on commission may be required to be taken in respect of the said prosecution or that any witness or witnesses reside outside the jurisdiction; and that the word "information" appearing in section 44B shall include evidence.".
Any prosecution that maybe followed in our courts under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, or the Schedule to that Act, should be so pursued rather than extradition taking place on foot of a warrant. That makes eminent sense to me and I have no doubt it will appeal to all sides of the House. We should use our own courts and our own laws and by doing that we will ensure that there is a fair trial of the suspect rather than shipping him or her across with God knows what result. The only expectation we can have is that the result cannot be good.
Amendment No. 10c states:
10c. In page 2, subsection (1) (a), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(2) The word `information' in section 44B shall include evidence".
That amendment is worthy of the support of the entire House. At the moment it is proposed to amend the Principal Act to read:
44B.—A direction of the Attorney General under section 44A shall be given unless the Attorney General, having considered such information as he deems appropriate, is of opinion that—
(a) there is a clear intention to prosecute or, as the case may be, to continue the prosecution of, the person named or described in the warrant concerned for the offence specified therein in a place in relation to which this Part applies.
and
(b) such intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence.
In our amendment we want that evidence to be in existence. We want the information defined. In other words we do not want the information to consist of a telephone call, hearsay second or third hand but evidence on which the Attorney General can form his opinion that may decide whether a person requested on a warrant is to be extradited or not.
Deputies Birmingham, McDowell and McCartan rose.
In view of the fact that we have two amendments from the Fine Gael Party I think I should call Deputy Birmingham first.
In supporting the amendments in the name of Deputy Sean Barrett I should like to highlight the difference of approach represented by our amendments as against the Government's position. Essentially, there are three differences in what we urge on the House. First, we urge a change from the Attorney General to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We seek to make a change in the way in which the opinion is formed, the process that leads to the formation of an opinion, and we propose to make a change in the requirement that we place on whatever Office is going to be involved in this process. The arguments for moving from the Attorney General to the Director of Public Prosecutions have been put during Second Stage, and have figured in the debate earlier today so I do not want to repeat them at any great length.
I accept that the case put by the Minister in respect of the Attorney General is not without merit. There are arguments to be put on both sides but I am on balance convinced that the better view is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is the desirable figure to entrust with this task. I am convinced of that view because of the stand taken by the House in 1974 when it passed the Prosecution of Offences Act. At that stage we took a conscious decision that it was appropriate to remove the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute in a domestic case as far away as possible from the political scene. If the view then was that domestic political prosecutions might potentially be so sensitive that it was proper to distance them, how much more true is it true in this instance?
There is an alternative before the House, the suggestion from The Workers' Party that the task should be entrusted to a High Court judge. I have thought about that and it was an option that we considered within the Fine Gael Party before deciding to put our money, as it were, on the Director of Public Prosecutions. The advantages of the High Court judge are clear. There is no doubt that a High Court judge enjoys a very clear status in the community and that people would accept that a High Court judge would not be capable of being influenced in a decision as to whether to order that the warrants be endorsed. The difficulty we would see with that amendment is that a judge would not be sitting in court when performing this function. The judge would be exercising this function in private, just as it would be exercised in private by either the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Inevitably, decisions whether to allow extradition to proceed or to interrupt an extradition process are going to become controversial, are going to become the source of political comment and, perhaps, of political controversy. Indeed, all parties on this side of the House hope the operation of this section will be the subject of annual debate. It would seem invidious to ask any High Court judge to operate that section, to make decisions on the basis that they would be debated once a year. The effect on the long-term independence of the Judiciary could not be helpful.
The second change we suggest is that the direction should only be given if the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General is of the opinion that there is not an intention to prosecute. We have to be clear about what we are doing here. We are seeking to facilitate extradition. There have been complaints, particularly from Deputy McCartan, about the failure of the parties in Opposition to make common ground but he has to accept that we do not approach this from the same postion. Last year, and again this year, The Workers' Party argued to make extradition more difficult.
More safe.
They justify making extradition more difficult by saying they are concerned to preserve particular possible safeguards. Our concern last year and today is to ensure that extradition is workable, that it will take place where appropriate and that it will not be impeded by the introduction of unnecessary obstacles. There is no common ground.
In putting forward this case we are saying clearly we are shifting the decision-making process to facilitate extradition. At the moment an Attorney General who is unsure of what the position is, an Attorney General who is indecisive and cannot make up his mind whether there is clear intention to prosecute, exercises discretion by saying "do not endorse the warrant because I am not sure of the situation". We are reversing that and saying that only in a case where the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General is positively of the belief that there is no intention to prosecute should he intervene and give a direction that the warrant not be endorsed.
The third distinction that separates our approach from that of the Government is that we do not require the Attorney General or the DPP to consider the question of sufficiency of evidence. It is still a matter we would want to be the subject of an arrangement between the requesting Government and the requested Government but, in order to make this measure as immune from constitutional challenge as possible, we propose to remove this requirement because it seems to us that this aspect of testing the adequacy of evidence is very particularly judicial in character. It is this aspect which leaves the Bill open to the greatest possibility of constitutional challenge. It is for that reason we propose to simplify the procedure. Our measure is clearly and unequivocally designed to ensure that effective extradition takes place. We accept the Government have no counterintentions but our concerns are that, with the best will in the world, the Government measures might run into difficulties. We believe ours is clearer and it very determinedly shifts the balance in favour of easier extradition.
Deputy Taylor, Deputy McDowell and Deputy McCartan rose.
Since four of these amendments are in the name of The Workers' Party——
As three Deputies are standing, I will take Deputy McCartan on a point of order.
As I said, four of the amendments are in the name of The Workers' Party.
I will call first Deputy McDowell and then Deputy Taylor.
We have not been heard on these ten amendments, which include sections which we have given an indication on the Order Paper we will oppose. I request that we, as the third largest party in the House, should be entitled to contribute to the debate and should be called at this stage.
The Deputy has been called.
I thought Deputy McCartan was indicating he should be called. I am calling Deputy McDowell but I would remind him that the amendments we are discussing are in the names of other Deputies who are in the House. I know he will appreciate — as he will when we reach an amendment in his name — that the question must be put at 10 p.m., that the Minister will need time to reply and that he will be aware of the time.
As far as I am concerned, as I already indicated to the House amid howls of derision, the allocation of time is something to which I am totally opposed because I believe there are fundamental issues——
Your opposition does not change the order of the House. I am obliged to adjudicate on the position as I find it. This is not of my making. In the circumstances I would ask you to be aware of the fact that there are other people who wish to speak. Deputy Gregory has put down an amendment and he has not been called yet, and there are others who might want some time as well.
These amendments——
Due to the howls mentioned by Deputy McDowell, I did not hear the order which was made in the House. Will there be an opportunity of speaking on the sections?
No, but I have a copy of the order here.
The question on the amendments will be put at 10 o'clock. Deputy Fitzpatrick is familiar with Standing Orders and he will appreciate the position.
Will we get back to the sections?
There is no reference to when the sections will be put.
That is unfortunate because the section is ambiguous.
The amendments with which we are dealing — and we have left ourselves 25 minutes to deal with them — cover a proposal that the powers the Attorney General is to enjoy under this legislation should, as an alternative, be exercised by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Workers' Party amendments propose that these powers be given to a High Court judge. These amendments raise fundamental issues of principle. They are substantial issues in themselves and should not, and could not, be adequately debated in a few minutes. I find it remarkable that we have put ourselves in the position of attempting to do so.
Amendment No. 6 proposes to give these powers to a High Court judge, not in the context of a court hearing but simply that a High Court judge will exercise the same powers in the same manner as the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Progressive Democrats believe this is a judicial decision and to exercise these powers constitutes an administration of justice. It follows also that an adminstration of justice must take place in a court, and not in private. In principle, we cannot consent to a High Court judge, the Chief Justice or anybody else exercising——
Would it be in order to impart a little information to the Deputy, because it may well be——
That would not be in order, and I ask you to accept that.
These powers constitute——
You will appreciate that Deputy McDowell is now in possession and you are not helping by rising to make a point of clarification. We do not have points of clarification.
Would it be possible to get a few words from the Minister rather than listen to Deputy McDowell doing the Minister's job?
This underlines the point I was making. This House voted for an Order of Business and it must lie down with it. There was nobody objecting——
The Minister is here to give us the information.
Deputy McDowell, without interruption.
It is our view that this is fundamentally a judicial act and carrying out these powers is an administration of justice and must take place in a court. Whether a High Court judge, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General does it, it is impermissible in our view under the Constitution for any of them to do it, unless it is part of the administration of justice and is in a court.
Although we can see why The Workers' Party put down these amendments in an attempt to bring into this area a judicial ingredient — that is, that the person exercising these powers would be a judge — it is not putting in place a system which involves the carrying out of these powers as part of the administration of justice. Therefore, we must oppose them.
I am deeply mystified by the Fine Gael Party's amendment. This party said they thought that this should not happen and that the Bill is unnecessary. They said they believed that there are perfectly adequate safeguards behind the scenes on a diplomatic level between London and Dublin and that it is a mistake to introduce this legislation because, to use Deputy Birmingham's colourful phraseology, any safeguard creates a difficulty and then becomes an obstacle to extradition. He wants the easiest possible extradition. I want to remind him that the rule of law always has to differentiate between what is an obstacle to easy imprisonment or easy extradition and an adequate safeguard for the individual in question. If the Government have done anything in this legislation they have at least recognised that whatever the political demands of the moment may be, the rule of law requires that safeguards of some kind should be put in place. When a party comes into this House and says the safeguards should not be there as a right and that they should have them implemented by one person rather than another, if they must be there, then there is something wrong. It goes further than that because Deputy Birmingham and his leader, Deputy Dukes, indicated to the House that they believed that these powers proposed by the Government are unconstitutional.
Arguably.
They must, in their own minds, arrive at a decision one way or the other on this issue. It is simply irresponsible for a political party to say that they will acquiesce in the passage of legislation about which they have very substantial misgivings, especially in the attenuated manner in which this debate is being carried out without regard to its constitutional implications or without teasing them out and debating them and arriving at a considered view on the issue. They have, of course, made this concession to the press gallery in the Chamber. They talked about the role of the President and, in order to give themselves as opportunity to speak on that role, they put down what can only be described as a derisory amendment to this Bill which was ruled out of order.
What amendment is the Deputy speaking of?
The amendment dealing with the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions. They put down this amendment to mask their own concerns about the constitutionality of what they are now proposing. Of course it was a failure and it was rightly ruled out of order, if I may respectfully say so. Still they argue that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be invested with these powers. It is my understanding that they have so little faith in this legislation that they also propose — I cannot go into its merits and demerits — tomorrow, with the Government's acquiescence, to put forward an amendment to say that it will have a lifetime of only one year. What safeguard was that for the Fianna Fáil back-benchers? This measure, the passage of which was so important to the survival of the Government, is now being agreed behind the scenes to have a lifetime of one year. That is a remarkable state of affairs. This important, deeply needed and vital safeguard turns out to be something which is expendable, which has a limited lifetime and, in the last analysis, for the purpose of securing its passage and kicking the ball out of the political arena, the Government are willing to give it a limited lifespan. What kind of constitutional safeguard is that?
I said that at the very beginning.
What kind of civil liberties are we safeguarding if we put legislation in place to protect them but say that it will cease to have effect after one year?
On a point of order, what amendment are we now discussing?
I am speaking in relation to the amendment regarding the Director of Public Prosecutions.
That was all gone over today——
Bearing in mind the enforced time restrictions——
If I was not continually interrupted by these gentlemen I would be much briefer.
Did you say gentlemen?
I can see no objection in principle to Deputy Blaney's first amendment in relation to the requirement that warrants should be forwarded to the Attorney General in the first instance. It is a very sensible arrangement. We made the point that this should be an explicit provision in the Bill and should be accepted by the Government. I do not think that anybody in this House — even Deputy Blaney — would disagree with that proposition and we accept the amendment from him in the spirit in which it is offered as it is an improvement to the Bill.
The fundamental issue here is that Ireland, alone in all the countries in the world, has this strange arrangement with a neighbouring jurisdiction which emanates from the fact that we were once part of the same jurisdiction. It also follows from the peculiar arrangements which we have inherited from history that we have a system——
On a point of order, we heard all this history on Second Stage. It may be right or wrong but it was replied to by the Minister last night. With only a few minutes to deal with seven or eight amendments it is hardly relevant to have the same history lesson again. What amendment does Deputy McDowell say it arise from?
The Deputy has an infernal cheek after encouraging Deputy Barrett to take up the time of the House mouthing nonsense on this subject for 25 minutes——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy McDowell is sensitive enough to appreciate that there is a general welcome for his contribution although, inter alia, it is not as relevant as it might be. I ask him to accept the point that dissertations on legal history, while highly desirable, might be left aside considering the time limits.
The Minister should now briefly come in and allow the Labour Party to make a comment.
I will finish in a couple of minutes. There is no principled basis for giving powers to the Director of Public Prosecutions which any Deputy in this House does not believe should be conferred on anyone. It is also the case that the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot be forced to exercise these functions and it is my belief that he refused to have these functions conferred upon him. Therefore, it seems a monstrous suggestion that we should attempt to confer these functions, which are of doubtful constitutionality, on a man who finds them unacceptable. That is a point which is blithely ignored by the people who propose this measure. Why have we no assurance that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be willing to undertake these functions if the House saw fit to confer them upon him? We have no such assurance. In fact, we know from other sources that that is not the case. It is an outrage that people can posture in this House as being willing to give him powers which they know in their heart of hearts he will not accept.
The fact that we have only ten minutes left in his debate and that it has been conducted in the manner it has been is the result of a deliberate decision of the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party to allocate the time. If there has been adequate time to discuss these ten amendments to the Bill instead of providing equal time, an hour tomorrow, to discuss individual amendments which suited the Fine Gael Party and Fianna Fáil Party, if there had been a fair allocation of time there would have been plenty of time for all Deputies to contribute. If there had been a responsible attitude to this legislation from the very beginning because it is a matter of fundamental importance, sufficient, the Taoiseach said to bring this Government down if they were defeated on it, it would not be rushed through. What is the rush?
It was not rushed.
(Interruptions.)
I was asking a rhetorical question.
You are wasting time.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputy McDowell bear with me? Deputy, I appeal to you as a mature person to accept that if we are going to make any headway at all it must be on reality and not on hypothesis. There are 10 minutes remaining. It is hoped that the Minister will reply and the people who already made submissions to him are naturally anxious to hear what he might say.
Headway in the direction of putting in place an unconstitutional measure is something which we have a duty to avoid making.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Gach duine a chiall fhéin aige.
I know. The Progressive Democrats will vote against all the amendments with the exception of Deputy Blaney's first amendment on the basis that they are sweeping under the carpet a fundamental issue and on the basis that the Government and the Fine Gael Party are pretending that there is no constitutional problem in relation to the Fine Gael amendment. These are judicial functions and they must be carried out openly in the courts. We therefore signify our deep loathing at the kind of double standards that are behind this proposal. This proposal to give these powers to the Director of Public Prosecutions comes from a party which do not want the powers to exist at all. That is a double standard and the people are entitled to know precisely how forked is the tongue they are listening to from those benches.
The essential effect of these amendments would be to provide for the functions of the Attorney General under section 2 of the Bill to be performed, in the case of the amendments tabled by The Workers' Party, by a Judge of the High Court and, in the case of the amendments tabled by Deputy Barrett, by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Government remain of the view that the Attorney General is the appropriate person to perform the functions which require to be performed under section 2 of the Bill. Nothing that was said on Second Stage and nothing that I have heard here today has convinced me that the case should be otherwise.
There are a number of reasons why the Government believe that these functions are appropriate to the Attorney General.
First, the Attorney General has already important functions in relation to extradition applications and these new functions are consistent with his existing duties in the extradition field. He has responsibility for representing the State in court cases in extradition applications. In addition, under arrangements which are already in place, he has an important role in relation to the vetting of warrants as to form and content to ensure compliance with Irish legal requirements. Similarly the Attorney General advises me as Minister for Justice in much the same matters in relation to requests which are received from countries with which we have extradition agreements under Part II of the 1965 Act.
I also mentioned in my reply yesterday evening that the non-statutory arrangements on sufficiency of evidence which the previous Government intended to put in place were to be operated on an "Attorney General to Attorney General" basis. I asked the question that if the previous Government accepted that this should be the case when they were proposing purely administrative arrangements, why should the position be different now that the Attorney General is being given a strengthened role and now that that role is being placed on a statutory basis.
The second reason why the Government believe that the function is appropriate to the Attorney General is related to the considerations I have just mentioned. It has been the practice since the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established to reserve to the Attorney General the decision as to whether proceedings should or should not be instituted in prosecutions which involve an international dimension. That practice is reflected in the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974 itself. Under section 3 (5) of that Act, the Attorney General's consent is required for prosecutions under the Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, the Official Secrets Act, 1963, and the Genocide Act, 1973.
These statutes create offences which, of their nature, are likely to have something more than purely domestic implications. That practice has continued in the period since the enactment of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974. Both the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 and the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1978 give the Attorney General a function in prosecutions under those Acts.
There is, I would suggest, a close analogy between what the Oireachtas set out to do in those statutes and the provisions we are making in this Bill. Responsibility for prosecutions was reserved to the Attorney General in those statutes because prosecutions under them would as likely as not have an international dimension. That dimension obviously exists in the case of the functions which the Attorney General will be performing under section 2 of the Bill as well.
I would like now to turn to the specific terms of the amendments now before us.
The Workers' Party are proposing, in part, to substitute a High Court judge for the Attorney General for the purposes of the functions to be performed under section 2. That is not necessary because the functions which the Attorney General is to perform are in no sense judicial functions. The new procedure which is being provided by section 2 is intended to be preliminary to the formal extradition process. I have already adverted to the involvement of the Attorney General and his Office in other aspects of the arrangements we operate with Northern Ireland and Britain under Part III. The new duties he will perform will complement those existing functions.
The Workers' Party amendment would also provide that a Judge of the High Court would certify a warrant only when a request was accompanied by "a statement of fact", by way of affidavit or statutory declaration, which satisfies the judge that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the offence has been committed and that the person sought committed it. The existing terms of section 2 allow greater flexibility in that the Attorney General will consider such information as he deems appropriate. That flexibility is desirable in that it will enable the Attorney General to decide in the light of each particular case, the nature and extent of the information which will be necessary, in the particular case, for the purpose of forming the opinion which is required by the Bill.
Deputy Barrett's amendments would have the effect of substituting the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Attorney General for the purposes of section 2. This would not be appropriate either, because the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions relate to the prosecution of offences within this jurisdiction. The Director of Public Prosecutions has no function in relation to extradition applications whereas the Attorney General has extensive responsibilities and functions in this regard which I have already outlined in some detail.
Deputy Barrett's amendment is also unacceptable because it would involve a significant weakening of the safeguard to be provided for in sections 44A and 44B. As the Bill stands it is necessary for the Attorney General to be satisfied both as to the intention to prosecute the person sought or to continue a prosecution and that such intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. Deputy Barrett's amendment would only require the Director of Public Prosecutions to be satisfied that an intention exists to prosecute the person sought or to continue a prosecution already underway. There would be no requirement to relate that intention to the existence of sufficient evidence.
With regard to amendment No. 8a by Deputy Blaney, this amendment is unnecessary. The effect of section 2 of the Bill when read with section 43 of the 1965 Act will be to require the Garda Commissioner to refer all warrants covered by the Bill to the Attorney General before any such warrant is endorsed.
A Deputy
You only got that line from Deputy Cooney this morning.
That is because it is clear from the provisions of the new sections 44A and 44B that the Attorney General will be required to form an opinion one way or the other in the case of all warrants to which the Bill relates, that is, a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of an offence. Under the terms of those sections, the Attorney General will be entitled to decide not to give a direction when a warrant shall not be endorsed. It will only be endorsed if he is of the opinion that there is a clear intention to prosecute and that the intention is founded on sufficient evidence. The duty which section 43 of the 1965 Act places on the commissioner to endorse a warrant is made subject to the provisions of Part III. The effect of section 2 will be, inter alia, to insert sections 44A and 44B in Part III. Given the duty which is being placed on the Attorney General by those sections the Garda Commissioner will be under a statutory obligation to refer any such warrants, covered by the Bill, to the Attorney General prior to their endorsement. I am prepared to have a look at that amendment between now and Report Stage to ascertain whether it warrants my further attention on Report Stage.
With regard to amendment No. 10a, its acceptance would add to paragraph (b) of the proposed new section 44B a specific requirement that the evidence on which the intention to prosecute the person ought to be in existence on the date the Attorney General forms his opinion. Therefore, the addition proposed is unnecessary. The section requires the Attorney General to give a direction under section 44A unless he is of opinion that there is clear intention to prosecute or to continue prosecution of the person sought and, by virtue of paragraph (b), that that intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. The conclusion seems inescapable to me that, in so far as paragraph (b) refers to the existence of sufficient evidence it means, and can only mean, that the Attorney General must form his opinion on the basis of evidence which exists. Therefore the proposed addition is unnecessary.
With regard to amendments Nos. 10b and 10c, the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1976 makes it a criminal offence under our law for a person to commit, in Northern Ireland, certain scheduled offences which, if committed within the States, would constitute an offence here. Those offences include murder, manslaughter, arson, kidnapping, false imprisonment, explosives and firearms offences. The Act also has provisions for the admission at trials in the State of evidence taken in Northern Ireland or for the taking of evidence in the State for use by courts in Northern Ireland.
I do not know how much longer the Minister will take. Is the House agreeable to the Minister completing his reply?
The effect of this particular amendment——
On a point of order, I do not have the slightest objection to the Minister concluding but I want to register a protest here, to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as a Deputy in this House of a party of 12 Deputies, in the strongest possible terms, that we have been denied an opportunity of making any comment whatsoever, for any number of minutes, on this series of amendments. It reflects ill on Deputy Seán Barrett who made a big song and dance here this morning about equity and distribution of the amendments and about the so-called democracy of the Progressive Democrats to what short time remains here on this series of amendments. It is quite outrageous.
Deputy Taylor will appreciate that comments of that nature do not guarantee the best employment of whatever time remains.
This is not a fair distribution.
I must now put the question: "That the amendment be made".
Can we clarify which amendment?
Amendment No. 6, the amendment that was moved.
Amendment put.
Will the Deputies who claim a division please rise in their places?
Deputies Mac Giolla, De Rossa, Sherlock and McCartan rose in their places.
As fewer than ten Members have risen in their places I declare the Amendment lost, and the names of the Deputies will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 2, line 15, to delete "the Attorney General", and substitute "a Judge of the High Court".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), to delete line 15, and substitute the following:
"the Director of Public Prosecutions so directs. The Director of Public Prosecutions shall so direct if he is of opinion that there is not a clear intention to prosecute, or as the case may be to continue the prosecution of the person named or described in the warrant concerned for the offence specified therein in a place in relation to which this Part applies."
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 92.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deasy, Austin. Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie. Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCoy, John S.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keefe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swoft, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Ta, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 8a. in the names of Deputies Neil T. Blaney and Tony Gregory.
I move amendment No. 8a:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 15, after "directs", to insert "all such warrants shall be forwarded to the Attorney General in the first instance".
If I heard the Minister right when he commented on this amendment, he said he would consider between then and Report Stage, which is tomorrow, the possibility of including such, and in that event and subject to your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I will re-enter this on Report Stage and withdraw it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10a:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 27, after "evidence", to insert "and such evidence is in existence at the date the Attorney General forms such opinion".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá. 29; Níl, 79.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Higgins, Michael, D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Blaney and Gregory; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
We now come to amendment No. 10b, in the names of Deputies Blaney and Gregory.
I move amendment No. 10b:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"and,
(c) there is good and sufficient reason, where the offence under or pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 or is an offence specified in the Schedule to that Act, why the person named or described in the warrant should not be prosecuted in this jurisdiction under or by virtue of the said Act:
It is hereby declared that good and sufficient reason" shall not include the fact that evidence on commission may be required to be taken in respect of the said prosecution or that any witness or witnesses reside outside the jurisdiction."
I am putting the question: "That the amendment be made". I now ask the Deputies who claim a division to please rise in their places.
Deputies Blaney and Gregory rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen in their places I declare the amendment lost. The names of the Deputies who rose in their places will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil. We now come to amendment No. 10c in the names of the same Deputies, Deputies Blaney and Gregory.
I move amendment No. 10c:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(2) The word `information' in section 44B shall include evidence".
Shall I put the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put.
Will the Deputies claiming the division please rise in their places?
Deputies Blaney and Gregory rose.
As fewer than ten Members have risen in their places I declare the amendment lost. The names of the Deputies who rose in their places will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 3, subsection (1), to delete lines 12 to 22.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 85.
Tá
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Harney, Mary.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McDowell and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 3, subsection (1) (b), line 19, after "offence", to insert "and other exceptional circumstances".
I accept the amendment which is an improvement on the drafting.
The amendment is accepted by the House.
On that amendment——
If the amendment has been accepted by the House is there any necessity to debate it?
It has not been accepted by the House.
The Deputy has heard the Minister say he is accepting it.
On a point of order, we have gone over the time and the amendment can only be formally moved.
I disagree with it because it is a breach of the 1957 Convention for the reasons I have given the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and he knows that.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 129; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Blaney, Neil Terence.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Closhessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Harney, Mary.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCoy, John S.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Brien and Birmingham; Níl, Deputies McDowell and Kennedy.
Amendment declared carried.
May I remind the House that, in accordance with a decision earlier today, it was agreed to take a group of amendments — amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 — and dispose of them by midnight which is ten minutes away? What is the House prepared to do in this matter? Shall it proceed to deal with the amendments in accordance with the decision earlier today and have them formally moved? Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are in the name of Deputy Seán Barrett.
Could we move the three amendments and discuss them together?
There is not time to discuss them.
There will be five minutes to discuss them and five minutes to reply.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 3, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) An officer authorised to issue a direction under this section or by virtue of section 4 (1) of this Act may, without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder, revoke a direction at any time.".
The Attorney General, in giving a direction that a warrant should not be endorsed under the proposed new section 44A of the 1965 Act may, therefore, render that warrant valueless for any future use. This amendment will allow the Attorney General, if he so wishes, to change his mind with regard to such a direction. By giving the Attorney General this power we will save ourselves a lot of difficulties in this regard in the future.
It is by no means unlikely that the Attorney General would find himself in the position where he would originally have directed that a warrant was not to be endorsed and then find himself faced with ample evidence that a genuine intention to prosecute the extradited person did in fact exist. In such circumstances, an explicit power granted to the Attorney General to revoke the direction that the warrant should not be endorsed could be of considerable benefit. Therefore, I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
This is a sensible proposal. It means the Attorney General can change the direction which he may have given. We are prepared to accept the amendment in its present state but I would mention that on Report Stage we would like to have the opportunity of bringing forward perhaps a revised draft of the amendment just to make it perhaps more appropriate. For the moment on Committee Stage we accept the amendment as put forward.
I am entering a voice of reservation on two grounds. The principle that should apply in all matters relating to the criminal law is that there should be certainty in proceedings and finality. We are not at all happy at the notion that on a warrant or on a decision being taken in a process that there can be this review, revocation, review and revocation.
It will be coming up again.
It is not to say that a requesting authority of the British authorities can, in the light of fresh evidence, or fresh development, issue fresh warrants, but it is an undesirable feature to see it built into any process so that there is no element of finality or certainty. I would ask the Government to reconsider.
On a point of order, the Deputy will have an opportunity to make those arguments on Report Stage.
There is no harm in making the point now.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 3, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) A decision to give or not to give a direction under section 44A (inserted by this section) of the Principal Act shall not be reviewable for any reason by any Court.".
During the course of the debate, concern was expressed by Deputies on various sides about the possibility of the Attorney General being brought before the courts and cross-examined as to his state of knowledge and how he came to his decision. A number of people pointed out the very undesirable consequences that could flow from that. What we attempt to do here is to put a decision beyond review. We are not unaware of the difficulties in attempting to do that but we still believe it is an attempt that should be made.
I would ask the Deputies to perhaps withdraw the amendment on Committee Stage on our undertaking to look at it again and see if we can do something on Report Stage. We have serious constitutional difficulties about it but we will see if something to meet the point in the amendment can be brought forward on Report Stage.
A Cheann Comhairle——
First of all, will Deputies in their places indicate if the amendment is withdrawn?
Deputies
It is withdrawn.
There is an indication now, Deputy, that the amendment should be withdrawn.
Is it in order to make a quick observation? I believe this to be the most sinister of all the proposals put forward either by way of the Bill or by way of amendment. I made this observation earlier. It is an appalling effort on the part of Fine Gael, although given their history in the area of law and order and the absence of civil rights, to suggest that——
(Interruptions.)
Sinn Féin, The Workers' Party.
(Interruptions.)
Where are your guns now?
I am involved in politics here and I will make my points without intimidation——
Deputies, let us not lower the standard of debate at this hour of the night.
(Interruptions.)
It is wrong to suggest that we can take away from the courts their function to review administrative matters. If we take on board the arguments advanced by the Minister throughout the day that the function of the Attorney General is administrative, as a matter of fundamental principle our courts must always be entitled to review administrative matters to see that they are exercised fairly and in accordance with fundamental natural law.
Hear, hear.
It is totally objectionable to suggest that the Government would give the slightest credence to this most reactionary provision.
The amendment is withdrawn.
I understand the amendment is only withdrawn by leave of the House.
That is so, Deputy.
The nature of this amendment is so invidious that the House should not entertain it for one moment and we should dispose of this amendment here and now.
The question, therefore, is; "That leave be given to withdraw amendment No. 14" in the name of Deputy Sean Barrett.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 123; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Bruton, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ellis, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flood, Chris. Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Bell, Michael.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies O'Brien and Birmingham; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Bell.
Question declared carried.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We now proceed to deal with the remaining amendment in the group, amendment No. 15, in the name of Deputy S. Barrett.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 3, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to communicate with the Attorney General or an officer of the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or an officer of the Director, the acting Director, a member of the Garda Síochána or a solicitor who acts on behalf of the Attorney General in his official capacity, for the purpose of influencing the making of a decision to give or not to give a direction under section 2 of this Act.
(b) If a person referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection becomes of opinion that a communication is in breach of that paragraph it shall be the duty of the person not to entertain the communication.
(c) (i) This section does not apply to—
(I) communications made by a person who believes that an extradition request in respect of him has been made,
(II) communications made by a person involved in the matter either personally or as legal or medical adviser to a person involved in the matter or as a social worker or a member of the family of a person involved in the matter.
(ii) In this subsection `member of the family' means wife, husband, father, mother, grandfather, grand-mother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, a person who is the subject of, or in whose favour there is made, an adoption order.".
We agree with the principle of this amendment. The purpose of it is to prevent any unlawful representations being made to the Attorney General in particular cases. Such a provision already applies in regard to the Director of Public Prosecutions. We would propose on Report Stage to bring forward an amendment which will achieve this purpose but we could not accept this amendment because of its drafting. I suggest to Deputy Barrett that if the amendment is withdrawn we will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage which will achieve the same purpose.
We are agreeable to that procedure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I wish to make a brief observation. The Government will deal with this matter on Report Stage when they propose to put down an amendment. In all of the proceedings and discussions, particularly those advanced by Deputy Cowen — again supporting this notion that it was an administrative function — it would antedate any action on the part of the commissioner and the warrant would not come into existence or its existence would not become known to anyone until after it was passed on to the commissioner. How, in those circumstances, when the Attorney General's function would have ceased, could the whole question of representation to the office of the Attorney General arise at all? Would the Taoiseach explain that?
This is a matter for Report Stage.
I merely wanted to make the observation that the Government might consider this matter in advance of Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.