Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Dec 1988

Vol. 385 No. 2

Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann, in accordance with section 7 (4) of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, declares that the said Act shall continue in operation after the day that is 12 months after the date of its passing.

Twelve months ago almost to the day this House passed the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987. The Bill then went to Seanad Éireann where it was passed without further amendment and was enacted on 14 December when it was signed by the President. That Act is now to be considered by this House again today in accordance with section 7 (4). That section provides that the Act will expire on the day that is 12 months after the date of its passing unless a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas before that day declaring that it should continue in operation after that day.

To avoid any misunderstanding about what is involved in this debate, I should first stress the limited nature of the motion which is being moved today.

Extradition from this State is governed by the Extradition Acts, 1965 to 1987. Our extradition law comprises three separate statutes: the Extradition Act, 1965, the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987 which was passed by Dáil Éireann in December 1986, and finally, the legislation promoted by this Government last December, namely the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987.

The Extradition Act, 1965, provides for the main substance of the special backing of warrants arrangements we operate with Britain and the North as well as giving effect to the European Convention on Extradition of 1957. The Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987 gives effect to the convention of that name. The Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, contains the new safeguards which were introduced last December into our extradition arrangements with Britain and the North. I will be detailing those safeguards shortly but first I want to clarify what the effect will be of the motion before the House today.

Today's motion proposes to renew the safeguards contained in the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. That is its only purpose and that will be its single effect. If the motion were not adopted, this would not mean that our extradition arrangements with Britain and the North would be suspended. Those arrangements would remain because the Extradition Act, 1965 and the Extradition (European Convention of the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987 would still be part of our law. Those two Acts are not subject to renewal. If today's motion were not passed, therefore, the effect would be that the 1965 Act and the Act which gave effect to the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism would continue in force but without the additional safeguards provided in the 1987 Amendment Act. These would cease to apply because rejection of the motion would mean that that Act would lapse in a week's time. The motion today is about those safeguards and about those safeguards only.

We are not concerned today, either, with a general review of the operation of the extradition arrangements we have with Britain and the North. Issues affecting the operation of those arrangements as a whole will be a matter for another day when we come to debate the report which the Government are required under section 6 of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987 to make to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the operation of Part III of the 1965 Act. That review of the operation of Part III in its entirety is a quite separate matter from the renewal of the 1987 Amendment Act which is what today's motion is about.

I would also like to express the hope that our debate today will not be overshadowed by the events of recent days. It is inevitable that the case of Father Patrick Ryan will be in the forefront of our minds at the present time but it is important to keep it in perspective. Despite much of the heat that has been generated, this case refers to one individual only under the terms of the 1987 Act. We should not lose sight of that fact. I want to confine my comments on that case to saying that this House may be assured that the full requirements of our law will be complied with in relation to it and that the relevant papers are being considered by the Attorney General at present.

We in this House have been critical, and justifiably so, of comments which have been made elsewhere about this case — comments which were clearly unwarranted and unjustified. I would earnestly hope that in our debate in this House we would not follow that course. I would ask for restraint in what may be said about individual cases. That is the proper approach for us to take and the one that is in keeping with the legal process which is in train at the moment.

In this connection I would also like to remind the House again of the content of section 7 (4) of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. That section prohibits communications with the Attorney General and other specified persons for the purpose of influencing the making of a decision to give a direction under that Act — that is, of course, communications other than the proper communication of information relevant to the giving of a direction. I am confident that the spirit of that provision will be observed in the course of the debate here today.

I want to turn now to the specific terms of the motion before the House. In accordance with section 7 (4), the House is being asked to declare that the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987 shall continue in operation after 14 December. I am moving this motion because the concerns which prompted the Government to introduce the safeguards contained in the Extradition (Amendment) Act continue to exist and because the Government are satisfied that the arrangements which give effect to these safeguards are being upheld and adhered to and are functioning satisfactorily. I would suggest these are the issues which we should be addressing in the debate on this resolution today; how the safeguards which the Act provides have been functioning and whether they should be maintained.

Section 7 (4) represents the result of the deliberations of this House and I would like to remind the House of that. It has its origins in an assurance which I gave to the House in my opening statement in the debate on the legislation a year ago. Stating that public opinion would wish to be assured that extradition worked fairly and properly and that the new arrangements which the Bill was proposing to provide were upheld both in letter and spirit, I gave an undertaking that the new arrangements would be carefully monitored by the authorities here.

That undertaking and a desire to give the Oireachtas some input into the monitoring process prompted the principal Opposition Party to table an amendment on Committee Stage along the lines of what is now contained in section 7 (4). The Government were happy to accept that suggestion in principle and was able to respond to it by bringing forward their own amendment on Report Stage. That amendment became section 7 (4) of the Act. By virtue of that section, both Houses of the Oireachtas are given an important role in the process of monitoring and review which I had indicated was the Government's intention. That role is further reinforced by section 6 of the Act, to which I have already referred and which requires the Government to submit an annual report to each House of the Oireachtas on the operation of our extradition arrangements with Britain and the North. A report will be made in accordance with that section early in the new year.

I will now deal briefly with the changes which the 1987 Act made to our extradition arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland. The main purpose of that Act was to meet public concern which existed about extradition. I am confident this House will acknowledge that such concern continues to exist.

Extradition raises important questions to which public opinion is very sensitive. Public interest of this kind is by no means confined to this country and it tends to focus elsewhere on the same specific issues which have given rise to concern here.

How then does the 1987 Act address those concerns? First, the Act dealt with the concern that before a person is extradited there should be a means by which it is possible for the relevant authorities here to be satisfied that extradition is not taking place in an unreasonable way. What that means in practice is that it should be possible for the relevant authorities here to satisfy themselves that there is an intention to prosecute and that the person sought has a case to answer. That concern has been met in the Act.

The important provisions for this purpose are sections 44A and 44B which section 2 of the 1987 Act inserted into Part III of the 1965 Act. Section 44A provides that a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of an offence shall not be endorsed if the Attorney General so directs. Section 44B provides that the Attorney General shall give a direction to the Commissioner not to endorse a warrant unless, having considered such information as he deems appropriate, he is of opinion, first, that there is a clear intention to prosecute the person sought or to continue a prosecution of that person for the offence specified in the warrant and, second, that that intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. These provisions ensure that, where the evidence against the person sought has not been examined by a court in the requesting jurisdiction, the question of sufficiency of evidence is examined by the Attorney General here. Thus it provides an important safeguard against arbitrary extradition or extradition for purposes which would not be recognised internationally as legitimate — such as questioning the person sought in order to obtain evidence to bring a charge.

The 1987 Amendment Act also amended the 1965 Act so as to enable a person whose extradition is sought to apply to the High Court to have his extradition refused on a new ground additional to these on which such an application could already have been made. That new ground is that by reason of the lapse of time since he is alleged to have committed the offence or been convicted of it and other exceptional circumstances it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust, oppressive or invidious to extradite the person sought. This change is contained in section 2 (1) (b) of the Act.

The background to this provision is that it was intended to meet a particular concern which had been expressed arising from the coming into force of the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act 1987. That concern was related to the possibility that persons who might be sought in connection with incidents which had happened many years ago, and who would not have been extraditable except for the coming into force of that Act, would be unfairly prejudiced. The provision which is made in the Act gives statutory expression to an approach the courts had already taken in this regard. The provision does not make mere passage of time itself a ground for refusal of extradition by the High Court — there must also be particular circumstances which, taken in conjuction with the lapse of time, make it unjust, oppressive or invidious to extradite the person.

The third important safeguard which the Act provides for is contained in section 3. This deals with the rule of specialty and restrictions on re-extradition of extradited persons. What the section does is to empower the Minister for Justice, to provide by order for the application of various sections in Part II of the 1965 Act to extradition arrangements under Part III — that is, arrangements with the North and Britain. The rule of specialty operates to protect persons against being charged, following their extradition, with offences which are not themselves extraditable. The rule is not designed to prevent persons being charged with additional offences as such. It does ensure, however, that such charges may only be brought with the consent of the State which has granted extradition and enables that State to refuse to consent to charges being added for offences which would not themselves have been extraditable. The relevant sections for these purposes in Part II of the 1965 Act are sections 20, 21 and 39. Section 20 gives effect in the State to the rule of specialty for the purposes of extradition from the State while section 39 provides for the application of the same rule where a person has been surrendered to the State. Section 21 of the Act imposes restrictions of a related kind on the right of a country to which a person has been extradited to re-extradite that person to a third country.

Those then are the main safeguards which the 1987 Act created in our extradition law. It is to the operation of those provisions that I now wish to turn my attention.

The first and most important safeguard created by the Act is the one which relates to sufficiency of evidence. Under the arrangements which apply since the coming into force of the 1987 Amendment Act, the Garda Commissioner refers all warrants which are received from Britain and the North to the Attorney General. No action is taken by the Commissioner in respect of such a warrant until he is informed that the Attorney General does not intend to issue a direction under section 44A or that the warrant does not come within the terms of that Act and that there is otherwise no legal impediment to the Commissioner's endorsing the warrant for execution here.

In the case of warrants which come within the terms of the 1987 Amendment Act, the Attorney General must satisfy himself that there is an intention to prosecute the person sought and that that intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. Arrangements to give effect to the provisions of the 1987 Act were the subject of discussions between the Attorney General and the British Attorney General and these are now implemented in all cases to which the 1987 Act applies. Under these arrangements the British Attorney General provides the Attorney General with such information as the Attorney Genreal deems appropriate and necessary to enable him to discharge his statutory function. Those arrangements have applied in all the cases to date which have been within the scope of the 1987 Amendment Act. In no case has it yet been necessary for the Attorney General to issue a direction under section 44A.

Before dealing with the number of extradition applications received since the 1987 Act came into force, I should explain the distinction between warrants which come within the terms of the new procedures under section 44A and warrants which fall outside the scope of that new procedure. The Attorney General's function under that section apply to warrants for the arrest of a person accused of an offence. The section does not confer any function on him in relation to a warrant for an offence for which a person has been ordered by a judicial authority, following an examination of the evidence, to stand trial. Thus, for example, a warrant which is received in respect of a person who has already been convicted of the offence in question does not come within the scope of this new procedure. In addition, for the new procedure to apply the warrant must be one which had not been endorsed before the Act came into force, on 14 December 1987.

Since that date warrants have been received in respect of 17 persons. Of these, warrants in respect of four persons were recalled before there was an opportunity to establish whether the provisions of the 1987 Act applied. In seven of the remaining 13 cases the warrant related to persons who had already been convicted and therefore these warrants fell outside the scope of the 1987 Act. The Act does apply to the remaining six cases.

In four of these cases the Attorney General informed the Garda Commissioner that he did not intend to issue a direction under section 44A and warrants in those cases were cleared for endorsement. The papers are still under consideration in the remaining two cases.

In the cases falling within the scope of the 1987 amendment Act where the warrants were endorsed, extradition proceedings were subsequently instituted in two cases. In the first case the District Court ordered the return of the person concerned to Britain, and this was done. In the second case orders for the return of the person were refused by the District Court for reasons which had nothing to do with the 1987 Act and this decision is now the subject of an appeal by way of case stated to the High Court. In the remaining two cases the warrants were subsequently withdrawn for reasons unconnected with the 1987 Act.

I also want to mention that in two cases warrants were furnished prior to the coming into operation of the Act but are now covered by it because they were not endorsed. The reason they were not endorsed was that the persons concerned were wanted for and were charged with offences in this jurisdication.

Finally, I would like to emphasise that in regard to all cases in which warrants were withdrawn they have been withdrawn for reasons unconnected with the 1987 Act. These have included the arrest of the person sought in the requesting jurisdiction.

With regard to the other safeguards, I am not aware of any person having yet relied on the provision relating to lapse of time and other exceptional circumstances in any court proceedings. The concern that motivated that particular amendment has not, therefore, arisen in practice to date.

The Minister for Justice has yet to make an order under section 3 applying the rule of specialty and similar safeguards on re-extradition to our arrangements with Britain and the North. Discussions are continuing with the British Government at official level in regard to the means to give effect to that section. In the meantime, administrative arrangements which ensure that the rule of specialty is observed in our extradition arrangements with Britain and the North continue to apply.

The statistics I outlined a moment ago demonstrate that the procedures which the 1987 Act provides are working. There is no question of them having acted as an obstacle to extradition in legitimate cases. The important point to be taken from those statistics is that in all the cases to date in which the Attorney General has been required to form a view under the 1987 amendment Act and in which he has formed a view, it has been possible for the British authorities to satisfy him of the matters required by the Act.

The Government do not accept the view expressed by the British Prime Minister last Saturday after the meeting of EC Heads of Government in Rhodes to the effect that the new procedures are not working properly. Such a view seems to be based very largely on the British Government's perception of one extradition application which has recently been received and on which the Attorney General has yet to make his decision. Indeed, the kind of comment on individual cases that we have seen in sections of the British press and heard from some speakers in the House of Commons demonstrates the need to have safeguards in the extradition process.

The Government will have to report annually to the Oireachtas under section 6 on the operation in the preceding year of Part III of the 1965 Act as a whole. This will mean that our entire extradition arrangements with the North and Britain, including the procedures provided for in the 1987 Act, will be subject to regular monitoring by the Government and full account will be taken of ongoing experience of how these arrangements operate. Any views which the British Government may put to us about the operation of the arrangements will also be considered as part of that review process.

If after more experience of the working of the arrangements provided for in the 1987 Act it becomes clear that they are not working satisfactorily, either to safeguard the rights of persons wanted for extradition or to ensure that there are not unjustifiable obstacles in the way of extradition, remedial action will be taken by way of amending legislation. This is in accordance with the assurances I gave to the Dáil this time last year.

The suggestion has been made that the motion adopted here today should provide for the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, being subject to a further review in 12 months time. That is simply not possible under the terms of section 7 (4) of the Act itself. The only kind of resolution which that provision allows for is a resolution declaring that the Act should continue in operation after 14 December next.

A resolution which would seek to make the continued operation of the Act after 14 December subject to a further resolution a year from now would be ultra vires section 7 (4). You cannot amend an Act of the Oireachtas by way of a motion. The Attorney General has advised accordingly. We are very strongly advised that the effect of the passing of an ultra vires motion would be that the Act and the safeguards contained in it would lapse. Let us all be clear about what would happen. It is not that the operation of the 1987 Act would be postponed for 12 months or anything of that kind. In fact, the 1987 Act and the safeguards therein would disappear out of our law.

I should like to comment briefly on the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Labour Party but which was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle. It is implicit that the report procedure provided for in the 1987 amendment Act would cover the points mentioned in the first part of the Deputy's amendment. It would have been wrong, however, at this stage, to pre-empt the action the Government and the Dáil might decide to take in the event that the safeguards were not operating satisfactorily, as it would depend in what respect this was happening. The introduction of a formal prima facie requirement would almost certainly require a derogation from the European Convention on Extradition, to which we have been party for over 20 years.

Extradition is an accepted instrument in the fight against serious crime and international terrorism. It is an important legal weapon in that fight and this State, in common with civilised states generally has assumed international obligations in the matter of extradition. However, public acceptance and support is essential if extradition is to operate effectively. Our extradition procedures will only command the necessary public support and confidence if they are subject to reasonable safeguards. That was the balance which the Government sought to strike in bringing forward the safeguards contained in the Extradition (Amendment) Bill 12 months ago. That was the balance which the Dáil and the other House struck in passing that Bill.

Our experience of the operation of our extradition arrangements with the neighbouring jurisdictions in the past year has confirmed that approach. That is why the Government remain firmly of the view that the safeguards provided in the Act continue to be necessary and should be renewed. The 1987 amendment Act served to re-inforce our extradition arrangements by addressing very real public concerns. It is important, therefore, that those safeguards are maintained and the Act renewed.

Extradition is not, of course, the only means of legal co-operation available for dealing with fugitive offenders. Under existing Irish and UK legislation, there is another method by which persons who are alleged to have committed serious crimes in one jurisdiction in Ireland and who are found in the other jurisdiction can be brought to trial. That is the extra-territorial method whereby, under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, and the UK Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1975, the courts in either part of Ireland have jurisdiction to try persons for certain serious offences committed in the other part. Both Governments are committed to the use of that legislation in appropriate cases.

The record of prosecutions under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, in such cases is impressive. Of 13 persons tried in this State under the Act, ten were convicted in respect of such charges as murder, firearms and explosives offences. Nine out of ten persons tried in Northern Ireland under the parallel UK legislation have also been convicted. The most recent prosecution in Northern Ireland resulted in the conviction earlier this year of a number of persons for offences arising from the fire bombing of shops in Dublin in 1987. Deputies will also be aware that a prosecution under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act has been initiated recently in this jurisdiction. The Government believe that greater use should be made of that legislation in future and that by invoking its provisions in appropriate cases it will be possible to find an appropriate way of tackling the common problem of the fugitive offender.

The objective of international legal co-operation in criminal matters is to fight crime and terrorism, which have an increasingly international dimension to them because of greater ease of present day travel and communication. We must do what we can to protect our own people and our neighbours in the wider international community against the suffering caused by international crime and terrorism. At the same time, the rights and liberties of suspected persons must be safeguarded. The adoption of the motion before the House today will ensure that the balance between these two desirable objectives is maintained.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. S. Barrett

I move amendment No. 2:

To insert the following words after `operation' "for a further period of twelve months"; and to add to the Motion "unless a resolution is passed by each House of the Oireachtas before the 14th December, 1989 declaring that it shall continue in operation after that day".

I have listened very carefully to what the Taoiseach said about our amendment, but I am not convinced by his argument. If this House agrees with the wording of our amendment, and if subsequently the courts find that that law can no longer remain in existence, there is nothing to stop the Government immediately introducing a short piece of legislation extending the safeguards of that Act. I can give the Taoiseach a guarantee that if the new legislation is in accordance with what is already in the Act, we on this side of the House will be prepared to let it go through without debate. Therefore, the argument as to whether our amendment is legally in order can be very quickly dealt with if the courts subsequently so decide. I ask my colleagues on the Opposition benches not to be put off by the warning we have been given because, in the space of half an hour, we can pass legislation to correct the situation.

I would like to put on record straight away the reasons I am moving this amendment, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, which has the effect of extending the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, for a further period of 12 months. I have no intention of trying to make political capital at a very sensitive time in Anglo-Irish relations, and particularly after the hysterical outbursts of the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and other British politicians. The atmosphere has been further polluted by the way in which some of the British press have been covering cases involving Irish people who are, or it is intended will be, accused of terrorist offences, whether extradition is involved or not.

The coverage given to the present Patrick Ryan case by some sections of the British media is one aspect of a broader problem. Some of the British media appear to be consciously exploiting the fact that in the eyes of the English courts Patrick Ryan is not an accused person, and therefore the laws of contempt do not apply.

But in other cases where the laws of contempt did apply, the law officers did not see fit to cite for contempt any of the persons responsible for this outrageous and biased coverage. When will the English authorities realise that the more instances there are of this type the less likely it is that we can normalise extradition procedures between the two countries. The more these hysterical campaigns are conducted in Britain, the less likely it is that the issue can be depoliticised. One of the tests of any legal system is that it ensures that not only is justice done but it is seen to be done. If an accused person is not guaranteed a fair trial by a jury whose minds have not been clouded by prior publicity, justice is not done nor can it be seen to be done.

The reason for today's important debate arises out of a Fine Gael amendment, which was accepted by the Government, which had the effect of restricting the life of this legislation to a period of 12 months, unless a resolution is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas declaring that it shall comtinue in operation. We said at the time that it is inappropriate to place any Attorney General in a judicial role, as this legislation does, particularly as he is appointed by the Taoiseach of the day and is perceived by the public as a political figure.

I am aware, of course, that Article 30.1. of the Constitution provides that there will be an Attorney General "who shall be the adviser of the Government in matters of law and legal opinion,". I am also aware that it is generally accepted that in the discharge of his legal and discretionary duties the Attorney General is completely divorced from party political considerations and from any kind of political control.

I fully support these principles, and long may they remain. That is why steps taken by any Government should not endanger these principles. It was for these reasons that we proposed back in December 1987 that instead of involving the Attorney General in the day-to-day process of dealing with extradition warrants, it would be more appropriate if the Director of Public Prosecutions took on this role. Nothing has happened since the passing of this legislation to suggest that the opinion we held 12 months ago should have changed. In fact, circumstances surrounding the recent Patrick Ryan case would appear to vindicate what we said on this side of the House 12 months ago.

The day after the warrant was received from Britain we saw on our television screens pictures of a demonstration held by members of the anti-extradition group outside the home of the Attorney General. We received reports of comments from some of the British media — and indeed some British politicians — stating that there is not the political will to deal with extradition requests from Britain and castigating the Attorney General for delaying his decision on the case, as if he was not in any way required by the provisions of the 1987 Act to proceed in a particular manner.

Whether we like it or not, the perception is still abroad, because of the involvement of the Attorney General in the day-to-day handling of extradition cases, that the political will of the Government will decide the issue. I am not suggesting that that is the case, but what I am saying is that is the public perception, certainly in Britain and to some extent here. Would the same things have happened if it was the DPP or a judge who was involved in assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to found an intention to prosecute? The answer must clearly be `no'.

If the Attorney General is expected to continue in this role, ways must be found to ensure that he is allowed to carry out his duties in accordance with the law without being subjected to continuous pressures, whether they come from Britain, Northern Ireland or here. We cannot say it often enough so that some day it might get through to people who think otherwise, that the Attorney General, and he alone, is obliged by law to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to found an intention to prosecute.

It should also be pointed out that in accordance with section 4 of the 1987 Act, it is unlawful to communicate with the Attorney General for the purpose of influencing the making of a decision as required by the provisions of the Act. On this point, and referring again to the Patrick Ryan case, I am extremely concerned at reports in various Irish Sunday newspapers published on 27 November which would suggest that briefings were given by a Government source indicating that the Irish Attorney General would refuse this extradition request on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

In The Sunday Tribune, for example, the following statement appeared in an article by that paper's political correspondent:

But Irish Government sources are sceptical of the chances that the extradition will be granted, in view of the vague charges of conspiracy which the British applied to Belgium.

In the Sunday Independent we find the following:

According to senior Government sources last night, it could take `some days' to get the Attorney General's ruling.

In The Sunday Press we find an abundance of statements attributed to Government sources. The headline on the front page of The Sunday Press reads: “AG to block British bid on Father Ryan.” In the same article we read:

... The indications in Dublin last night were that the Irish Attorney General will refuse the request.

Further on, we read:

... On the evidence available to date the British request for Ryan's extradition is likely to fail at the first hurdle.

Still further on, we read:

However, the issue is unlikely to come to Court because under the safeguards written into the Extradition Act last year, the Attorney General has first to be satisfied that there is a real basis for the extradition of an Irish citizen.

Finally, we read:

However, if as appears likely the Attorney General refuses the extradition request...

There is abundant evidence here that, during the course of that weekend, what are commonly referred to as "Government sources" were prejudging the outcome of the Attorney General's examination of the case, even before the Attorney General could have had a proper opportunity of considering the matters that came before him.

It is up to the Government now to explain how and why this happened. In the absence of an explanation, we can only speculate that the ambivalence which has for so long been so apparent within the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party on the whole issue of extradition may now have begun to infect the Government. If this is not the case, the Government must now explain clearly why "Government sources" have so misled the media and set out clearly what action they propose to take, first to retrieve the situation and, second, to ensure that it does not happen again.

We have every reason to be extremely annoyed at the attitude of some of the British media, and indeed some British politicians, in the manner in which they have handled the Patrick Ryan case to date but there is every reason to be concerned also at the behaviour of some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, both inside and outside of Government, in what must be seen as attempts to influence the outcome of the Attorney General's deliberations. Only last Sunday evening on the television programme "Questions and Answers", a member of the Government party was giving his view in public as to what should be done in this case. As the Taoiseach rightly said in his address, section 6 of this Act makes it illegal to communicate with the Attorney General. It does not say, however, that you have to communicate with him by writing a letter: communication can be over the airwaves, or by way of Government sources making statements to the press. There are various ways of communicating with the Attorney General.

We on this side of the House are not yet satisfied that the provisions contained in the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987 which cast the Attorney General in a particular role will not have the undesired effect of politicising that very important office. I hope sincerely that that day never arrives and that after a further period of 12 months we can come into the House and say, "Yes, we are satisfied that the Attorney General can do his job without interference from anybody."

Another reason for seeking the 12 months' extension of this Act is that it has not yet been established to our satisfaction that the procedures now to be followed under the provisions of the 1987 Act have operated or will operate in an effective manner. The reply given by the Minister for Justice on 23 November 1988 to a parliamentary question indicates that warrants have been received in respect of five persons to whom the provisions of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, apply. One of those persons has been returned to Britain in accordance with an order of the District Court made under section 47 of the 1965 Act. In addition warrants in respect of a further six persons were received and subsequently recalled by the requesting authorities. The 1987 Act provisions applied to two of these cases and the warrants in respect of the remaining four were recalled before there was an opportunity to establish whether the provisions of the 1987 Act applied. As we are all aware, section 6 of the 1987 Act obliges the Government to make an annual report to each House of the Oireachtas on the operation in the preceding year of Part III of the 1965 Act. As this debate comes before the expiry of the 12 month period, it is not possible, therefore, for the Government to make such a report, that is to make the report before this debate. We feel, therefore, that before making a final decision whether this Act should continue in operation we should at least have had an opportunity of examining the Government's first report on the operation of this Act and of questioning the reasons why only one person has been extradited under the provisions of the 1987 Act.

It is important that I put on the record of this House what the Minister for Justice said in reply to the Second Stage debate on this Bill in December 1987, and I quote from the Official Report, 1 December 1987, volume 376, column 357:

...it would not be acceptable if we were to impose a requirement in our extradition law which would have the effect of causing considerable expense and delay in extradition proceedings and would result in the failure of legitimate requests...

We on this side of the House share the Minister's sentiments and, given the fact that this Act has not had a fair period to be judged, I think it only right and proper that we postpone our final decision until this time 12 months.

Another fear which we expressed 12 months ago and which we still hold is that we have not been satisfied that the manner in which the Attorney General makes his decisions under the Act will not in itself become the subject of judicial scrutiny involving highly undesirable consequences from a security standpoint. This is a matter of real concern to us and again I feel that allowing a further period of 12 months to elapse could tell us a great deal in relation to this.

At this point in my contribution I would like to put on record the following points: (1) Fine Gael support the need for extradition with built-in safeguards in order to protect the principle that accused persons are innocent until proven guilty, (2) Fine Gael wish to co-operate with other civilised states in the fight against terrorism and regard extradition as an essential part of that process; (3) in our anxiety to provide adequate and proper safeguards no unreasonable obstacles should be placed in the way of extradition; and (4) as a matter of general principle it must be accepted that persons accused of offences should be tried in the place where the offence has been alleged to have been committed.

The basic principles I have outlined are very much in accord with the views expressed by the Minister for Justice in reply to the Second Stage debate on this Bill back in December 1987. To illustrate this I would like to quote from what the Minister said on that occasion. I quote from column 349 of the same volume:

The Government are anxious that the new requirement should not act as an obstacle to legitimate extradition requests.

Here is another quote from column 345:

Our concern in drafting the provisions governing the issues of sufficiency of evidence and specialty has been to respond to the legitimate concern of many responsible people in this country that our extradition arrangements should protect the rights of the accused to the greatest possible extent. We wanted to do this without at the same time undermining the principle that those against whom there is a well-founded serious charge to answer should, where possible, come before the courts of the country in which the alleged offence occurred.

While reiterating our concern that the extradition arrangements between here and Great Britain must have built-in safeguards which adhere to the principle that accused persons are innocent until proven guilty, we should never forget the loss of life, the sadness and heartbreak caused to so many families Catholic and Protestant, the damage to our economy and the divisions caused on this island by the activities of the IRA, Loyalist paramilitaries and other subversive groups over the past 20 years in particular. The bombings at Enniskillen and other atrocities bring home to us the need for a combined effort by all civilised states in their fight against terrorism, that is, it is esential that all necessary steps be taken to defeat the men of violence whether they come from the IRA or Loyalist paramilitaries.

It is true to say there is a great deal of public disquiet and, indeed, public disagreement between the British and Irish Governments over the handling of the present Patrick Ryan case but when all this dies away the reality is that both Governments must find a way of working together to ensure that the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement are working to the full. With this in mind I would like to put a suggestion to our Government that they might consider and take up through the Anglo-Irish Conference at the first available opportunity. We have in this country a Special Criminal Court where three judges sit without a jury. I have heard no public disquiet being expressed about the manner in which this court goes about its business. I would like to suggest that the British consider introducing a similar court in Britain to deal with the same type of offences as the Special Criminal Court deals with. The same, of course, would apply to Northern Ireland. If this was to happen I feel it would eliminate many of the fears being expressed by many Irish people of moderate disposition who feel that under the present circumstances it is difficult for any Irish person coming before a British jury to get a fair trial.

The problems surrounding extradition could also be discussed at European level. After all it is 31 years since the European Convention on Extradition was drafted. Many things have changed in that period and Europe as a whole faces the many problems associated with the escalation of terrorist activities. Perhaps we could even consider the involvement of a European court in the extradition process.

Before concluding I would like to ask the Minister for Justice to clarify the position with regard to the issue of provisional warrants under certain conditions as provided for under section 49 of the 1965 Act. The central condition is that a member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of inspector must be in a position to swear he has reason to believe that a warrant has been issued by a judicial authority for the arrest of a person accused or convicted of an indictable offence but that the warrant is not yet in his possession. Where such a warrant is issued the person requested may be remanded either in custody or on bail for not more than three days. There have been suggestions in recent days that this provisional warrant procedure can no longer apply given the function of the Attorney General under the terms of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. This seems somewhat improbable. Under the terms of the 1965 Act the person can be held for up to three days. That does not in any way prejudice the person's right to go before a court nor does it in any way limit the freedom of the court to make a decision on the case as presented to it.

It seems that by extension the same would apply even where the Attorney General is carrying out the functions assigned to him by the 1987 Act. Where a difference does arise is in relation to the time available to the Attorney General to satisfy himself under the provisions of the 1987 Act. There could well be cases in which an interval of three days is not sufficient but where the urgency required in order to justify a provisional warrant could well be held to exist. It seems to me, therefore, that there is need to re-examine the provisions governing the application for the issuing of provisional warrants in the light of the statutory function now given to the Attorney General under the 1987 Act.

In addition, I would ask the Minister for Justice to state whether in the Patrick Ryan case a request was received from the British authorities for the issue of a provisional warrant. It is necessary to clear up this point in order to allay fears that the Irish authorities were not prepared to co-operate in this regard. I await with interest the Minister's reply.

That completes the major part of my contribution to this debate. I did not have an opportunity to examine the Taoiseach's contribution in detail. Speakers after me, including the spokesman on foreign affairs and the Leader of the party will no doubt have the opportunity of examining in detail the various points made by the Taoiseach in his address, particularly in relation to the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act which seems to be gaining momentum at the moment despite it being convenient for people to ignore the fact that the main provisions of that Act apply solely to Northern Ireland and that there is now a general belief that the simplest thing to do would be to use this Act instead of extradition. That will be difficult in relation to some offences committed in Britain.

In conclusion, I appeal to all members on the Opposition benches to consider the points I have made here this afternooon. I hope they will be accepted as constructive and positive and that Deputies will see the need for a continuation of this Act for a further trial period of 12 months. If at the end of that period all of the points that are still left unanswered can be answered by the Government of the day, we can think again. In the meantime, it would be foolish and unwise to allow this to become a permanent feature of our law without having had an opportunity to see if these provisions work in a proper fashion, and an opportunity to see if extradition can be continued with proper safeguards ensuring that only people who have a case to answer are extraditied and that there is sufficient evidence to justify the charge. We could also use that period in trying to rebuild a constructive relationship with our neighbours across the Irish Sea because, when all the hullabaloo is over we have to work together and people living in Northern Ireland are depending on us as responsible politicians to try to bring an end to their misery. I am not entitled, either as a member of a political party nor as an individual, to do anything that would destroy the possibility of bringing an end to that misery. If constructive proposals are produced that will help to resolve those problems we in Fine Gael will not take the short term political advantage of opposing for the sake of opposition. I hope that in the not too distant future we will see extradition operating properly with safeguards and a positive, constructive approach from both Governments to working the Anglo-Irish Agreement and trying to find a solution to the extradition problem so that Irish people will get a fair trial if they have to face a British jury.

That said, there are ways and means to find solutions if the resolve is there. The Anglo-Irish Conference is the ideal means for seeking those changes. I sincerely hope the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice will use that vehicle to try to bring an end to the present impasse.

Mr. D. O'Malley

On page 4 of his script this afternoon the Taoiseach said that the matter we should be addressing the debate on this resolution today is how the safeguards which the Act of 1987 provides have been functioning and whether they should be maintained. I agree fully with him that that is precisely what we should be doing; but it is almost impossible to discuss how the safeguards which the Act provides have been functioning and whether they should be maintained for the simple reason that the Act has scarcely come into use at all. The Taoiseach mentioned that we had 17 or so extradition cases in the past year, but in his speech he confirms what I already suspected, that only one person to whom this Act applies has in fact been extradited in the past 12 months and that person did not challenge any aspect of the Act and was not a terrorist. His extradition was not being sought for any terrorist type offence but for some ordinary straightforward criminal offence whereby the man was accused of stealing a sum of money. When the District Court made an order against him and informed him of his rights to go to the High Court he said that he was not interested in all of that but wanted to go back to England as soon as he could and signed a document foregoing all his various rights. The result is that this Act of 1987 which we are seeking to extend today has never in fact been argued before the High Court. No decision has been made in relation to any aspect of it before the High Court. Worse than that, unfortunately, no point that arises under the Act has even been argued before the High Court.

Therefore, the Taoiseach's invitation, while it is a valid one, is not valid in practice because we have nothing to discuss. We know as much about the legal effects of the 1987 Act as we knew when we were discussing it at length here one year ago. There were a lot of views expressed then about different aspects of it which might or might not be constitutional or workable. We know no more about it today because apart from this one non-terrorist type who agreed to his own extradition, nobody has been extradited under the terms of the Act.

The ideal therefore would be, because nothing has happened in a year, to take another year to see these matters argued and decided on by the superior courts here who have not even heard an argument about them yet; but we cannot do that. That was the thought that struck me a week ago when I heard about this motion. I thought we should put down an amendment to have it extended for another year or two to see how it works and then we would be in a position to made an assessment as to whether it should be retained or allowed to drop but on looking as section 7 (4) I saw one could not do that. One either had to let it drop and go out of effect on 14 December or one had to keep it indefinitely; there was no halfway house. Anyone who reads the Act with half an eye in his head will see that.

It is a bit misleading, to put it at its most charitable, for Fine Gael to put down this amendment that they know is futile, which they know cannot have any effect and which is a direct negative. They would be more honest, if they want to propose a direct negative, to say so and vote against the motion. They are trying to give one impression on the one hand and another on the other.

Mr. M. Barrett

The Ceann Comhairle has accepted the amendment.

Mr. D. O'Malley

The amendment may be in order so far as the rules of this House are concerned but it is not in order so far as the law is concerned and that has been made abundantly clear. Anyone who went to the trouble of inquiring about it would find that that was so. Given the major difficulty that we have, that we are supposed to be reviewing something after one year of its operation when, in fact, it has not operated at all and has never been argued or decided on, we are therefore, back in the same position as before.

I should like to make some general remarks about extradition and I will return to the Bill later. Extradition for terrorist type offences has always been a problem in western Europe. Many states, such as France and most of the countries in Europe, will not extradite their own nationals for any purpose. The United Kingdom happens to be the only European country to whom we are prepared to extradite our own nationals. That is a matter that, perhaps, the British should think about. It is also a matter that we should think about because I do not think it is fully realised here. I was in some doubt about this and I was trying to check all the Treaties. Within the last two hours I was fortunate enough to get a draft of the new orders ratifying all the treaties which are being brought forward tomorrow in another debate on extradition under the auspices of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I checked the very long order relating to Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, and I did not find anything in it to say that any one of the long list of European countries with whom we have extradition arrangements under Part II has a corresponding agreement with us to extradite nationals as between ourselves and themselves. Section 14 of the Extradition Act, 1965, makes it quite clear that we cannot extradite our own nationals to a Part II country unless the extradition treaty with that country so provides. In none of them, so far as I can see, is it so provided within Europe.

There are only two countries, apart from Britain with whom we have no treaty at all but with whom we have corresponding laws, where we are obliged, if the courts so decide, to extradite our own nationals, and they are the United States of America and Australia. In both of those we have negotiated treaties in the last three or four years. Unfortunately, one of them, although it was ratified by the House, has been found to be invalid and must be re-ratified tomorrow. Many treaties that the House ratified have been found to be invalid again. Is it any wonder that some people outside of our shores become a little exasperated with extradition? Is it any wonder, indeed, that people within these shores become exasperated with it and the way it seems to operate? Is it any wonder that we have had all the copious errors that seem to be made on both sides of the Irish Sea in relation to different aspects of extradition.

It is because the UK happens to be the only European country to whom we are prepared to extradite our own nationals that it is only right that at least some of the safeguards which apply to Part II countries, that is countries other than Britain, should apply to extradition to the United Kingdom also, particularly in the light of the experience of the last year or two and, perhaps, most especially in the light of some of the comments that were made within the last week or so. At the same time, I have to say that I am profoundly unhappy about the particular type of safeguard that is contained in the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. I am unhappy for all the reasons that I, and my colleagues, detailed at length just one year ago. We do not know whether our concern was correctly based in law or not because no case has been decided, or even argued, on the Act before a court. That is an indication of the ponderous nature of extradition here.

The major difficulties with extradition relate to, (1) safeguards; (2) disparity of standards within the various legal systems and (3) the fear that certain types of person will not receive a fair trial in other countries. The rules which obtain in Britain in relation to matters such as (a) powers of arrest; (b) right to bail; (c) the reception of illegally obtained evidence and (d) the operation of the sub judice rule, all differ fundamentally from the principles to which we are accustomed in corresponding matters here. For example, bail is practically unheard of in extradition cases in Britain and it is not specifically provided for in extradition cases under their Bail Act, 1976. Here, a person before the courts on an extradition warrant has a constitutional right to bail unless it can be shown that he will abscond or interfere with witnesses.

In Gilliland's case in 1985 the Supreme Court confirmed that these constitutional principles apply just as much to extradition cases as to persons charged with ordinary or non-extraditable crimes. Therefore, a person awaiting extradition has the same right to bail as anybody else charged with an offence. The exclusionary rule, such as serves to exclude evidence obtained by unconstitutional or illegal means, has been abolished for all practical purposes by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, in Britain. Yet, this principle is regularly applied by the Irish courts and by all indications, it will continue indefinitely to be applied. For example, in Trimbole in 1985, the Supreme Court held that the wrongful arrest of the applicant, in order to ensure that he would be "available" when fresh extradition warrants arrived from the Australian authorities, invalidated the entire extradition procedure, as Trimbole's constitutional rights had been deliberately and illegally infringed. This would never happen in the English courts. Indeed, I can give a recent example, in Regina v. the Plymouth Justices, ex parte Driver (1985), when the English courts, faced with a similar set of facts to those that pertained in the Trimbole case here, expressly rejected the idea that a false arrest, or other deliberate illegality, could prevent the court from ordering the extradition of the person named in the warrant.

Much of the acrimony and wrangling over extradition matters seems to stem from this clash of legal cultures; individual civil liberties do not seem to carry the same weight with the British judiciary as they do here. Irish judges are less indentifiably part of what one might call, "the establishment" than their British counterparts.

The United Kingdom has been found guilty of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, on 19 separate occasions. There record is by far the worst of any member state within the Council of Europe. We were found guilty on three occasions, Airey in 1979 in regard to the provision of legal aid; Johnston in 1986 in connection with the law on illegitimacy and Norris in 1988 in connection with the law on homosexuality. On the other hand, we have allowed open access to our citizens to the court at Strasbourg since 1953, and were the very first state to do so. We have been doing this for 12 years longer than the British.

In connection with the attitude of Britain to the European Convention on Human Rights and the judgments of the European Court, one cannot but be profoundly concerned at what was reported in today's newspapers on the apparent decision of the British Government to defy a judgment last week of the European court in regard to the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the length of time a person can be detained without trial. I understand that some announcement is to be made in London this afternoon in relation to that.

If the newspaper reports and the BBC reports to the effect that Britain is going to defy the judgment of the court the order of the court, and, therefore, the Convention on Human Rights are correct, whatever reservations I have about the technicalities of safeguards — I see the need for them in practical terms — Britain has only itself to blame for driving a lot of moderate people, who have no more time for the contemptible IRA than I have, into an area of doubt and concern, even where the rights of people like that are concerned, and anxiety that no unconvicted person should be exposed to some of the difficulties that they might well be faced with in a trial in that jurisdiction. My fears in this regard will be underlined if this morning's reports prove to be correct. All of this tends to argue in favour of a new idea to deal with the very real problem of terrorism.

It is no harm to remind ourselves of what it is like and what the effects of it are. Sometimes we are almost inured to horrors and we forget very rapidly about them. This time last year what we were conscious of and, perhaps, very much influenced by, were the kidnap and mutilation of Mr. John O'Grady by Irish so-called patriots, the murder of 11 innocent people praying at a memorial service in Enniskillen for the dead who had saved this country and many others in western Europe from, perhaps, the greatest scourge that Europe has known in the twentieth century. We were also conscious of the Eksund where there were several hundred tonnes of very modern weapons destined for this country in order to inflict death and suffering on people in this island. If you go back a couple of years to a similar period of the year, in 1983, Mr. Don Tidey was kidnapped and seriously ill treated. In connection with his rescue Garda Sheehan and Private Kelly were murdered by these keepers of the Fenian flame.

Mr. Barry

In this jurisdiction.

Mr. D. O'Malley

In this jurisdiction, as well as the hundreds and hundreds who are murdered in the other jurisdiction in this island.

Mr. Barry

These are the patriots.

Mr. D. O'Malley

One suggestion, therefore, because of the international quality of terrorism nowadays, that is worth exploring, is that of a new community criminal court based at Luxembourg. Some of the details of this court would or might include non-jury court composed of senior permanent judges drawn from the Judiciary in each member state. It would be bound by the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would try a limited type of case; for example, only terrorism cases with an international dimension and serious drug cases with a similar element of trans-national activity. The national courts would have no jurisdiction to interfere with the workings of the court. There could be a community code of criminal procedure prescribing rules on topics such as bail, sentencing policy and rules of evidence, etc. There should be a right of appeal to, I suggest, the present European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It seems to me that this is a logical next step in the development of Europe after 1992, an appropriate community response to international crime in a diminishing world with disappearing borders.

The court should be given power to determine where the sentence imposed should be served. I would envisage that normally it would be in the defendant's home country. It is, I suggest, a practical way of dealing with international terrorism and drug trading and yet avoids the difficulties—the obvious, continuous and ongoing difficulties — that are presented by extradition for this country, for Britain and indeed for many others. The idea is well worth considering deeply. It would, of course, involve an amendment to the Treaty of Rome by way of an additional treaty and it would require a constitutional amendment in this jurisdiction because, unfortunately, the opportunity was not grasped at the time of the Crotty case to have a more blanket amendment at that time. It is not unthinkable. There is a common interest in all the states of the European Community in trying to deal with terrorism and with international drug trading and trafficking. To my mind it is an obvious follow on to 1992. This is the sort of area in which the Community should now develop rather than confining itself solely to economic matters, as has been the case for so long.

Notwithstanding the foolish and counter productive comments made by the British Prime Minister recently, the British have, however, in my opinion, justifiable complaints in respect of at least two matters relating to extradition here. The first is delay. It is notorious that the processing of extradition cases here takes a long time. The very fact that we are debating this Act today, one year after it has been passed and that there has not been a single case that has been argued before a court arising out of it is proof of that fact. Given that justice may be evaded by people wanted for extradition jumping bail, it is imperative that such cases be heard speedily. The following list of four cases illustrates this point I am making. In the Russell case it took four and a quarter years before this man was finally extradited this summer. He was arrested on an extradition warrant in this jurisdiction in May 1984. He was finally extradited in August 1988. This is unquestionably far too long. In the case of Kane, a Maze escaper who was arrested on an extradition warrant in December 1987, his appeal has still not been heard by the High Court. Administratively this is not good enough. The third case is that of Carron. He was arrested almost 12 months ago and is thus similar to Kane in that this case has not yet even begun to be heard in the High Court. The fourth case is that of McVeigh in respect of whom the case stated still has not been heard by the High Court. This was where the District Justice in Portlaoise held last June that there was not positive identification of McVeigh. In a subsequent Dáil debate, on 28 June 1988, the Minister for Justice promised a quick case stated on this point to the High Court but the case has still not been heard. McVeigh is at large.

The only real way around these difficulties would be to amend the 1965 Extradition Act to ensure that the District Court was by-passed in this sort of case. Such cases should commence in the High Court, where all the relevant matters can be addressed — and where they will end up in any case — and from whose decisions there is a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

To substitute the Circuit Court for the District Court, as suggested in a motion earlier this year by Fine Gael, would only amount to a cosmetic change and would not deal with the issue of delay. In fact, because the Circuit Court does not sit as regularly as the District Court it might well increase the factor of delay which is already at an unacceptable level.

The second point where I think there is justifiable concern on the part of those waiting for people to be extradited is the requirement in our law, in the 1965 Act, for departure from a specified place in the State. The provisions of section 47 of the 1965 Act which require the District Court to nominate a particular place for the hand over of the extraditee have caused difficulty. This means that attempts to obstruct the hand-over can be organised. If this provision were simplified it would mean that an extraditee could be handed over in the most convenient fashion which, nowadays, would always be by helicopter from anywhere at all within the State and not from a specific place where so many difficulties arise.

One of the things that has been confirmed in the Taoiseach's speech here today is that no order was made by the Minister for Justice under section 3 (4) relating to the rule of specialty in people being extradited to the United Kingdom under Part III. This may sound unimportant but he gave all kinds of assurances when this Act was being put through here last year. In fact, the Taoiseach read it out today as one of the three major safeguards within the Act but it has never been operated. What this means is that if we extradite somebody under the European Convention the country which takes him cannot charge him with anything other than the offences on which he was extradited. That rule does not apply to Britain or Northern Ireland who are free to charge someone extradited from here with an extra offence, which may have nothing to do with the charge on which he was extradited. It seems that a compelling case can be made to have that rule made.

In section 3 of this Act the Minister for Justice is empowered to do so but he has not done so. It is not enough to say that it will be done sometime in the future or that we are talking to the British about it. This was put forward as one of the guarantees but it is a guarantee which has not operated. I wonder if those who were promised that safeguard last year and accepted that it was going to be operated are aware of this fact? No explanation as to why it has not been operated has been given.

Yesterday and again last night I read the debate which took place on this Act last year. Sometimes it can be interesting to read a debate with a year's hindsight, although not very useful in this case for the simple reason that the law has not been clarified, but at least it is easier to see the arguments which were made in a slightly cooler light than in the hurly-burly of debate here. In that debate no one seemed to deny or disagree with, even though differing views were expressed on other matters, that the Attorney General's actions are open to judicial review and because they are I think that remains the greatest weakness in this Act which we are making indefinite today. In the case Daly v. the Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Justice Barron held in relation to the powers of the Minister which are exactly the same powers the Attorney General has in a matter of this kind and I refer to the Irish Law Reports Monthly Vol. 8, No. 3, that such powers may only be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, that the courts must ensure that the material upon which the Minister acts is capable of supporting his decision and since the Minister had failed to disclose the material upon which he acted or the reasons for his actions there was no material from which the court could determine whether or not such material was capable of supporting his decision. Accordingly, his decision was set aside. Unless the Attorney General is prepared to produce all the documentation on which he based his view, under section 44a, the courts can set it aside. While there was disagreement from Deputy Kelly and many others on the question as to whether the Attorney General's actions constituted the exercise of a judicial function, I could not find anyone who disagreed with the view that the Attorney General's actions were open to judicial review. This is going to lead to chaos.

There are various other points that one would like to make. It is entirely unsatisfactory that we have to make this fundamental decision about it here and now. I am unhappy about it. I am as unhappy about it as I was last year but, frankly, when I see this relating to Part III of the 1965 Act, and therefore, to the United Kingdom, I find it very hard to stand up in this House on the very day that country says it will repudiate the European Convention on Human Rights and say that some form of safeguard, however second best I might see it, is not needed. I cannot say it is not needed.

Mr. Spring

It strikes me that the decision to be made here tonight is a relatively simple one. Because of the construction of the 1987 Act, it boils down to a simple choice, we either vote to preserve the safeguards that are in the law, inappropriate as they might be, or we vote to remove them. A vote against this motion would have the effect, however, of forcing the Government immediately to set about the task of putting adequate and proper safeguards in place of the existing ones.

There are many of us in this House who believe that the safeguards in the law as at present framed are inadequate and inappropriate. It is for that reason that I tabled the addendum which I very much regret has been ruled out of order. I have to say, in relation to that addendum, that I simply cannot understand the reasoning which disallowed it and which allowed an amendment which is clearly improper in so far as it attempts to amend the legislation. I suggest that it is in the interests of the Office of the Ceann Comhairle that a mechanism be put in place to allow him to explain the reasoning behind a decision of this sort.

In so far as our addendum is concerned, the reason it was put forward is that there is a provision in the existing law which compels the Government to place before us a report on the operation of extradition between this country and Britain in 1988 and that report must come before us early next January. As things stand, in so far as politically-motivated offences are concerned, that report will deal with a number of warrants issued under the 1965 Act and only one issued under the 1987 Act, which may or may not have been dealt with by the time the report is laid before us. It may point out that a certain proportion of warrants were implemented and persons extradited on foot of them. It may point out that others were not effective in securing extradition, perhaps because of decisions made in the courts or for other reasons. It might run to no more than a page, littered with a few statistics.

It will almost certainly not contain any value judgments. It is extremely unlikely that the Government will express any view in that report which will enable the House to make a judgment about either the effective operation of the Act or the safeguarding of human rights under the Act. If the addendum we placed in front of the House had been allowed that situation would change.

It would mean that, effectively, instead of a bland and statistical annual report we would be presented in future with a more detailed annual review in which the Government's views would be contained, and we would be in a position to assess much more accurately whether or not there is a need for new or different safeguards and to act on that assessment.

It is not open to us tonight, whether we want to or not, to amend the existing legislation. To attempt to do so in the context of a motion would clearly be out of order, but it is open to us to make sure that the Government's resolve is as firm as it needs to be in dealing with both sides of this question. We should, in my view, take that step. That is why the Labour Party will vote against both the amendment and the motion tonight.

No doubt there will be some who will try to interpret that vote as a simplistic "anti-extradition" vote. It is nothing of the kind. Extradition is, of course, an issue that is bound up inextricably with human liberty and with the right of the individual to fair treatment before the law, but it is also a mark of our sovereignty. We want to live as part of the community of nations. We do not ever want to become a country that is seen as a haven for terrorism, a sort of Paraguay of western Europe.

For as long as we wish to be part of that community, we must accept the obligation to extradite people charged with crimes in another jurisdiction. No Member of this House would consciously offer shelter and security to those who perpetrated the Enniskillen massacre, or the Darkley killings, or any of a hundred other horrible atrocities. For that reason, we must keep fixed in our minds that extradition is an essential component of the unremitting struggle to rid the world of people who use killing and maiming as weapons of persuasion. If we forget that, we lose the right to call ourselves a democracy, because we will end up sheltering those who believe only in coercion.

There is an extraordinary amount of misinformation surrounding this subject. All week long, my office — and I am sure this applies to many other Deputies — has been inundated with phone calls from people who declare themselves to be "anti-extradition" and who are urging us to vote against the motion tonight. Some of these phone calls are part of an orchestrated campaign, of course, but many are genuine, sincere callers, who have come to the view that it is no longer possible to trust the extradition process. They believe in all cases that if this motion is defeated tonight extradition will no longer be possible.

Other callers have passed on the information that since the "political offence" exemption was removed extradition has become a weapon for attacking people simply for the things they believe in. They appear not to know that it is still not possible to extradite someone if he or she can claim that the offence for which they are sought is a political offence as opposed to a terrorist one.

I have no doubt that even in the course of this debate some of these fallacies will be trotted out again. There may even be some Deputies who would like to vote against the motion because they are aware of the amount of misinformation and will, therefore, be perceived as being "anti-extradition" by voting for the removal of safeguards. In relation to this issue, let us try to avoid that sort of cynicism and instead let us make the decision that is best for our country.

For the record, let me restate these basic facts. First, we are voting tonight on whether those safeguards which are already there should be retained or dropped. Second, our extradition law does not permit extradition on the grounds of political offences. The law does now make a distinction between political and terrorist offences, and it is an important distinction but it is not accurate to imply, as the Anti-Extradition Committee do, that the political offence exemption has been removed from our law. I have to say that this has been a very bad week for those of us who believe that extradition is an essential weapon in the armoury of international relations and in the fight against international terrorism. This debate should be taking place in a cool, reasonable atmosphere which would enable us to assess logically whether we passed an effective and safe piece of legislation in 1987. Instead it is taking place following a week of hysteria which has been whipped up by elements both within and without this country.

While the debate goes on, the Attorney General, whom we entrusted with the task, is assessing whether enough evidence exists for him to give a direction that a warrant for the extradition of one individual should be endorsed. Speaking a year ago in the debate on the Act we are now considering, Labour Party speakers warned of the dangers of entrusting the Attorney General with that task. We did not do so because of any lack of confidence in the Attorney General's personal qualities. We did so because we believed it was wrong and dangerous to entrust a judicial task of that sort to a politically-appointed officer, who holds a position which is essentially political in all other important respects.

So far as I am aware, the case which the Attorney General is now studying is the first case under the 1987 Act — certainly the first case involving an individual charged with politically motivated crimes. Yet even though it is the first such case, it is already easy to see that a fundamental mistake was made in assigning this task to the politically-appointed legal adviser to the Government. Whatever decision he makes in this case will have far-reaching political ramifications. If the Attorney General decides to give a direction that the warrant should be executed, he could be unleashing a hurricane of political activity and protest that could do terrible damage to this country, at least in the short term. If he decides not to give a direction, he could be ensuring that the possibility of securing progress towards peace and reconciliation on this island is set back for years.

Whatever decision he makes — and he must make his decision based only on his consideration of the law, and nothing else — his is an unenviable position. And what makes matters worse for him is that the position in which he finds himself is not of his own making. The fault for this situation lies elsewhere. In the first place, the fault for it lies in the blatant politicisation of the entire process. We have reached a point in relation to Father Ryan where, in my view, he cannot safely be extradited. His right to a fair trial in the British courts has been prejudiced beyond recall, most notably by the British Prime Minister, who has been unable to mention his name without using the word "terrorism" in the same sentence and also by the British media, who have convicted him several times over. It is not my place to pass judgment on his guilt or innocence, but I must express the view, since I believe it to be the case, that his rights— the rights he shares with every Member of this House and every citizen of this island — have been compromised to a point where they would not exist if he were extradicted to the British jurisdiction. If he is to face trial, therefore, it must be in this jurisdiction. That gives rise to a very peculiar situation which is not adequately provided for in the law. It is entirely possible that the Attorney General, for reasons other than the one I have outlined above, may decide not to direct the execution of the warrant against Father Ryan but it may well be the same Attorney General who prosecutes Father Ryan in an Irish Court.

This brings me to the second area of fault in this case and in the management of our extradition process. The law as developed is bad law. We made this case in the debate last year, and I am not going to repeat it here, but I do want to make a number of points that are relevant to the decision we have to make tonight.

Our Attorney General may well come to the view, in his examination of the case against Father Ryan that there is a case to be answered. But he may well come to the view also that the case cannot be fairly dealt with in a British court because of the circumstances of the past week and the continuing campaign in some sections of the British media. Under the law of the land, even if he does hold the view that the man is not guaranteed fair treatment, he must seek to extradite him anyway. This is both ludicrous and dangerous and it is compounded by the fact that the courts are also debarred from making any judgment as to the likelihood of a fair trial. As long as the courts are satisfied that the offence is one recognised by Irish law, that is not covered by the political exemption, that there is an intention to prosecute, and that the relevant documentation is in order, they have no discretion. The courts will not even have sight of the evidence which has been given to the Attorney General, nor can they inquire from him as to the basis for his decision. In the final analysis, therefore, this entire process may well come down to the other safeguard which is built in to both the 1965 Act and the 1987 Act. It is an important one even though it has been given very little attention in the media or by those who are concerned to see justice done in this case.

At the end of the day, after the process of extradition has been completed, the Minister for Justice has the power to set a prisoner free, if "having regard to all the circumstances, it would be unjust, oppressive, or invidious to deliver him up". It is possible, as I understand it, for that to happen and for the person concerned to then be charged with the same offences and tried in an Irish court. Clearly, if at the end of the day the Minister for Justice is of the view that any prisoner is unlikely to receive a fair trial, he can and must exercise his right to take this course. If he does it in this case, it will have repercussions for our relations with Britain but no-one can fairly argue that the British Prime Minister has anyone to blame but herself. The Belgian Government have already established the precedent which is open to us to follow. What we, as legislators, have to do is to develop laws that will stand up to the most critical examination over time. In my view the law we have fails that test. If we are voting on this Act tonight, I would be voting against it, as I did a year ago. And my conviction is stronger than ever that we need legislation in this area which removes the issue from being a political football to being one that makes effective extradition consistent with fair treatment, a routine matter for our courts. There is no reason this should be particularly difficult. In the United States, for instance, it is normal practice for trials to be moved from one jurisdiction to another if that is considered necessary to a fair trial. In Britain, nobody is sent to trial on a serious charge unless the courts are first satisfied that there is a case to answer. It is ironic to think that if Father Ryan had been arrested in England, the question of whether there was a prima facie case against him would have been one of the first questions asked by the courts.

At the end of our examination of all these issues, we must try to ensure that the law we develop is one that is capable of taking account of individual circumstances but is not a law dictated by the last controversy. In order to do that, we need a fundamental review of the situation that now exists. We need detailed analytical reports of what has happened in the operation of our law. We need to be able to test our opinions and even our prejudices against the facts.

For that reason, I would like to conclude by calling on the Government to reject any demand from Britain for easier extradition. They must also resist any pressure from within their own ranks to scrap extradition altogether. Although I have argued that the 1987 Act does not strike the correct balance, our aim must be to improve that balance and not to let the pendulum swing too far in either direction. What we need to do instead is to ensure that the legislation, and the record arising from that legislation, is constantly re-examined to ensure that the effective extradition, consistent with the need for fair treatment, is the result of our legislative efforts. We have not yet arrived at that point and that is why we will be voting against this motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

I should like to begin by reminding Deputies what it is we are debating today. This is not a debate about the current case of Father Patrick Ryan or any other specific case. Indeed, it cannot be as it is not lawful to communicate with the Attorney General and other specified persons for the purpose of influencing the making of a decision in this or any other case. All extradition cases must be dealt with on their own merits and on a legal basis. If we have reason to be critical of emotional comment on extradition cases in Britain, we have all the more reason to conduct this debate — and indeed all debates on extradition — in a calm manner without commenting on the operation of the legal process until, of course, that process is complete.

Extradition is a sensitive matter in all countries. People everywhere are concerned for the treatment of their nationals extradited to foreign jurisdictions. British people are not less concerned than others as the controversy over the Heysel case in Belgium demonstrated. One important point which has clearly emerged is that people in this country are now more aware that extradition is not simply an Anglo-Irish difficulty. It is a problem which occurs in relations between many other countries, including the countries of the European Community. What we all have to do is try to find ways of balancing that natural concern for our nationals with the vital effort to combat terrorism and serious crime which, increasingly, recognises no frontiers.

This debate today is about the continuance or otherwise of the safeguards enacted last year in the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. At that time the Government agreed to accept the view put forward in the House that the operation of the Act should be limited to one year after the date of its passing unless both Houses of the Oireachtas declared that it should continue in operation after that year. The terms of the motion, therefore, call upon Dáil Éireann to declare that the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987 should continue in operation. If the Dáil should decide that the Act should not continue in operation, the effect would be to leave extradition arrangements in place but without the safeguards contained in the Extradition (Amendment) Act.

The Extradition (Amendment) Act of 1987 provides that a warrant from Britain or Northern Ireland for the arrest of a person accused of an offence shall not be endorsed if the Attorney General so directs. The Act goes on to state that he shall give a direction not to endorse unless he is of the opinion, having considered such information as he deems appropriate, that there is a clear intention to prosecute and that such an intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence.

The details of the procedures contained in the Act have been explained by the Taoiseach and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. I would urge that the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, which established the role of the Attorney General and a number of other procedures to which the Taoiseach has referred in the interests of providing safeguards that were considered necessary by the Dáil last December, should continue to be a feature of our extradition arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland.

A number of points have been made in the debate about the courts and wider aspects of the extradition law. These are points which the House will have an opportunity to discuss early next year when the Government make their report on all matters in the Extradition Act, 1965, Part III, which they are now obliged to do under legislation. The debate today is separate from the wider aspects of extradition law. Various other points can be debated at a later stage since this debate concerns only the safeguards in the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. Deputies will forgive me if I do not follow them on some of the points which have been raised because in my view they can be more legitimately raised when we come to review, as we are obliged to do, the whole operation of the Act. The pertinent points made by Deputy O'Malley in regard to the appropriate courts in which extradition proceedings should be initiated can then be taken into account.

We are debating today the safeguards we wrote into the legislation of last December and if we do not pass the Government motion to extend that Act, which was laid down for 12 months, the net effect will be to suspend the operation of the safeguards and leave us in the situation which obtained under the 1965 legislation. The effect would be that the 1965 Act would operate the safeguards so desired by this House as a whole last December, which we are seeking to enshrine on a permanent basis. Side by side with that, we can have the overall review of the extradition procedures in this House early next year.

Mr. Barry

And different rules will apply then.

Mr. Lenihan

I am concerned with the matter now before the House, namely the renewal of the safeguards put in place a year ago. If not renewed, they will lapse.

Mr. Barry

I do not accept the Minister's interpretation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have questions and answers in a limited debate of this kind. Deputy Barry will have the opportunity to make his contribution.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the interpretation which has been rightly placed on the matter by the Progressive Democrats, as expressed by their Leader, Deputy O'Malley. It is the Government's interpretation, the Attorney General's interpretation and the interpretation of the legal experts available to us. The Fine Gael Party, by putting down this amendment, are being ambivalent and are trying to convey a double image of what they are at. They are either ambivalent or plain stupid.

Mr. Barry

Nobody could lay that charge at our door.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps if the Minister did not address himself so invitingly to Deputy Barry he might not be interrupted.

Mr. Lenihan

I am addressing myself to the kernel of the legislation we are renewing, the safeguard aspects we wrote into our amendment to the 1965 Extradition Act last year. If not reviewed, these safeguards will lapse automatically, contrary to the will of the House expressed 12 months ago.

The powers of Government in this State are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of the State established by the Constitution — the Oireachtas, the Executive and the courts. These powers of Government derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirement of the common good. We are a parliamentary democracy holding regular and free elections. There is no doubt that the will of the people is expressed in our elected Legislature, in the Taoiseach and his Government and in our independent judges who are duly appointed according to law.

I recall a passage of a judgment of the Supreme Court in the Robert Russell extradition case which goes as follows:

Decisions as to the method by which the national territory shall be reintegrated are matters for the Government subject to the control of Dáil Éireann. The carrying out of these decisions is exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs or State established by the Constitution. For a person or a group of persons to take over or to seek to take over the carrying out of a policy of reintegration decided upon by himself or themselves without the authority of those organs of State is to subvert the Constitution and to disrupt the function of Government.

The Government operate under a parliamentary system of democracy of which we are very proud.

It is important to remind ourselves of these basic realities in the light of the continuing problem of violence arising from the Northern situation. It is we the Oireachtas who make our laws and it is we the Government who conduct national policy.

I know that the efforts of our Government to tackle violence arising from the situation in Northern Ireland and, in co-operation with the British Government, to create conditions — and this is of central and crucial importance — which will bring it to an end, have the full support of this House and of the people. These efforts are now supported by a legally binding international agreement in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985.

In the course of the debate in this House on the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 16 November last, the Government made clear their commitment to help bring the appalling violence of the last 20 years to an end. The Minister for Justice reminded us that security co-operation is about the saving of life and property and the maintenance of peace and order. He set out the excellent record of the Garda in finding explosives, weapons and ammunition which are a threat to everyone on this island. In carrying out this intensive successful drive, they pre-empted and prevented further terrorist offences of an even greater magnitude.

The Taoiseach told the House on 17 February this year that the resources we as a State have committed, and are committing, to the security area in general are in place because it is our judgment that they are necessary in the interest of all the people who live in this island. We have put and retain these resources in position, despite their very heavy cost, because we believe that it is right and necessary to do so. Our commitment in this area is given freely, in the common interest of society, North and South, to ensure that the forces of terrorism — whether domestic or of international origin — will not prevail. The Taoiseach went on to say that he wanted to emphasise our determination and resolve to do everything within our power to defeat the men of violence and to maintain democracy and the rule of law.

Having made this considerable commitment to combat violence on the ground, as it were, it would be strange if we were not to follow it up with an equal commitment to combat violence through the courts in accordance with the rule of law. It is in this perspective that our extradition arrangements whether with Britain or other countries must be seen.

Deputies will be aware from listening to the Taoiseach that extradition has been in existence in its present form since 1965. Indeed it has been part of the legal machinery of this State since independence, and that is as it should be. Extradition is part of the normal machinery of legal co-operation against crime, whether ordinary or terrorist, among democratic states. I mention ordinary crime because it is sometimes lost sight of in our debates on extradition. International co-operation is just as much required against crimes such as kidnapping, hijacking and drug smuggling as it is against terrorism. These are no "ordinary" crimes. Nor should we lose sight of the requests which our authorities make of other countries for the return of offenders who have fled our jurisdiction.

Where it is right and proper, therefore, a person who is accused of a serious offence should be made amenable to the judicial process. The combined effect of the Attorney General's function under the Act we are considering today, and the function of the courts in determining whether a person should be deprived of his liberty, achieves a balance between the rights of the individual and the exigencies of the State which deserves support.

I have said that we should complement the substantial effort we are making in the field of security co-operation with effective action in the courts against those accused of serious offences. Extradition is one route which can be followed. There is also the alternative of the procedure under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, and reciprocal British legislation under which the courts in either part of Ireland have jurisdiction to try persons for certain serious offences committed in the other part.

The Taoiseach today detailed the record of this extra-territorial legislation which is worth repeating. Only one case has failed under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act in our jurisdiction, resulting in the acquittal of three persons. Thirteen persons in all have been tried and ten have been convicted in respect of charges which included murder, firearms and explosives offences. Nine out of ten persons tried in Northern Ireland under the parallel legislation have also been convicted.

Both Governments agree that there is scope for operation of the extra-territorial procedure and that the use of it should be considered in appropriate cases. The two Attorneys General have been having discussions with a view to its practical application in such cases. Deputies will be aware that, very recently, a new prosecution was brought in this State under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act.

In conclusion, extradition has long existed as a mechanism for ensuring that the fugitive offender does not escape justice simply by fleeing from the jurisdiction in which he is alleged to have committed an offence. It is right and proper that extradition should continue and that it should be subject to reasonable and prudent safeguards including those provided for in the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987.

I, therefore, ask the House to support the motion before it that the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987 should continue in operation. The safeguards written into it will be a very prudent, legal mechanism for the protection of the individual faced with charges and the person will know that such charges must be scrutinised by the law officer of our State, the Attorney General.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Workers' Party have already put on record outside the House last weekend that we intended to support the Government motion making permanent the safeguards to the 1965 and 1987 Extradition Acts. We did so for a number of reasons. We felt it was essential to give a clear signal to the public that there could be no ambivalence or second guessing in relation to the question of extradition, the need for extradition and, obviously, the need for safeguards in relation to how it operates.

For whatever reason, there seems to be a fairly widespread belief outside the House that what we are discussing here today is whether we will have extradition at all. Of course that is totally false but it is believed because there are quite a lot of people outside this House who, for their own reasons, distort the reality of what we are debating here. Indeed, they distort many other things as well. Nevertheless, it is important to make a clear statement and to put a stop to the bandwagon that was beginning to roll in relation to a particular case and the question of extradition.

The Workers' Party position on extradition has been quite consistent during the debates on the two Extradition Acts to have gone through the Dáil in the past two years. We have always argued that a State seeking the extradition of a person from this country should be required to establish in an Irish court a prima facie case against the person sought. When the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act was going through the Dáil in December 1986 we tabled an amendment that extradition should be on the basis of a prima facie case, but this was voted down by Fine Gael and Labour with the assistance of the casting vote of the then Ceann Comhairle. In December last we tabled a similar amendment to the 1987 Extradition Act, but this was blocked by Fianna Fáil. The whole sorry chapter of misfortunes and misunderstandings which have bedevilled extradition since then could have been avoided if those who now support the prima facie requirement had voted accordingly in 1986, and this House given the courts the responsibility for making a decision on extradition requests on the basis of a prima facie case against the person sought.

We do not believe that the Attorney General is the ideal person to consider extradition requests. I am not referring to the Attorney General in person but to his Office. The Office of the Attorney General is a political appointment. It would be clearly extremely difficult for the public whether it be Irish or British public, to believe that he could disregard the political implications of a decision to extradite. By giving the courts the responsibility for making decisions on extradition requests, it would be the clearest possible statement that this country will treat extradition as a matter of law and not of political expediency. The role of the Legislature should be to set out the broad legal framework within which extradition can take place and then leave the detailed operation of it to the judicial process.

The Taoiseach has quite rightly criticised the manner in which individual extradition requests have been politicised by the British Prime Minister, and we in The Workers' Party have made this criticism also but the Taoiseach should realise that the most effective way in which to depoliticise extradition would be to transfer the functions now performed by the Attorney General to the courts. By making it primarily a judicial function, the Dáil would be ensuring that extradition was not abused for political purposes by either the British or Irish Governments.

Our preference is still for a prima facie requirement, but we must accept that given the present attitude of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael this is not likely to be agreed to in the immediate future. In this situation we are prepared to vote for the motion to renew the Act. We do so because if the motion was not passed, it would mean that there would be no safeguards at all, and there is always the danger that in that situation the Fianna Fáil Government, under pressure from its ultra-Nationalist wing, would refuse to operate extradition at all.

We had considered attempting to amend the Government motion to provide for a prima facie case but had been advised that it would not be in order. We would have supported the Labour Party amendment had it been allowed, although, as framed we consider it an awkward way of approaching the problem. I make the point once again that the current problem would have been avoided had the Labour Party voted for a prima facie case in December 1986. I point out also that we had a Private Members' Bill on this issue on the Order Paper for more than 12 months but have never been given time to have it discussed. I hope that those who have come round to supporting the prima facie position will now agree to time being allocated to discusss it at an appropriate time.

It is somewhat unfortunate that this debate is taking place against the background of the emotional hype surrounding the Patrick Ryan extradition request. National policy on extradition has to be decided on the basis of logic and reason and not on emotion. If we are to see the defeat of terrorism in Britain and Ireland it is essential that there be an effective system of extradition which protects the rights of the innocent, while ensuring that those who have a case to answer are brought before the courts.

The decision on the Patrick Ryan case must be made on the basis of our law, as decided by this House, and all other considerations must be put aside. In particular, there must be no surrender to the sort of blackmail contained in the reported threat from Mr. Ryan that he will go on hunger strike to the death rather than face extradition to Britain. If he goes ahead with this threat he will be exercising his right to choose whether to live or die. As elected representatives, it is up to us to remind people that the victims of the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland and Britain are given no such choice.

In expressing concern about the rights of persons whose extradition is sought from this country, we must not lose sight of the equally fundamental need to protect people from the Provos and the UVF who decide themselves on life and death for others; whose decisions are always made in secret; who act as judge, jury and executioner; whose verdict is always "guilty", a verdict from which there is no appeal; and whose sentence is always to kill or maim their victims. The Provos take no prisoners. When you become a target for the Provisionals you will die or you will be maimed for life.

The Workers' Party share the widespread anger provoked in this country by the offensive comments of the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, arising from the Ryan extradition request. It seems Mrs. Thatcher has little knowledge or indeed little interest in the attitude or feelings of Irish people. Does she not appreciate the damage her provocative and unacceptable comments last week did in this country? Does she not realise that the defeat of terrorism and the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland requires the co-operation and support of the people in both parts of Ireland, as well as those in Britain? There must be people in the British Cabinet who understand the situation but is there nobody who can take her aside and tell her very firmly that her table-thumping, hectoring interventions into the affairs of this country are music to the ears of Gerry Adams and his followers, and that they totally undermine the position of those in Ireland who are seeking effective, democratic ways of combating terrorism.

Both the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister now have a responsibility to try to cool the situation. Their primary objective must be to secure peace in Northern Ireland and not simply to fuel the attitudes of their more extreme backbenchers, in the way in which we saw during the past week. Early last week the headlines said `Thatcher slams Haughey' and the Tory backwoodsmen cheered. At the weekend the papers were saying `Haughey snubs Thatcher', and the Fianna Fáil backwoodsmen cheered. In the meantime, the people of Northern Ireland continue to die at the hands of the paramilitaries.

I share also the very deep concern that has been expressed at the manner in which sections of the British media cover the background to extradition requests for Irish people, and particularly the way in which they attempt to convict such people in advance of any judicial hearing. I must emphasise here that I am talking about sections of the British media. It has been put across in Ireland that because The Sun or other such rag carries a racist headline, all of the British people either read The Sun or believe implicitly in what it states or indeed that everybody in Britain supports Margaret Thatcher, which of course is not true. We should retain a sense of balance in relation to the commonsense of the British people in regard to what Mrs. Thatcher or indeed the tabloid press in Britain may say.

Indeed the almost racist way in which sections of the British media cover Irish affairs is a matter of great concern and should be raised by the Taoiseach with the British Government. Article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides that in certain cases the Irish Government can raise matters involving co-operative action in both parts of Ireland and possibly also in Britain. The Irish Government should raise, through the Intergovernmental Conference, the matter of British media coverage of Irish affairs which is offensive to the vast majority of Irish people. It should also be a matter of great shame to the National Union of Journalists, who represent journalists in both Britain and Ireland, that so many of its members participate in this racist coverage which is clearly in breach of their own code of ethics.

I believe the majority of people in Britain and Ireland recognise that extradition is a weapon that should be available to society in the battle against terrorism. I am confident that the majority of people on both islands want a system of extradition which protects the innocent, while ensuring that those who have a case to answer are brought before the courts. We must not allow legitimate concern about the rights of individuals whose extradition is sought to be used as a smokescreen by those who really believe that nobody should be extradited to Britain or Northern Ireland, irrespective of the crimes in which they may have participated, simply because they claim some historical mandate.

I and The Workers' Party believe that we must bury once and for all the ambivalence within our society which tears us apart when we are faced by appeals to nationalism by those who carry out criminal acts like the massacre in Enniskillen or the slaughter of an unfortunate young 13-year old and her grandfather just a few days ago. That is the reason we are supporting the motion put before the House today by the Taoiseach.

In conclusion, I find it odd that the Fine Gael Party have put down this amendment. There is a need for this House to demonstrate clearly that there is no ambivalence in regard to the issues of extradition and/or terrorism. I know that the Fine Gael Party do not have that ambivalence. But there are signals going out to the effect that, in some way, this debate is about whether we should have extradition; whether the law, as it stands, protects or does not protect the innocent in relation to extradition. I believe the Fine Gael amendment is sending the wrong signal to people who will use it for their purposes in order to indicate that there is division in this House in relation to the major issue of justice and peace in Ireland.

Mr. Barry

Certainly they would not have got that impression from anything we have said.

Proinsias De Rossa

From the Fine Gael amendment.

Mr. Blaney

Might I point out that I have sat here for the entire debate so far with the exception of the 15 minutes during which Deputy Spring spoke. I understood that I was to be allowed to speak. The Chair has gone around the parties, including The Workers' Party just now, and is reverting to the Fianna Fáil benches despite the fact that three of their Members have already spoken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the precedent in the House is that debate moves from the Government to the Opposition side of the House. That is what is now happening. That is why I have called Deputy Dermot Ahern.

Mr. Blaney

That really has not been the practice.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Deputy is not contending that it would be democratic to have two Members of the Opposition speak without inviting a Government Deputy to speak?

Mr. Blaney

Might I invite the Chair to bring some realism into his decision, that is that there is practically no opposition to the motion before the House, except on the part of myself and one or two others, and none of us has been called or provided for.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the Chair never anticipates what is to be uttered in the House. Rather must the Chair follow the traditions that operate in respect of debates of this kind. I now call Deputy Dermot Ahern.

Mr. D. Ahern

I am delighted to have an opportunity of contributing to this debate. I smiled while listening to some of the remarks made by Deputy Peter Barry in the course of the contribution of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. While, to a certain extent, Deputy Barry today criticised the safeguards contained in the amending legislation he lauded them over the week-end in the course of a British television programme.

Mr. Barry

I am not one of those people who knocks this Government externally; I am not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I shall remind the Deputy of that when I get up to speak.

Mr. D. Ahern

I should like to put on record my congratulations to the Taoiseach on the way he handled the very difficult position that has obtained over the past two weeks caused by the very intemperate remarks on the part of the British Prime Minister and a number of her senior backbenchers who should have known better than make the remarks they did. It would appear that, over the past week-end, the British Prime Minister mellowed to a certain extent, probably on the advice of some of the diplomats within her organisation. She endeavoured to dictate to us on more than one occasion to introduce laws she regarded as fit. As previous speakers have said, we are an independent, sovereign State and have an obligation to introduce whatever laws we see fit; we will not be dictated to by anybody.

I was astounded by the public reaction engendered by those intemperate remarks, on the part of people who would not have any involvement in politics at all, who were aghast at them and the way in which they were made. I agree with Deputy Blaney that the vast majority of Members of this House and of the people agree with the stance taken by the Taoiseach in regard to the Rhodes Summit and in the days immediately beforehand.

It is accepted also that the remarks made in the British Parliament politicised an extradition procedure which should not be politicised. Indeed one British commentator referred to it as a partly political procedure. It may well be in Britain or in Belgium but, as far as I am concerned, it is not so here because section 7 (4) of the Extradition (Amendment) Act prohibits any communication with the Attorney General that might influence his decision in regard to any given case. Therefore, I do not agree at all that extradition procedure could be deemed to be partly political; it is an entirely judicial process.

Miss Colley

But he is not a judge.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Anglo-Irish Agreement was mentioned here earlier. There is no doubt that the Anglo-Irish process has been damaged by the offensive remarks made. It is unfortunate that those people in Britain chose to make the remarks they did given that there are procedures whereby such matters can be raised.

I make no bones about the fact that I am a constitutional Republican. I believe there will never be peace on this island until there is a united Ireland. Equally I firmly believe that the only way in which that goal can be achieved is through peaceful means and that we, Republicans, have a duty not alone to the people in the 26 Counties but also to those in the Six Counties. If that means we must introduce laws we might not introduce if peace prevailed on this island, then that is the reality; sometimes in such circumstances we may have to take decisions we might not take in more normal times. Equally on account of that fact we may have to introduce legislation from time to time which might be deemed to be suppressive in normal times. Because times are not normal we are faced with the prospect of extradition. The position that obtained up to 1965 was that our Government were faced with the most simple form of extradition between this country, the North and England, a system of rendition under which an RUC Commissioner or a Commissioner in the police force in England would produce a warrant, the back of which would merely be signed by the Commissioner in the Republic.

We were signatories to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. Like every other State in Europe we had international obligations and decided to be signatories to that convention. I might add that Britain were not signatories at that time and still have not ratified that convention. Therefore, it ill behoves them to criticise us on our extradition procedures. That Convention on Extradition had the effect of abolishing a prima facie requirement in extradition procedures. In 1957 there did not obtain the same problem on this island as obtains today or indeed has done over the past 20 years or so. As a result of our being signatories to the European Convention on Extradition of 1957 we introduced and passed the Extradition Act, 1965. Deputy Blaney will correct me if I am wrong but I think he was a member of the Government that introduced the 1965 Act. Since then we have extradited somewhere in the region of 900 people to the Six Counties, most in respect of what might be termed to be non-political offences. There was contained in the provisions of the 1965 Extradition Act the political offence defence, the time-honoured defence which had originated from English common law.

While in 1977 the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism was signed by a number of European countries we decided to ratify that convention in 1987 only. People contend that that Convention did away with the political offence defence. It did not; it restricted it to a number of offences, such as hijacking, hostage-taking, offences which I contend could never be regarded as political. Had we not ratified the safeguarding legislation we would be reverting to a position in which there would be merely a backing of warrants or rendition. That would be very bad because there is the genuinely held fear in the Republic that people who are extradited to go before courts in Britain do not get a fair trial.

The Coalition Government introduced the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, thereby ratifying the relevant Convention. Indeed they postponed the implementation of its provisions for a year. Some people may contend that that postponement was a political ploy, they knowing full well that a Fianna Fáil Government would be in power by the time its provisions would fall to be implemented. The excuse was given at that time that it was to enable reforms to take place in the Six Counties. We all agree that those reforms did not take place over that period. Unfortunately this Government were faced with the passing into law of the 1987 Act implementing the Convention on Terrorism which related merely to the backing of warrants. No one in this House would agree with that. We may disagree as to the type of safeguards we need but we are all agreed that there should be safeguards.

The Supreme Court had a very big hand in the whittling down of the political offence defence and they drew a distinction between genuine political activity and the barbarous acts committed on these two islands. They took up the running in regard to terrorism and decided that they would whittle away the political offence defence. Some people are saying that we should abolish the Amendment Act. If we abolish the Amendment Act we are back to rendition. If we abolish both the Amendment Act and the original Act of 1987 we are back to the 1965 Act in conjuction with the Supreme Court decisions which do away with the political offence defence. If we abolish all of the Extradition Acts including the 1965 Act, it would be still possible to extradite people under international law. What we are doing is putting in safeguards.

Some people have referred to the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act. In view of the difficulty that has arisen over the last number of weeks and which will arise in future every time an extradition case comes up, we should make more use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act. When this was first mooted in 1973-74 a commission was set up to investigate extradition and extra-territorial legislation. The commission comprised parties from the Republic and from Great Britain. The people from Great Britain favoured the amendment of extradition legislation and we found that there would be a constitutional problem under Article 29 of the Constitution in relation to the political offence. The Supreme Court whittled away that defence so that in recent times the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act is a much better resort, as far as I am concerned, that extradition. I fully appreciate that we have a system of extradition that we have to work as best we can. The Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act has been used successfully on quite a number of occasions as the Taoiseach and other Deputies have stated. Unfortunately there is a reluctance particularly on the part of the RUC to use the procedure under that Act. They are reluctant to come to the South to prosecute although any time they have come down the result has been excellent in that people who have been brought before the courts have been convicted.

A lot of emotive talk has gone on in relation to a fair trial. I was horrified not only by the comments of Mrs. Thatcher but by those of Ken Maginnis recently in a programme on RTE television. Irish people have a genuine fear which is not helped by the statements made by Mrs. Thatcher, Ken Maginnis and others. There is no doubt that the picture they paint is very alarming for anyone who might be taken across the water or up to the Six Counties. It may happen that when someone goes before a court in England he will get what is called a fair trial. There may be no problem with the court case but there is a genuine fear and a genuine problem with the media hype that is built up around these cases. It must affect jurors involved in those cases. When jurors read statements like "Devil with the Dog Collar" and see all the hype on the television regarding the security surrounding these trials there is no doubt that jurors are affected. That is where the genuine fear of people in the Republic is well founded.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time allotted to the Deputy is now exhausted. He might bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. D. Ahern

Yes. Just one other remark which is that there seems to be a constant intertwining between political and judicial decisions in Britain. Take for instance the case in which Private Thain was released after a very short time. Other people charged with similar offences are languishing in jails. In relation to the Stalker/Sampson affair political decisions were made in Britain not to prosecute. This is where people have a genuine fear about the intertwining of political and judicial decisions in England.

Mr. Barry

When the Tánaiste was speaking earlier in this debate he accused Fine Gael of being ambivalent. I will come back to that, but first I would like a subsequent Government speaker to clarify if what the Tánaiste appeared to me to say is correct. The Tánaiste appeared to me to say that the Fine Gael interpretation of our motion is incorrect. The Chair has ruled that it is in order and so we have put it down. The Tánaiste appeared then to say that the right to debate all of this was when we came to the review under the 1986/1987 Amendment Act early in the New Year. Does the Tánaiste mean by that that we will have the opportunity to debate the Bill and amendments to the Bill early in the New Year or will we have just a debate and a report submitted under section 44 of the Amendment Act by the Attorney General? If the Tánaiste means the latter then his interpretation of the Fine Gael position would equally apply to that report and would not allow this House to enter a time limit into how long the 1987 Act and the Attorney General's involvement in the process of extradition should last. But if the Tánaiste means the former then we are talking about something totally different. If the Tánaiste means that we are going to debate the whole Bill and redebate the amendment Act of 1987 and amendments to it that is quite different from saying that we were just going to debate the report. The Tánaiste then gave the impression that a timescale for the Attorney General's involvement in the Act could be redebated at that time. I would like the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs or some other speaker on the Government side to clarify that position.

The Tánaiste also accused Fine Gael of being ambivalent. Without being pompous, I can say that there is no party in this House other than ours more entitled to say that they are absolutely unambiguous and unambivalent about terrorism. We have been engaged in the fight against terrorism, in all its forms, for the past seven years.

Deputy Ahern referred to remarks I made on BBC television over the week-end. It is true I was critical of what happened in the British House of Commons, but I backed this Government. I am not one of those who attacks the Irish Government outside this country. I leave that to the Leader and Deputy Leader of Deputy Ahern's party. They are the only two politicians I know who did not back the Government of the day who deliberately went out of their way to attack the Government outside this jurisdiction. When this House had passed the Anglo-Irish Agreement Deputy Haughey and Deputy Lenihan went to America and tried to persuade the American Administration and the Friends of Ireland not to give us any support, and if possible to damage the agreement. They were the only Members of this House I have known to do that. When I speak outside this country I will continue to back the Government of the day and the legislation passed by this House. The Deputy need not worry about me in that regard, but I would advise him to have some words with members of his own party about this.

The progress and improvement in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland was, and remains, one of the primary concerns of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The determination of our Government to pursue genuine progress in this regard cannot be considered in isolation from the renewal of the Extradition Act. On the occasion of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement at Hillsborough three years ago Deputy Garret FitzGerald, then Taoiseach, indicated the Government's intention to accede to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. The impetus for this undertaking was a commitment entered into by the Irish and British Government to work together to achieve early progress in relation to certain matters of mutual concern in Northern Ireland, that was, bringing about peace and stability, increasing confidence in the administration of justice and improving the relationship between the two communities, particularly the Nationalist community and the security forces there.

It was against that background that we agreed to sign the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and introduced the Extradition Act, 1986, the Extradition Act, 1987 and the amendment to that Act which was debated here, and got the support of Fine Gael on the undertaking that we would have an opportunity to look at it 12 months later to see how it was working and, if necessary, to continue the process. It is because we are not satisfied that we have the material to assess if it has been working over the past 12 months that we have put down our amendment to this motion. As Deputy O'Malley said, there has been only one case completed under that Act, and since that person volunteered to go back the Act was hardly necessary. The other case, that relating to Father Ryan, is going through at the moment.

To my mind this House has nothing to debate, even though the Taoiseach said, and the Tánaiste repeated it, that we are assessing the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, that has operated over the past 12 months. We cannot do that because there has not been any case heard under it. We feel another year or two is necessary before we can properly assess whether these safeguards are working or if they were necessary in the first place. As I said, that is why our amendment is before the House.

Almost everybody who spoke here today said it was regrettable that the British Prime Minister's recent remarks displayed not just a lack of sensitivity but clearly signalled her lack of understanding of the problems faced by any Irish Government working extradition arrangement with the United Kingdom. The terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the sprit in which it was negotiated and the political will which produced the Agreement, all signified a shared understanding of the problems facing both our countries in the fight against terrorism, but the events of the past week seem to indicate that this shared understanding and common objective has been set aside.

If the British Prime Minister was concerned about Anglo-Irish relations, it was a pity she did not use the machinery of the Conference to bring them to the attention of the Taoiseach, or through her Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the attention of the Tánaiste, who is the joint chairman of the Conference, or use the Secretariat in Belfast. Instead, she used the floor of the House of Commons. The British gutter press, the tabloids, took up the baying and, with the Prime Minister, proceeded to act as judge and jury in this very sensitive case which should be decided under the process of our law and not through any hysteria worked up by the British media and contributed to by a number of British backbenchers who are unthinking and certainly uneducated in Irish law.

The Agreement provides the mechanism where the Irish and British Governments communicate in a constructive and effective manner. It is a matter of great regret that the British chose to ignore that machinery on this occasion — and "regret" is far too weak a word to use in that regard. The emotive statements of the past week would have been more properly expressed in the confines of the joint Conference, through the Secretariat in Belfast or through the British Ambassador in Dublin. By making the House of Commons and the newspapers a battleground, the British Prime Minister has done a great disservice to the people of both islands.

Damage may not have been done to the politicians involved. We are pragmatic. We have to get over these things. We are used to disagreeing with our counterparts in other countries or across the floor of the House, but we still have to work together. The same applies to the people who work the Anglo-Irish Agreement. After the Prime Minister's remarks in the House of Commons I imagine the Secretariat in Belfast had to sit down and solve other problems, had to put aside what had been enunciated by the British Prime Minister in London and start working together in a constructive manner.

A certain amount of damage has been done, as was shown by the level of public opinion on both sides of the Irish Sea — and that is demonstrated by what is happening outside this House today — and by the headlines of some of the cheaper British papers. Deputy De Rossa made a good point when he said not all the press in Britain or all the British people are anti-Irish. We should always try to maintain a balance and remember that. There were a number of leading articles in the papers yesterday and today which had a much more constructive attitude towards this country.

No politician or official can operate in a vacuum. We all depend on public opinion, and public opinion on both sides of the Irish Sea can be affected by the attitudes adopted by the leaders in the other country. Therefore, British public opinion can seem intolerant of things Irish if the British leaders adopt an anti-Irish attitude. Likewise, we should be very careful not to join the anti-British, or Brit-bashing lobby which is frequently a substitute for some form of Anglo-Irish politics here. We should avoid that. It is not just the damage done to politicians or officials. We have to get over these things.

I understand that a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference scheduled for tomorrow has now been postponed, but I think the meeting could have gone ahead. After the initial chilliness, the two chairmen would have settled down to do the necessary constructive business that needs to be done by the Anglo-Irish Conference and which has been so neglected by this Government during the past two years.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Calleary)

Nonsense.

Mr. Barry

The British Prime Minister's remarks have damaged people's perceptions in both jurisdictions about the machinery of Government. I think it is unfortunate that the debate on the renewal of this legislation takes place against this background. The Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, enabled Ireland to ratify the European Convention on the suppression of Terrorism. That Convention provides the basis for a common approach between member states of the Council of Europe to the question of what constitutes a political offence for the purpose of extradition and mutual assistance. The offences in question include hijacking of aircraft, kidnappings, taking hostages and offences involving the use of bombs, or automatic firearms, if that use endangers persons.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. The Deputy has two minutes left of the time alloted to him. Will the Deputy move that the debate be adjourned?

Debate adjourned.