As I have already indicated in my reply, I would regard amending legislation at this stage as premature. The 1987 Act has as yet only been judicially considered by the High Court in the course of two separate judgments, the judgment delivered by the President of the High Court in the Ellis case on 30 July 1990 and the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Lynch in the McGee, McKee and Sloan cases on 25 January this year. The Act has yet to be argued before or considered by the Supreme Court. In those circumstances the Deputy must accept that the Act has in no sense been considered fully by the courts. Can he, therefore, not accept that it would be premature to consider amending the Act now before it has been fully tested?
I would also remind the Deputy that the outcome of the proceedings in which the 1987 Act has been considered to date by the High Court is that extradition orders have been confirmed in three out of four cases. I would also remind the Deputy that the 1987 Act meets fully the obligations we assumed when we signed the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and accords fully with international norms in the limitations it places on the political offence exception for extradition purposes. Indeed, Ireland is only one of eight countries to have acceded to the convention without entering a reservation. The remaining 14 countries have entered reservations in relation to political offences.
I want to assure the Deputy that we want to see this matter thoroughly clarified by the courts. It would be premature to take any further action pending such clarification. The Deputy asked if this matter was raised last Thursday and included in the joint statement issued after the meeting.