Cecilia Keaveney
Question:9 Cecilia Keaveney asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the current position in relation to the case of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22422/97]
Other Questions. - Extradition Applications.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the nature of the representations, if any, he made to the German Foreign Minister regarding the extradition sought from the United Kingdom to Germany of a person (details supplied); the response, if any, he received in this regard; his views on whether it is appropriate that he should involve himself in judicial proceedings involving two other states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22362/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 15 together. The person named is currently on conditional bail in a London hospital. Despite the excellent quality of medical care available to her, I am advised her health continues to deteriorate. Because of her poor health, she has been unable to attend any of the four committal hearings held to date in connection with a request that she be extradited to Germany. The magistrate has refused to order her extradition in her absence. A further committal hearing is set for 2 January 1998. I am informed the High Court will be asked tomorrow to direct the magistrate to take a decision on the extradition request.
Since her arrest, the Government has expressed humanitarian concerns about the health of the person concerned, the physical and mental suffering she has undergone and the need to care for her young baby. These concerns have been raised at various levels with the British Government. I raised them directly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and will continue to do so. I recently brought this case to the attention of the German Foreign Minister. The Government believes that, on humanitarian grounds and because of the nature of the case, every avenue should be explored to have the case speedily resolved, and that was the basis on which the approach was made.
At all times the Government has been careful to avoid involvement in the judicial process. The representations made relate solely to the exercise of discretionary powers falling within the competence of the Executive. I received a reply from Minister Kinkel that humanitarian aspects are of particular importance in this case and that Germany would welcome a swift ruling by the British courts on the extradition request. He stated that the decision on the extradition application is a matter for the British courts.
I met the mother of the young lady concerned, with a number of her associates, a meeting at which Deputy Keaveney was present. She has played a prominent role in this case and in other prison issues, which is appreciated.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I compliment him on his involvement in this case and on the work he is doing on behalf of the person involved. I also compliment those looking after the individual and supporting her in difficult circumstances. I am aware of the difficulties of interfering with the judicial process. I visited the person concerned on two occasions in recent months and I have ongoing discussions with her family. I am seriously concerned about this case. Is the Minister happy the professionals dealing with this individual are concerned for personal health and the welfare of her baby? Is he confident humanitarian issues are being addressed in her current location?
The Minister said the High Court will ask tomorrow that a decision be made on the extradition request. Acknowledging the difficulties involved in interfering with the judicial process, is there an option open to the Minister should this impasse continue? Will the Minister comment on the report by the Union of Students in Ireland which stated that in this case there is a blatant disregard for and abuse of human rights?
Like other organisations, the USI expressed a strong view, on humanitarian grounds, on the continued incarceration of this young woman and her baby, and I support its view in that regard. It would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to influence court decisions in other jurisdictions. The Government, however, considers it appropriate in these circumstances to draw the attention of the two Governments concerned in the extradition application to the humanitarian aspects of this case and I hope they will be taken into account in reaching a decision on the request.
The Deputy has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions. The person concerned is an Irish citizen. Her health and the welfare of her daughter have been seriously jeopardised as a result of the extradition proceedings brought against her. This case has given rise to widespread public disquiet in Ireland and elsewhere and in those circumstances the Government believes that every avenue should be explored to have the case speedily resolved. On that basis, representations were made, strictly on humanitarian grounds, to the British and German Governments. Many Members of the Oireachtas share my concern about this case, as is evidenced by the large volume of mail I received from all sides of the House.
I welcome the Minister's response. I take it from what he said that the report in The Irish Times, which indicates the Minister made representations for withdrawal of the extradition proceedings, is incorrect. I would be more than upset if the Government did not raise the humanitarian aspects of this case or seek to have the matter speedily resolved, which is separate from having extradition proceedings dropped or withdrawn without going through the normal court proceedings.
I do not deny I asked the German Foreign Minister to request his colleagues to consider dropping the extradition proceedings. I would not like the House to think I attempted to influence the judicial process, particularly in another country. I approached this matter in a direct way with Klaus Kinkel, with whom I have good relations. Having regard to the feelings of other Deputies about the manner of my approach, I had no inhibitions in making my representations. I asked that consideration be given to dropping the proceedings on humanitarian grounds, given the serious violation of this young lady's position.
Given that the Minister has amplified his earlier reply and admitted he sought to interfere in the judicial proceedings, in what way does he believe the humanitarian, civil or human rights of Ms McAliskey have been infringed by the British or German authorities?
There seems to be a view that I make strange pronouncements, but the Deputy has totally misrepresented me. I did not ask, nor did I suggest that the German Foreign Minister, my friend, Klaus Kinkel, should interfere with the German judicial process. I ask the Deputy to reflect on that allegation, which has no substance.
I understood the Minister to say that he asked the German Minister to consider dropping the extradition proceedings. To do that he would have to go to the judicial authorities in Germany to seek to have the extradition proceedings withdrawn. Surely that is requesting an interference in the judicial process.
I made my request to the German Foreign Minister at a recent meeting and he accepted my representations with the utmost equanimity. He is an outgoing, decent man and he did not seem in the least fazed by my request. Within my responsibility I will support Deputy Keaveney and other Members in trying to right the wrong this woman and her baby are suffering. That is a perfectly reasonable request to make to a member of another Government. I would have no difficulty if the roles were reversed.
The Minister has given two separate and distinct explanations for his role in this matter. He said he has not interfered with the judicial process, but he asked the German Minister to do so.
No, I did not.
The Minister said he did. At the same time he said all he wants is to resolve what he claims is an infringement of the rights of the person currently in custody. How can he ask to have the extradition proceedings dropped and say it is not an interference by a foreign Government in the judicial proceedings of the German authorities? In what way does he believe the human rights of this person are being infringed by the British or German Governments? The Minister did not explain that.
I already explained that I made representations on humanitarian grounds to have this mother and child case reviewed. I received a letter dated 5 December l997 from Klaus Kinkel thanking me for my letter. He stated:
Dear David,
Thank you very much for your letter of 25 November 1997 in which you refer to our conversation on the fringe of the Luxembourg summit concerning the extradition of [the particular individual concerned].
I am aware that humanitarian aspects are of particular importance [to the individual's case]. The uncertainty regarding her fate must be a heavy burden for [the lady concerned] to bear and the situation has been made even more difficult by the fact that she became a mother in mid-l997.
That is a response to the allegation from the Deputy that in some way I tried to interfere with the judicial process of another country. What are we to do? Are we to let this unfortunate woman remain in the current circumstances? Should we remain mute because we feel we might transgress another person's patch? Mr. Kinkel did not see it in that light, but Deputy De Rossa does. I am deeply grateful for the manner in which Mr. Kinkel responded to me.
The Minister said he sought to have the extradition proceedings dropped.
No, I did not. The Deputy has a strange ideology.
It has nothing to do with ideology, it has to do with the Minister undermining the proceedings of other states.
Does the Deputy not have a heart?
It is nothing to do with a heart.
Anyone involved in terrorist activities should be brought to account, but people are innocent until proven guilty. Justice delayed is justice denied. Is it Governments, rather than courts, that request extradition? Has the German Government requested the extradition? Will Mr. Kinkel contact the Minister again about the matter?
I would imagine the issue is closed as far as Mr. Kinkel is concerned.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.