Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I would like to preface my remarks on the Bill by saying that Labour is not soft on terrorism but we are concerned that justice is not only confined to most areas of the law but to all areas of the law. History shows that we are very consistent in matters of law, in trying to protect the innocent. That goes no matter what the investigation is. In order for us to deliver on this attitude of ours we seek to ensure that no Irish citizen will be extradited unless there is a case to answer and that hearings on the matter of extradition should take place before a judge in open court so as to afford the defendant the opportunity to challenge the warrant or the prima facie evidence. We are at a loss to know what is wrong with the supplying of a book of evidence. It is not a book of evidence that we want to sell on O'Connell Street or on O'Connell Bridge or to publish in our daily papers. We need it for a real reason and that reason is to prove why an Irish citizen has a case to answer in another jurisdiction. That is no less than is required by many other states. In this respect the United Kingdom has not given up their right in that particular area.

Our own Government when in Opposition in 1975 opposed bitterly the criminal law jurisdiction legislation because they felt it was drastic emergency legislation and the question posed by the present Government, when they were in Opposition, was whether a democracy can invoke drastic emergency legislation and still remain a democracy. The questions now posed by the Labour Party on this matter is if it is not a drastic step in legislating to give to a person who attends Cabinet meetings, that is to say the Attorney General, some of the power and authority normally reserved for the judiciary; is it not a drastic move to allow a person who attends Cabinet meetings to take on a function that could lead to the disbandment of the natural division of Government from the judiciary by simple evolving legislation? Supreme Court judges understand their role in seeing that the State laws do not contravene the word and spirit of our Constitution and up to now we have made no effort to restrict the power of the Supreme Court in these matters. I do not want to suggest that this Bill offers a challenge to that role because my belief is that the Bill will be tested in the Supreme Court one way or another. If it is not referred to it by the President before signature, the first case under it will be tested. I believe the latter will be the case. The point I am trying to make is that there will be as many interpretations of what the Attorney General's power is in this matter as there are lawyers in the country. This being the case the safer road to travel is the one of prima facie where the many lawyers would have to deal with the evidence presented to them rather than have a ball at the Attorney General's and the Government's expense. I suggest that the decision by the Government to give such power and authority to a person who attends Cabinet meetings, namely the Attorney General, is a dangerous road to travel because, I repeat, the precedent that upsets the division between Government and judiciary is not a good precedent and who is to say that it cannot be extended irrespective of the good will of the present Government, that it cannot be changed by other Governments or other people in the Fianna Fáil Government? As far as we are concerned in the Labour Party every citizen has a right to a law that has checks and restraints. If you remove a function which rightly belongs to the courts and give it to an attender at Cabinet meetings, I believe you automatically remove these checks and restraints in their full sense and it is only when they are there in their fullest sense that every citizen can be given the protection to which he is entitled.

It may well be argued that there are safeguards in the Bill before us. I doubt if they could be described as totally effective checks and restraints in the sense that one process will be openly displayed by the courts but the other will be a sealed-in thing. I do not think the checks and restraints will be there. I am a little puzzled as to why we got away so fast from the prima facie concept since Britain still holds on to it. I must say that, like the others, I view the British system of justice as it applies to Irish men and women not in a vitriolic way or with hatred but I have to look at it with a jaundiced eye. I am certainly not anti-British. I am anything but that. Therefore, I am all the more concerned, since Britain holds fast to this prima facie idea, about our safeguards for the innocent. We must see that they exist. There is a little bit of hypocrisy there on the part of the British Government. They want, on the one hand, to retain their own right to prima facie evidence in matters of extradition and, at the same time, they want to make sure we do not give any more protection to the citizen who may face a hostile court or a hostile press or something else that might jeopardise his chances of being acquitted if he is innocent.

It is an extraordinary thing that the British have a requirement with every country except Ireland for prima facie evidence before they extradite their citizens. It is also interesting to know the UK have not signed the 1965 European Convention precisely because they wanted to keep their own prima facie requirement. Their attitude seems to be that what is good enough for others is not good enough for them. However, we are talking about our citizens and what we should do in the best interests of our citizens without British interference. What I am worried about is that if the proposal becomes law it would appear to many of the Irish public as an abdication on the part of the Government of their duty to defend the rights of Irish men and women both at home and abroad. That is not a nice thing to have going about.

The Bill has not provided the required and, to some extent, even the minimum safeguards for Irish citizens before they are extradited. It proposes an unacceptable non-judicial forum which amounts to a gross perversion of our judicial process. We call ourselves a Republic but we have not got around to a truly republican criminal justice system and we have a contradictory attitude to terrorism in support of this position. I would point out that extradition within the United Kingdom is still conducted much as it was prior to the limited independence we now enjoy. It is a simple endorsement of warrants and arrests. The history of our extradition procedures demonstrates our unwillingness to construct an indigenous truly republican system of justice.

With regard to the British Prime Minister, she first made allegations when the issue was starting to come before the Dáil. Obviously that did not help proceedings and it certainly got the backs up of certain people. What make sit worse, of course, was that she was both wrong in detail and she was also wrong in the sense that it had an effect on the debate. It was a gross interference in the procedures of our sovereign Parliament. She might have been better occupied I think in looking back to the defective warrants and the defective procedures that were used by her own security people in matters of extradition rather than attacking the Government when they were in the process of putting this Bill through. I would not like anyone in this House or in the other House to stand up and attack something that was going on in the House of Commons. It is wrong and she had better be told that.

What I am worried about most of all is I think that they seem to want us to take an attitude that they themselves have. For example, when the question of McGlinchey arose the attitude was: "Don't we all know he is guilty?" This would seem to be the British mentality and I think they would like us to adopt that mentality also. We cannot adopt that attitude. In fact, we went very very far indeed in the Coalition Government between 1973 and 1977. There was a package of legislation brought in covering all aspects of law but particularly having regard to dealing with the question of cooperating with the Brits in the sense of dealing with the matter of terrorists coming before justice, that is to say the guilty ones. We almost suspended on those occasions Article 40 of the Constitution. We did not quite get around to it but we very nearly did. We asked the Garda and our Army to associate themselves with the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill, 1975, and we introduced in that Bill a very general debate which covered civil rights in a wide sense.

We certainly did a lot with regard to improving the relationship between the two States. Even though we were not just doing it for Britain alone, at the same time, they were to be the main beneficiaries. We introduced a Bill on that occasion that contained many paradoxes and affected civil liberties in our own country in the sense that it was wide and was merely part of a package.

I do not know how far you can go. I can understand the reaction to the cynical and barbaric situations that arise out of terrorism and the bloody-mindedness of people who perpetrate these atrocities. I can understand the feeling when somebody abandons a briefcase and blows people to kingdom come. I can understand that person can be permanently damaged by opening an envelope. I can understand the reaction to what happened at Brighton, in the Abercorn case, at Harrods and Enniskillen. The situation was equally bad when one thinks that in the case of Harrods they were dealing with children being brought to see Santa Claus; the timing was deliberate and was carried out with very clear minds. The only reason that was not followed up with further atrocities of the same nature was because it was not a success in the sense that the public turned against them and it generally backfired.

You can understand the feelings we have here, the revulsion we feel at the sectarian killings. We can understand the car bomb, somebody putting a backup detonator in it so that when there is an attempt to defuse it, if the building is not damaged it will get the people who are trying to defuse it. We can understand all of that, and have the greatest sympathy for the victims and be very condemnatory in our attitude to it. It is an easily understood emotion but in the final analysis our job — not the job of Britain or anyone else — is to protect Irish citizens in the first instance. If somebody has to be extradited into Ireland he will have got the protection of his Government and the procedures laid down to justify bringing people into this country to be tried. That would all have been provided for them by their own Governments.

Therefore, it is our Government who are concerned and our Government have not only dealt with the whole question of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act and another package of measures to assist in the matter of curbing terrorism but we are also participating in the suppression of terrorism with 35 other states, and they go from Austria to the Soviet Republics. They not only condemn terrorism internally but they condemn international terrorism and they describe it as endangering or taking innocent human lives. We are in league with most of the countries on the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms. There are certain areas of human rights which we have not put right ourselves yet, but I am not talking about that; I am dealing mainly with the area of dealing with terrorism, and people who commit crimes and sufficient evidence exists for them to be tried in other jurisdictions.

We can understand that resolute measures have to be taken by us to combat terrorism. Quite frankly, I cannot see where the prima facie provision would not satisfy all needs. After all, if the evidence is there that somebody should be brought to justice or put on trial for terrorism or other crimes, then so be it. All of the things we have done would not fall by the wayside, they would still be in existence; they would not be put to one side. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act would still be there; it has not been repealed as yet. The whole matter of our being involved with 35 other nations in the suppression of terrorism would not be put to one side and our expression of determination to take measures for the suppression of terrorism would not be put to one side, nor would the amount of money we spend on security etc. be put to one side if we wanted a prima facie case established before we extradite people. It would not stop us from making sure that people refrain from indirect or direct assistance to terrorists or subversives of any description or to other activities designed to overthrow regimes of another participating State.

I, frankly, cannot understand, when it comes to the question of protecting your own, why we do not look at the way other nations protect their nationals. We are quite entitled to do it. We are in the business of looking for fundamental freedoms: we are in the business of peace, justice and well-being; we are not trying to take away from anyone else and we have, in fact, by the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Laws we have introduced and the money we spend on security, lessened the tension between Ireland and Great Britain. I think we have strengthened stability. We are in a situation where there is a viable and lasting arrangement and by which we will in fact have a viable and lasting attitude towards dealing with our problems by peaceful means in the future.

All the measures I have mentioned here were designed to increase confidence in the security we have. We have the right, if we have achieved all those things, to say to anybody, no matter who they are that a citizen is a citizen, whether he be a McGlinchey, an O'Toole or any other person and he should not be exposed to trial unless there is sufficient evidence produced to our judiciary to establish that he will in fact be put on trial if extradited.

With regard to the Attorney General, another worrying feature, to my mind is that it is a kind of a partial trial because it is not in the open. I do not know what the procedure will be; I do not know whether in fact the Attorney General who attends the meetings will have to sit down and tell the Cabinet what is happening. Therefore I am a little puzzled about all this, whether he will weigh up the evidence and make up his mind. It is a partial trial when somebody goes before the courts anyway but at least that partial trial is to weigh the prima facie evidence. If there is evidence given to the Attorney General and if it is not prima facie evidence then, one can say, if the Attorney General makes a decision that the person should be extradited, that what has happened is that there has been a partial trial of an Irish citizen who did not have the right to challenge. That is a tremendous denial of a human right and it is heading in the direction of the Government taking on a function which is at present reserved for the Judiciary. I would like to understand more about the rights of citizens to challenge warrants and what, if any, sort of accessibility to the courts defendants will have or what redress will be available to them? If there is redress, will it come too late or what will be the situation? I am not so sure myself about the whole thing. The safest way for me to put it is that the ordinary working-class people of both Britain and Ireland would more readily understand it if one of their fellow beings were brought before a court and all the evidence that could be built up was there against him and that there would be an assessment of his position by a trained court in the open. Then, and only then, the Irish and the ordinary English citizen would be happy that this person was being dealt with in a fair and just way. The main thing about it would be the fact that he had the right to redress in open court and the right to challenge.

A further worrying feature about it is that we had problems in the trade union movement down through the years. Laws change, Governments change, people in Government take different roads; different things happen, things evolve. Change is a thing in itself, Therefore, it is ongoing and this means that somebody is going to get an idea along the line that perhaps he is not happy with the trade union movement or some other body. I will pick the trade union movement as it is the largest and most widespread in that sense. In the course of trying to deal with the Acts that cover trade unions this question of Cabinet power and authority exercised through the Attorney General, or some other person, might become more or a reality than we realise.

We have had difficult situations in the trade union movement. We have had various instances down through the years. One will remember the educational company, the Irish Union of Distributive Workers, etc. One will remember the problems regarding what is now the Marine Port and General Workers' Union. I cannot remember the name of the case. I think it was the Irish Seaman's Union. There were difficulties in all of these areas. Very difficult judgments had to be made and I am always fearful when dealing with the question of something going to extremes and having to be dealt with. For example, someone might consider it very extreme to have secondary picketing if the picketing got out of hand. We saw what happened in England. There are these dangers; so, naturally we are concerned about them and naturally we are concerned when we are talking about citizens. Whether a person is a trade union member or a person who is suspected of being a terrorist, as long as he is a citizen and is on this side of the water, he is entitled to all the protection the law can afford. The best protection he can be given is the right to have prima facie evidence presented against him and a right to challenge it.

Somebody mentioned the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have nothing against the Director of Public Prosecutions as such. There is a degree of secrecy surrounding that office which does not make people very happy — often it is the other way round. People want to know why the Director of Public Prosecutions did not prosecute people, why he did not let trials go on. There is no way any citizen has any right to know why a trial did not go on, or even get information about it. I would not be hung up on the idea that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be a better choice in this instance, because that office — not the person — by its very nature has caused confusion in the minds of many people. We are inclined to think of people being able to read, that everybody has a good education and can understand everything. That is not always so. People can be confused and are confused. Anybody who goes into any of the pubs and hears a debate starting will know that some of the ideas expressed are amazing. The beliefs people hold are astonishing. Sometimes they may not have a detailed argument about it but the reaction is that, if the Director of Public Prosecutions has not prosecuted somebody, he must be onto a good thing. That is the mentality of some people.

When dealing with the question of citizens and the rights of citizens one must be above board. It has got to be seen, it has got to be heard and it has got to be understood that they are getting a fair crack of the whip. Ordinary people are the majority and it is much better that they should understand what happens. They can understand that a person can be brought to court, evidence presented against him and that he has the right to challenge that evidence through legal representation etc. But in the absence of that provision we will not do justice to this matter at all. I do not think the President will send the Bill to the Supreme Court but there will be as many interpretations as there are lawyers in the country and I think we will see the first case we try to deal with being sent to the Supreme Court. The legal people will have a ball. That is how it appears to me at the moment.

I am not against people trying to reach compromises that seem fair. There is nothing wrong in a compromise provided it is for a good reason. You are compromising all the time. If you say you are going to the pictures and somebody else says: "No, you are coming to dinner with me", you are compromising. So we are into the compromise business as a nation; that is our nature and it is a good thing. Therefore, I am not being critical of Ministers in the sense that they had to find an accommodation for their own people. Let us be blunt about it. If I were in a tricky situation I would be looking for an accommodation, and I would make no apology to anyone.

I can understand that the Government can have difficulties, that they have to find an accommodation and that it is not easy to do this. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that we are dealing with this grave question of human rights, which is very, very wide. We are not legislating here for ministerial good. That is not what it is about. We are not legislating for the good intentions of Ministers. We are legislating here for Irish citizens who will be put on trial in another jurisdiction and may not get the best deal because we did not have sufficient regard to the difficulties they might face, and did not give them the absolute protection claimed by other jurisdictions for their citizens.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to intervene briefly in the Debate on this very important legislation and to congratulate the Minister and the Government on initiating it.

The legislation now before the Seanad provides specific statutory safeguards for persons whose extradition to Great Britain or Northern Ireland is sought. Quite a number of people have been misinformed about extradition. Some, indeed, were of the opinion that we were introducing extradition but, of course, we know that this is not true. The present special arrangements for extradition between this State, Northern Ireland and Britain have been operating since 1965. Under the Act of 1965, up to the present 733 persons have been extradited to Britain and Northern Ireland.

Under the 1965 Act it is possible to persons whose extradition is sought by a foreign country to claim that they should not be extradited because the offence for which they were sought was a political one or an offence associated with a political offence. It is this aspect of the 1965 legislation with which we are now concerned. The Supreme Court judgment in the McGlinchey case has given a more restricted interpretation of this aspect of the 1965 Act. These changes would, of course, have required an amendment in the law anyway. But if we were to scrap the 1987 Act entirely, extradition under the 1965 Act would continue to operate without any influence from the Legislature.

By introducing this Bill the Government are ensuring that a number of safeguards will be enshrined in the legislation to protect the rights of our citizens and ensure against the arbitrary or unreasonable extradition of citizens. Briefly, these safeguards are, first, that all warrants for extradition must be examined by the Attorney General. The Attorney General must be of the opinion that there is a clear intention to prosecute and that this intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. This guards against extradition for questioning. As regards extradition on a specific charge, as a general principle persons can only be tried for the offence for which they are extradited and additional charges may only proceed with the agreement of the Attorney General. This is known as the rule of specialty.

On the lapse of time provision, a person whose extradition is sought will be able to apply to the High Court to have his extradition refused on the grounds that by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the offence it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust, oppressive or invidious to extradite him.

On the review of the arrangements, the Attorney General will have a statutory obligation to prepare and submit to the Government an annual report on the operation of extradition arrangements and specific cases in the previous 12 months. The Taoiseach has said that if the arrangements are not upheld, both in letter and in spirit, they would be set aside. On the other hand, if they are not working satisfactorily the Government will bring forward revised proposals.

These safeguards are welcome, particularly in the light of recent happenings in Great Britain. We have every right to mistrust British justice. The British Prime Minister may lecture us as long as she likes but in the end we will do what we think is right for our citizens, not what she wants us to do. Indeed, if the British Prime Minister and the British Government had been a little more forthcoming in relation to the system of justice in Northern Ireland the need for this legislation would not have arisen.

Extradition is an important weapon in the fight against international terrorism. We are a small island on the shelf of the Atlantic but that does not insulate us in any way from the activities of those terrorists. Over the past 20 years we have witnessed may acts of terrorism within our shores. Those acts have become more ruthless and sophisticated in recent years. The Government have had to devote a lot of time and energy to those matters. Recent happenings have brought home to everybody the extent to which those terrorists will go in order to achieve their goals. The kidnap and mutilation of Dr. John O'Grady; the Eksund affair, which involved the attempted importation of highly-sophisticated weaponry on an unprecedented scale to the country and, of course, the dreadful slaughter of innocent civilians who had assembled in Enniskillen to honour their dead.

All those events bring home to the Government the need for vigilence. When you are dealing with ruthless terrorists like this you cannot afford to be complacent because there is a definite threat to the security of the State. In this regard I would like to compliment the security forces, both the Garda and the Army for the role they have played in recent events. We can truly be proud of them.

The new arrangements which will come into effect when the Bill is passed will be carefully monitored by the authorities here. This is important because everybody will wish to be assured that extradition works fairly and properly and also that the person accused gets a fair trial and proper treatment. The assurance by the Taoiseach that if the arrangements are not upheld in letter and in spirit he will come back to the Dáil and set the arrangements aside is welcome as this means that the situation will be regularly monitored.

We, as a small nation, will play our part in the common fight against terrorism. The measures now being introduced are an earnest of our desire to do so. I wish the legislation a speedy passage through the House and hope that we will see the measures proposed in it put into effect in the near future.

My comments will be brief and directed to the general rather than the specific nature of the Bill. I do not intend to go into the legal technicalities of the legislation; we have listened to some legal experts in the House and I am sure we will hear from more of them, and as usual they will agree to disagree.

The whole principle of extradition causes me no heartfelt aches. I do not have to look very deep into my soul to find out what my views on it should be. I can categorically state that I fully support the principle of extradition no matter from what country or indeed to what country. Terrorism is terrorism no matter what flag it flies; violence is violence and murder is murder, no matter what way its perpetrators may try to explain it away or no matter what cause they claim to represent. We must get rid of, once and for all, the despicable spectacle within the country of the most horrendous crimes of violence being committed against fellow Irishmen in the so-called name of Irish freedom. We must continue to condemn, no matter how tired we are of doing so and no matter how ineffective it may seem to be, all the awful crimes in our name.

I understand why so much has been expressed in some quarters, including sections of the Minister's party, about the results of the passage of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and in particular the effects of the rate of extradition between this country and the UK. It has been a flag pole of a certain brand of republicanism or, as I would see it, a questionable type of republicanism that extradition between Ireland and the UK for offences of a so-called political nature would not take place.

The changes which the European Convention on Terrorism will bring about will bring this ridiculous situation to an end. It will ensure that the men of violence will not find a haven on this island or on any island throughout Europe. It should ensure, if our Government promote our case properly at European and world level, that no one anywhere will be in any doubt whatsoever about the views of 99 per cent of Irish men and women towards violence and towards the men of violence. It should ensure that the world knows that the people of this country have no time, sympathy and no safety barriers for those whose methods of politics are bombs and bullets. We must publicly admit that, as of now, there are still some very far-fetched notions among some of our international neighbours of the politics within this nation of the conflict of Northern Ireland, of its true facts and of our relationship with the United Kingdom.

The simplistic flying of the green flag may have ceased in this State but unfortunately there are far too many people abroad, particularly those who march in St. Patrick's Day parades across the United States and other centres, who still look at the affairs of this nation through green-tinted glasses. There are far too many people abroad, in particular, those of Irish ancestry who are not fully aware, or do not wish to be aware, of the fact that we in the Republic of Ireland, by and large, have no time for those seeking to bomb together a united Ireland. There are too many people unaware of the fact that a large majority of Irish men and Irish women no longer see the United Kingdom as some sort of eternal enemy but instead, as our nearest neighbour, an important trading partner and a place of employment for the tens of thousands of Irish citizens we are unable to employ.

A major question, however, must exist with regard to the process and administration of justice in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Many people will be genuinely concerned about ensuring that Irish people will get a fair trial under these jurisdictions. This concern, as has been stated by many of the speakers here, is increasing on a daily basis as we learn more of the far from fair trial of the Birmingham Six. Episodes such as this have done more to harm Anglo-Irish relations than delay in the passage of any extradition legislation. The recent comments by the British Prime Minister were not just unhelpful but downright unfair. Britain must go some way yet to get its own house in order. If Mrs. Thatcher could ensure that British justice, particularly as it applies to Irish people, could be seen to be fair, she would be taking a major step to ensuring better Anglo-Irish relations.

This amendment Bill arises as a result of the concerns I have mentioned and also as a result of what can only be described as a near revolt by backbenchers on the Government side of the House and grassroot supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party against the principle of extradition. The reasons for this revolt, or if you wish to call it concern, are quite obvious. Firstly, there is within the Mini-extradition. The reasons for this revolt, or if you wish to call it concern, are quite obvious. Firstly, there is within the Minister's party a long tradition of considering subjects such as extradition as part of the bastion of their form of republicanism. I would disagree with some of the comments made by Senators Lydon and Mooney, but I suggest sadly that their views are held by many people in their party. It is obviously extremely difficult for this Government to introduce any Bill dealing with extradition against that background.

As my colleague, Senator Bulbulia, has stated many of these people seem glaringly oblivious to the fact that extradition already exists since the 1965 Act and these people fear that the passage unfettered of the European Convention on Terrorism would represent a major part of their green plank of republican righteousness. I would suggest that this has nothing to do with true republicanism, which would promote a spirit of openness, freedom, justice and tolerance but instead is symptomatic of an oldfashioned outdated and dangerous view of how the wrongs of Irish history should be righted.

The second reason for this Extradition (Amendment) Bill is that the Government, by allowing the passage of the European Convention on Terrorism Act, are doing something which they had promised many within their support group and some other well known figures on the verges of their party they would not do. In order to backtrack with some degree of honour it was deemed necessary to introduce this Bill.

There are some advantages to the Extradition (Amendment) Bill. Its stated purpose, to provide certain safeguards in relation to the extraditing of Irish citizens to Northern Ireland and the UK, is acceptable to all when you consider the question of extradition to a relatively questionable system of justice. It is acceptable if you leave it at that. There is nothing wrong in ensuring that those extradited have a case to answer and that they are not being extradited for the sake of questioning of a specific or general nature. Ensuring that only those with genuine cases to answer are extradited will help not hinder Anglo-Irish relations and should help improve the view of British justice from this side of the Irish Sea. What I and others would be concerned about is whether this ideal and the provisions in the Bill to bring it about would confuse the scenario so much and tie up the legal process with such red tape as to render the Extradition Act worthless.

I accept that the Government's decision to allow for a full review of the amendment Act in a year's time will allow us to examine fully who was right and who was wrong, and in the meantime — and I think there will be 52 very long weeks of politics until then — the processing of extradition applications will be slowed down and we could be on the road to its withering away.

The Bill places a major burden on the office of the already hard-working Attorney General. It is not the extra work I worry about but the placing of this responsibility on a Government appointed adviser usually politically connected in some way, and who, as has been previously stated, while nobody questions his authority or his non-political action, we have to admit has always been a person of political knowledge and connection. Senator Robinson has questioned whether a politically appointed and connected officer is the right man or woman for this job. I would agree with her. Surely it would have been far more satisfactory that the new role of judge and jury, if it was to be imposed on anybody, should have been imposed on the DPP with his full back-up staff and with his daily experience of deciding whether changes should be pressed.

The new role now being imposed on the Attorney General is not only new but extremely onerous. The Bill states:

A direction of the Attorney General under section 44A shall be given unless the Attorney General, having considered such information as he deemed appropriate, is of the opinion that—

(a) there is a clear intention to prosecute or, as the case may be, to continue the prosecuting of, the person named or described in the warrant concerned for the offence specified therein in a place in relation to which this Part applies, and

(b) such intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence.

It will be extremely difficult for the Attorney General to satisfy himself as to what someone's else's intention will be. Indeed, who can inform anybody else what his or her intention is or will be. At least the DPP is dealing on a daily basis with the problem of deciding whether to prosecute and his experience in this matter would clearly have given him an advantage over the Attorney General.

It is disappointing that when the Government were very willing, in fairness to them, to consider changes to the Bill, they could not allow themselves to make this improvement. I am not an expert, nor indeed am I even knowledgeable in constitutional law. This Bill, as with all subjects of legality will have all the experts disagreeing. It will be very disappointing if the Bill will, at an early stage or even at any stage, find itself in the Supreme Court awaiting the long judicial process of judgment on its constitutionality. While this will be happening, and while no further applications will then be taking place for some time or will not be processed, those we would all hope to see answer for their crimes as a result of the Extradition Bill will, instead, be availing of this time to plan cutely their next escape move.

The Office of the Attorney General will also become a focus for the very people we are trying to see extradited from this country, the terrorists. This is something I have not heard many people speak about but we must mention the fact that when you have one man in whose hands the fate of a lot of persons may rest, these people who would certainly use questionable means to carry out their tasks will be in a position to cause a certain degree of worry to the Attorney General and to his family. Once this new role is given to the Attorney General he will automatically become a far greater rish and his family will live under greater risk than they do now. Not only are we placing an extra burden on the Attorney General but we are placing a very serious burden on him from his security point of view and indeed from that of his family. No matter who will have the final say as to whether an extradition warrant will take place will live under a certain security risk, but at least if it was coming from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, we would be dealing with an office in general, whereas now, with the powers being vested in the Attorney General, we will be talking specifically of one man. We are putting him in a very difficult situation. It is right that this has been highlighted so much but the people we are speaking about will know of it. I would certainly hope that the security on the Attorney General will be stepped up very much because it will need to be when these powers have been vested in him.

I hope, regardless of my reservations about certain sanctions of the Bill, that the main purpose of ensuring that this country offers no haven to any terrorist will come into being once the amendment Bill is passed. There was a lot of talk about the strains which are put on Anglo-Irish relations as a result of all the questionable decisions by British judges and juries and questionable actions by their forces down through the years. I do not think simple criticism of that will solve it. It is not so easy to right a wrong but we must look at the whole Anglo-Irish judicial process in a new spirit over the next few years.

We must make a point of proving to everybody, in particular the people of another tradition among the Ulster community, that we are not offering a haven to anybody. Our case has never been highlighted enough. The action being taken by the Government, the action being taken by our police force and our Army, which in recent weeks has been quite spectacularly successful, has never been highlighted enough. Too many people have been given too much ground to complain about Irish security methods. Too many people have been given too much ground to speak about us allowing terrorists to run wild in the streets. I hope that this amendment Bill to the European Convention on Terrorism Act will work and that when we come back here to discuss it in the Seanad in a year's time we will see some concrete results from it — hopefully the same Seanad — and that those who are at present questioning our actions against terrorism will not be able to do so any longer.

I would like to thank the Minister for his presence here in the House. I am sure he will take note of all that we have said, though what action he proposes to take on them I am not sure. I would like to think that the passage of this Bill will be the start of a new and more positive spirit of Anglo-Irish relations and that, it will help ensure there will be peace on this island and on our neighbouring island over the next few years because that is what we all wish to see. We are tired of listening to talk about unity of lands, unity of islands and unity of counties. We must seek unity of people and we must seek peace for those people.

I will be very brief. The Bill before the House is a justifiable and sensible measure. Extradition, as has already been underlined by the Minister, is nothing new in this country. It has long been used as a method to fight serious crime, not alone by ourselves but by several other European countries. As one of the family of civilised European nations, we wish to play our part in combating crime and international terrorism. As the Minister pointed out in his comprehensive address, he views this Bill as an important weapon in achieving that objective. Since 1 December we have allowed the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism Act, 1987 to come into operation. At the same time we are providing by legislation — I fully subscribe to this measure — specific statutory safeguards for persons whose extradition to Northern Ireland and Britain is sought in the new situation. The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to provide safeguards.

Why has the European Convention on Terrorism, which is now part of our domestic law, become necessary? The fact is that times change, new forms of terrorist violence have arisen throughout Europe and the Convention represents an attempt by the member states of the Council of Europe to join together in combating this violence. In future, therefore, certain specific offences shall not be regarded as political offences and their perpetrators shall, therefore, be extraditable. Our Extradition Act of 1965 also provided for the political exception which reflected international practice at the time. As I have said already, times change and the law should change to reflect the passage of time, where necessary. When we provided, under the 1965 Act for an almost unlimited political exception, the Oireachtas did not and could not at that time envisage that the violence we have witnessed since then would have reached the scale it has.

To turn to Northern Ireland — obviously this is relevant in the context of the Bill before us — the implementation of the European Convention was delayed until 1 December. This unusual step was thought necessary at the time the Act was passed because it was considered that sufficient progress had not been made on the issue of public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland to warrant the commencement of the Act straightaway. There has been, and still is, a problem of public confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. This is not a one sided view. It is clear from the text of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that both the British and Irish Governments in 1985 shared the view that there was indeed a problem of public confidence in the administration of justice in the North and in the related area the operations of the security forces. We should, however, acknowledge that progress has been made. The supergrass trials, for example, have been ended. There is still, however, a long way to go and a great deal of room for further improvement before confidence is restored to the minority population in the north and indeed to the people of the Republic as well. An increase in the level of confidence is an essential ingredient in the process to which Britain and Ireland alike subscribe, of restoring peace and stability in the North.

I now want to turn briefly to the safeguards themselves. The first thing I should say is that there is unanimity in the Houses of the Oireachtas that safeguards are necessary. While successive governments have obviously been committed to combating terrorism, they also have shared the view that the rights of the individual should be protected in accordance with law. Therefore, it is a question of balance. Extradition, especially of one's own citizens, is a very sensitive matter and is regarded as such in every country. It is not peculiar to Ireland. Just as in any other country, our source of concern is that an extradited person should get a fair deal in the receiving country. The concern in the Republic is the perception that a fair deal does not always apply in the North or in British courts. Extradition clearly affects the right of the citizen to liberty and it is important, therefore, that there should be protection against the possibility that it might take place in an arbitrary fashion.

Secondly, a well established principle internationally is that extradition is not for the purpose of questioning the person concerned but to bring a charge in a court of law. Extradition warrants to Northern Ireland and Britain must be endorsed by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána for execution in the State. The Bill before us proposes that the commissioner will be obliged not to endorse a warrant if the Attorney General so directs. It will be up to the Attorney General then to form an opinion about the existence of and the foundation for the intention to prosecute in every case. In other words, the Attorney General will operate as a type of filter in the extradition process.

I note it is the intention that this new procedure will be operated as efficiently as possible. It is not designed to make extradition more difficult, as Mrs. Thatcher thinks, but rather to provide the necessary safeguards for the rights of the person wanted for extradition. That is our primary concern. At present there is no safeguard at all on this issue and the Bill fills this deficiency.

Most of the debate in the other House, and some of it here, has focused on ther role of the Attorney General. The Attorney General already, as the Minister pointed out in his speech, has duties in the extradition field. It should be said straight away that extradition cases will continue to be decided by the courts. There is no question of the erosion of the courts in regard to extradition proceedings. The Attorney General will ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of the evidence presented by the country requesting the extradition.

I believe this is a good thing and a necessary step. It is clearly important that the British authorities should co-operate to ensure that the system which we are proposing will operate successfully. That British response is obviously necessary in order to have the proposed system work. Ireland and Britain, as independent sovereign nations, should be able to agree to this system, promptly I hope, and to operate it successfully without any undue delay. It remains to be seen how the Bill will work out in practice. That is the value of vesting power in the Oireachtas to extend and continue the provisions of the Bill when enacted or indeed to let it die.

I want to make a brief comment on relations with Britain. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is a valuable political framework which provides us with the means of promoting our objectives by peaceful means. Mrs. Thatcher's comments in the House of Commons have attracted a lot of attention. My own view is that as a mature sovereign, independent Republic we should be less concerned with what Mrs. Thatcher said in the House of Commons but rather redouble our efforts under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to improve dialogue and to advocate political development in Ireland to its full potential.

Tá a lán gur féidir agus, b'fhéidir, gur cóir a rá faoin gceist seo. Ní cóir go mbeadh sé in a dhualgas ar gach Ball de Thithe an Oireachtais a rá go bhfuil siad i gcoinne an fhoréigin, mar glacaim go bhfuilimid go léir in a choinne, cé go nglacaim chomh maith nach dtuigeann a lán daoine cad tá i gceist nuair a deireann siad é sin. Bíonn rogha á dhéanamh i gcónaí ag daoine faoi cén saghas foréigin a bhfuil siad in a choinne, agus is féidir leo rudaí éigin a thuiscint agus gan rudaí éigin eile a thuiscint. Is féidir leo glacadh leis an bhforéigean nó leis an terrorism más é rialtas de shaghas éigin atá taobh thiar de.

I measc na ngníomhartha is measa dar deineadh le déanaí agus rialtais an domhain taobh thiar dóibh, luaim cad tá ar siúl in Afghanistan faoi láthair. Ní féidir ach terrorism a thabhairt ar an saghas brú atá á chur i bhfeidhm ag Aontas na Sóivéide ar phobal Afghanistan. A laghad agus a thaitnionn an freasúra in Afghanistan liomsa, cé chomh coimeádach, cé chomh mór i gcoinne chearta na mban agus chearta na ngnáthdhaoine agus atá an freasúra in Afghanistan, ní leithscéal é sin don fhoréigean agus don rud cosúil le genocide atá ar siúl ansin. Mar an gcéanna, toisc nach bhfuil an fear atá i gceannas ar Libya iontaofa agus nach féidir aon rud a deireann sé a chreidiúint, níor cheart an bhuamáil a rinneadh ar chathracha na tíre sin agus daoine macanta, neamhurchóideacha a mharú chun a chruthú do mhuintir na Stát Aontaithe agus muintir na Breataine go raibh an tUachtarán Ronald Reagan agus an Príomh Aire Margaret Thatcher láidir i gcoinne an fhoréigin. Níl sé ceart foréigean a úsáid, agus is cuma rialtas nó duine aonar a úsáideann é, tá sé mí-cheart duine neamhurchóideach a mharú chun rud polaitiúil a chur i bhfeidhm ar gháthdhaoine.

Is mar an gcéanna i dtaobh cad a tharla don Belgrano. Maraíodh 350 conscripts de chuid na hAirgintíne; daoine nach raibh ag déanamh aon díobhála agus nárbh aon dainséar d'éinne iad, agus maraíodh iad. Tá sagairt, mná rialta agus gnáthdaoine á marú i Nicaragua faoi láthair agus is Uachtarán na Stát Aontaithe atá taobh thiar de sin. Tá mise i gcoinne an fhoréigin in ngach áit. Tá mé i gcoinne an fhoréigin a dTuaisceart na hEireann, i Meiriceá Lár, i Afghanistan agus i Libya. Níl mé in ann aon rogha a dhéanamh agus, os rud é go dtaitníonn duine éigin liom, mo dhá shúil a dhúnadh agus a ligean orm go bhfuil difríocht ann.

Violence is violence is violence, and murder is murder is murder, whether it is committed by what is ostensibly a terrorist organisation or whether it is committed in the name of what is supposed to be a democratic Government. I believe if we are going to strike moral poses about violence as distinct from striking pragmatic poses about violence, we ought to recognise that some of those we regard as acceptable have been responsible for the deaths of more innocent civilians than some of those that we regard as the pariahs of our society. I say that because on this issue of terrorism and extradition so much has been done in recent times to suggest that those of us who oppose extradition in principle are somehow suspect on the issue of violence. I say that as a proud patron of the Irish anti-extradition committee whose premises were raided by the security forces of this State. I resent deeply the implication of that raid, that I am somehow suspect on the issue of terrorism. I have a better record on the issue of violence than most Members of this House because I make no exceptions.

Whatever my views on the oppression of the people of Northern Ireland — and they are very deeply held views — I have consistently told people in Northern Ireland that I cannot and will not equivocate on the issue of violence. I do not believe the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland could ever be used to justify the use of violence. I have said that frequently. I say it again and I believe it quite deeply. There is no reason to justify the use of violence in Northern Ireland, but that is not to say that condemnations of violence should begin or end there.

There is a much more fundamental question, that is, whether we are prepared to apply morality in a selective or in a universal way. That is why I resent it. I want to say again in this House, in the presence of the Minister for Justice, that I deeply resent the fact that an organisation with which I am associated should be tainted with a raid by the Garda Síochána under the provisions of the Offences Against the State Act. I resent it personally and I resent it on behalf of the people who are involved. The suggestion that there would be something to do with the subversion of the State in the headquarters of an organisation like that is ludicrious in the extreme. I am quite prepared to accept that there are individuals involved in that organisation about whom the Garda have good reason to be suspicious but I do not accept that the fact that there are individuals connected with an organisation justifies a raid on that organisation.

While accepting that the Senator feels very strongly — knowing him — perhaps he could revert to the Bill before us. The Senator is tending to broaden the whole debate to a debate on the question of terrorism.

As always, I will defer to your ruling. I respectfully suggest that I do not think I should be circumscribed by one definition of terrorism; I say that with full respect. I do not think I should circumscribed by one definition of terrorism to which I do not subscribe. However, I take your point and I have said what I wished to say.

On the issue of this Bill and the related one of the European Convention on the Supression of Terrorism, there are mistakes being made. Most of what I have to say will have nothing to do with that, but I want to put this on the record. It is suggested that we are talking about European democracies, democracies in which similar principles on the rights of the citizen, on the freedom of the citizen, on the freedom of expression and freedom of the Press apply. My views on Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom are that, by and large, they are acceptable democracies. The United Kingdom is a free society with free citizens, whatever its faults. There are specific reasons for wondering about that.

Northern Ireland, in the words of the Taoiseach, is a failed entity. That is my opinion also, nevertheless, most of the principles of a civilised society still apply there. But there is one country, a signatory to this Convention, which I do not accept is anywhere near a free society, that is Turkey. I said that when this European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism legislation was being debated in this House. I stand over it. I invite anybody in this House to read the report of Amnesty International on that country, and they will be deeply concerned at the prospect of even a Turkish citizen being extradited back to that country where Amnesty says torture and abuse of prisoners are still endemic. I want to put on the record that this is not simply an agreement between civilised democracies; it is not that at all.

Present legislation, quite rightly, needs to be judged in the context of recent events. All of us who thought we were beyond being shocked were shocked by the treatment of John O'Grady. It was a particularly offensive, particularly brutal and particularly savage offence. I think — and this is not my usual position — that the Garda were subjected to the most appallingly unfair criticism of their handling of that case. The idea that the Garda Síochána somehow are different from the rest of us, do not suffer from the same fears and concerns for their own safety, somehow can be expected to perform heroics on our behalf without as much as a nod from the rest of us is most unfair. The Garda did a magnificent job. They were very brave, very dogged and did a remarkable job.

I do not think it should be necessarily a matter for apology the fact that anybody was killed, which is a tragedy. I do not think there is any room in our society for gloating that any human being was killed. I feel a particular sympathy for the members of our security forces, ordinary people like ourselves, with the same feelings who, in our interests, had to do something which was particularly horrible and which will not please them or make them feel any better. It is a reflection of us and our society that people in our society, our security forces, had to kill somebody. It was not their fault. I do not believe they behaved unreasonably. It is not my usual stance to be defending the security forces but I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest that they behaved unreasonably or unfairly. On the issue of violence in our society I feel sorry for them and grateful, in a sort of way, that they did it and I did not have to do it because I know all of us would do the same thing in those circumstances.

The Garda and Army deserve our sympathy that they have to do things like that. It is not simply a question of the British tabloids thing of "got you". Somebody was killed, a husband of somebody and a father of children. He should not have been there. I am not saying it should not have happened but we should keep our civilised values even in the most extreme circumstances. That is what makes us better than those who resort to terrorism and violence. We retain a sense of civilised values and we should do so even in the most extreme circumstances. We ought to remind ourselves of that.

Similarly on the outrage in Enniskillen this House had a superb, worthwhile and inspiring discussion on what happened there. Many of us were challenged about many things we took for granted because of what happened in Enniskillen. I do not think we should allow Enniskillen to lead us into the sort of apologies some people have been making. I heard Robert Ballagh, the artist, being quoted on the radio this morning. I want to repeat again: I do not think anybody in this country has to apologise for being Irish because of what was done in Enniskillen or elsewhere. This country has a good history of civilisation, of civilised response to difficult situations, of tolerance, patience and so on. Because something was done which was horrific, brutal and wrong does not mean we have to get ourselves into a position of collective guilt and craw-thumping. We have no reason to apologise for ourselves. We have done things in our history of which many of us would not be proud. We have done things in our history of which many of us would be very proud. There is no reason suddendy to begin to feel that we are some sort of inferior species who must apologise for our existence.

In the context of Enniskillen and of the Bill before us today we ought to address the fact and not fudge or duck the fact that, in Northern Ireland, somewhere close to 40 per cent of what we call the Nationalists, or the Catholic population, vote for Sinn Féin. I do not think we should describe those people who vote for Sinn Féin as all being either thugs, psychopaths, mindless murderers, or whatever. We ought to ask ourselves: why do people vote for an organisation which supports violence? In thinking about that we ought to look both at ourselves and at the régime which controls Northern Ireland. I do not think we see, hear or listen to sufficient of the experiences of ordinary Nationalist people in Northern Ireland. We hear their political representatives, or those we are allowed to hear. We do not hear of the day-to-day oppression and sufferings. I work with a person who is from west Belfast. He is intelligent, articulate and, like myself, comfortably and affluently middle class. I hasten to say that he is not involved in any paramilitary activity but his attitude to the security forces is identical with that of any member of Sinn Féin I know, which is that he regards them as oppressors, as hostile and as against him. He sees no fundamental change in their attitudes 20 years ago when he was a child as against their attitudes now that he is a grown adult. I do not know anybody who is part of oppressed Catholic Northern Ireland who believes there has been any fundamental change in the attitudes of the security forces. They still make their judgments on the basis of a person's name and address. If your name and address is of a certain kind you will continue to be treated with a certain deference, the sort of deference with which most of us are treated if we are stopped at a Garda checkpoint, because we are regarded as respectable citizens. But, if in the case of the North, your address is in another part of Belfast, you are identified as being on the suspect side and the attitude towards you changes instantaneously. I challenge anybody in Northern Ireland to suggest that that cultural divide has changed in any way.

I have said here frequently that I regard the Catholic people of Northern Ireland as perhaps the most oppressed on this island. They have been oppressed in terms of employment and in particular, unlike those of us who live in this part of the island — whatever my views on the Judiciary — who have the right to appeal to the Judiciary for protection from any oppression we suffer and who have a reasonable expectation of fair treatment. Rightly or wrongly, most Catholics in Northern Ireland, particularly working class Catholics, do not believe they have any possibility of a fair hearing if they complain about the security forces or about the way they are dealt with. Most Catholics and most people from Belfast whom I know still believe that nothing has changed, that the judgments, the values and the cultural perceptions of the majority community still pervade the security forces and the Judiciary, that, therefore, if you come from the wrong part of the divided community you will not get a fair hearing.

I emphasise that I do not believe it is possible to make final absolute statements about these issues but in making a judgment about something as sensitive as extradition, particularly of Northern Ireland citizens back to Northern Ireland to be tried by the courts as they exist there, if what we claim to believe in has any real meaning, it is not only some sort of dispassionate, detached, intellectual analysis that is required, it is also a deep respect for the perceptions of those whose interests we claim to care about. That is what I find so difficult about the present legislation.

In a cold, dispassionate, detached sort of way extradition seems to be a nice idea, particularly when emotive words such as terrorists are produced. I do not believe or accept that the IRA are a terrorist organisation. They are a paramilitary organisation who use violence wrongfully, who use violence that is not justified. They are not a terrorist organisation intent on using indiscriminate terror against the civilian population in order to achieve a particular political objective. The suggestion that the decent people of Northern Ireland whom I know and respect would support such terrorism is offensive to them.

The IRA are wrong in total. There is no justification for violence but to suggest that there is some parallel between the IRA and the sort of indiscriminate terrorism that is being used in Western Europe is to insult the people who, for reasons that I disagree with, support them. It does not help the cause of peace to pretend that they are terrorists in order to condemn them. They are entirely wrong but I do not believe that indiscriminate use of words such as terrorism helps to develop a proper perspective that will lead to their rejection any more than I believe that the struggles of the Palestinian people — I do not believe what they do is right either — should be described as terrorism. One can say that the use of unlawful force, unlawful military force or otherwise, is wrong but to use a global word such as terrorism, to encompass, as many people have done, the African National Congress, the IRA, the PLO and the Bader Meinhof in West Germany, is intellectually unjustified and unsustainable.

I do not say this in any emotive way but if we are to judge what we are doing and how it will be seen we should not pretend that all that has happened for the last 16 years did not happen. We should not pretend that Northern Ireland began and ended with Enniskillen, however horrible it was. Perhaps some people in this House saw a programme on ITV last week on the Divis Flats on which the murder of Peter Rooney by the RUC was recalled. We should not pretend that Samuel Diviney was not killed by the RUC. I, and most people in the South, have forgotten those murders because we do not deal with the RUC on a daily basis. We deal with a police force — and I rate among their greatest critics — which by and large operate in a way that most of us regard as reasonably fair. I have no personal complaint with our police force. Those who live in the enclaves of Northern Ireland, particulary in Belfast, who come into day to day contact with the RUC, remember what happened 15 or 17 years ago. It is very hard for them to forget.

Of all Senators I hate interrupting Senator Ryan but I have given you a lot of latitude and I would appreciate if you could relate your remarks more to the Bill béfore the House which is the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987. Maybe you are leading to it but this has happened a few times today.

I appreciate your ruling but I am a bit astonished that the record of the security forces in Northern Ireland is not related to the issue of extradition to Northern Ireland. I have said most of what I want to say on the issue. With your permission, and if I am again exceeding your ruling, I will be happy to agree, I want to mention that when 13 civilians were murdered in Derry in 1972 it was a member of the British Judiciary who ruled that nothing had been done that was improper or wrong. If there is not a connection between the activities of a senior member of the British Judiciary and the fact that we are considering extraditing Irish people to be tried by that same Judiciary, I will have to be guided by you because my own judgment of what is proper is obviously suspect.

What concerns me about extradition is not that people who commit the appalling crimes that have been committed should be brought to justice. Whether I think there is an enormous amount of suffering in Northern Ireland is not relevant to that issue. What I think about the security forces in Northern Ireland is not relevant to that issue. The fundamental issue is that the use of violence in Northern Ireland or on mainland Britain to achieve any political end in this country is not justified. That is a moral position I take, it is not a political position. The circumstances of oppression, and I believe there are objectively definable circumstances of oppression in Northern Ireland, do not justify the response of violence that is being carried out. Irish unity does not justify that sort of violence but it does not in any way justify us in ignoring the continuance of real oppression. The tragedy is that those who should look at us for an alternative route do not trust or believe us. The fact that many Catholics in Northern Ireland refer to our Army as "Free State Brits" is a fairly clear indication that we, as much as the British, have to earn and re-earn the trust and confidence of people in Northern Ireland. That is the context in which this whole issue of extradition needs to be judged, not in terms of whether people should be brought to justice because we all agree on that, not in terms of whether people are wrong or right because we all agree that what they are doing is wrong, not in terms of anything like that, but in terms of those we claim to be close to and those we claim to identify with. It is through their eyes that we ought to judge the whole issue of extradition. It is through those eyes that I am endeavouring and have endeavoured to look since this whole issue first arose. Many of them will feel betrayed by what is being done under the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Many of those will feel that we have further abandoned them, and they have felt abandoned for 17 years.

In the context of what I have just said, that people who commit these crimes should be brought to justice and should be sent to prison if they are convicted, nobody has explained to me what is wrong with the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, why it is that it apparently cannot be used. My limited layman's experience is that the other authorities, the authorities in Britain and Northern Ireland, find it excessively cumbersome and troublesome and, in fact, cannot be bothered to understand the differences between the law in this country and law in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and I resent that. There is a suggestion that the fact that this great country called the United Kingdom should have to understand the law and the details of the law of a small country like ours is an unfair burden to impose on them. Anybody who has watched the British media would have heard talk about recent extradition debacles and the slightly sneering way they talk about our courts and the minor technicalities which they accuse our courts of having identified. I find that almost racist in the implication that our courts are at fault because they quibble with the alleged superior authority of the United Kingdom when they make a mess of an extradition warrant.

In the same way the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act could and still should deal with these problems. It is important to remember that a person who is tried for an offence in this jurisdiction will probably receive an equivalent sentence, if not a larger sentence, than he or she would receive in Northern Ireland and will, in addition, receive far less generous terms of remission than he or she would in Northern Ireland. If one gets 20 years in Northern Ireland one will probably get 50 per cent remission; if one gets 20 years here one will probably get 25 per cent remission. So I do not understand, dealing with violence, on what principle we have been coerced into extradition, unless there is some overwhelming principle behind it which I have so far not identified.

I have already spoken in Irish about definitions of terrorism. The only reason I might speak in English now is for the benefit of the media because they do not, on previous experience, seem to understand Irish. Perhaps I have said enough on it so I will not say any more.

In terms of understanding why we are in the position we are in where we are prepared to approve of extradition, almost at all, it is the success of another country portraying us, implicitly at least, as the haven of terrorists. Given the number of areas in the law where we are far more repressive, if not restrictive to use a less emotive word, than the United Kingdom, that is a particularly gratuitous offence. The Offences Against the State Act is not, by any means, a liberal's dream. The fact that one could be prosecuted for having any of the national daily newspapers in one's possession because they make reference to the IRA as an army — and that defines a document as a seditious document — suggests that the legislation is fairly tight.

The evidence of the past couple of weeks in terms of the use of that Act to search the houses of what I would claim to be innocent people suggests that we are not soft on terrorism: the fact that no British Government would dare to introduce an equivalent to section 31 of the Broadcasting Act to deal with their broadcasting organisations; the fact that our remission policy for people in general and for people who are convicted of crimes of violence in particular suggests that our laws are more restrictive than those in Northern Ireland; the fact that our laws on firearms — and I agree fully with them — are far more restrictive than Britain's will be even after they amend them, and infinitely more restrictive than they were until they began to talk about new amendments in the light of the recent massacre, suggests that we have an impeccable record when dealing with violence, and quite rightly.

Our laws on guns are extremely restrictive. I would be horrified at the idea that the sort of weapons which apparently were easily accessible in Britain should ever become available to anybody here. There is no justification for them. I find the suggestion that this country is soft on terrorism, that this country is somehow not to be trusted on the issue of violence, highly suspect, highly doubtful and quite questionable. I will say what I have already said; there is an element of racism in it. I do not believe that, in certain emotive circumstances, in the light perhaps of a particularly appalling outrage, an Irish citizen could feel particularly secure or certain that he or she would get a fair trial in a British court.

The antics of the British tabloids alone are close to guaranteeing that an Irish person would not get a fair trial in a British court. This is an example of the extraordinary liberalism with which the British judiciary tolerates anti-Irish racism in the United Kingdom. If the sort of anti-Irish jokes that are tolerated on the British media were to be made about the black community in Britain I am perfectly certain the authors would be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act. The fact that they are tolerated about us when they are not tolerated about anyone else suggests an acceptance that the Irish are, somehow or other, a safer target or a softer target.

In regard to the experience of the Irish community in Britain of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, what we hear about most frequently are the arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act — and these are only the tip of the iceberg. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Britain, detention for less than 12 hours is not an arrest and there have been about ten times as many people detained at ports and airports who have not been arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That comes close to 40,000 people detained for less than 12 hours to be questioned. That amounts to calculated harassment of people simply because they happen to have an Irish passport.

I do not believe a régime or a system which discriminates against and identifies as suspect the whole of a community can be trusted to give people a fair trial. Even more so I do not believe, given the divided nature of Northern Ireland, given the massive cultural gap that exists between the forces of security and most of the Judiciary and the nationalist people who come before them, that we are anywhere near being in a position to believe people will get a fair trial. We keep on forgetting down here, whatever our views on Northern Ireland, the depth of the cultural gap, the depth of the gap between those who perceive themselves to be British and those who perceive themselves to be Irish, and all that goes with it. It is simple things that some people take for granted, like the fact that in many areas of public life in Northern Ireland one must take an oath of allegiance. For 60 per cent of the population in Northern Ireland that is a perfectly reasonable thing. For the remainder it is an extremely difficult thing, and anybody who does not believe me should ask the SDLP Members of the House of Commons how they felt about having to take an oath of allegiance.

I do not blame them for taking an oath of allegiance. It is a difficult and unpleasant ritual to have to go through for people who regard themselves as Nationalist Irish people. I say this simply to underline the depths of the cultural gap that exists between the majority and minority in Northern Ireland in terms of identity, in terms of perceptions, in terms of attitudes to a whole series of things, not just religious matters. Those who have one identity would be effectively the forces of law and order and would still be effectively the dominant force in the Judiciary. They would make judgment on the activities of others, which immediately raises questions about the quality of justice and the capacity of those who administer justice to do it fairly, whatever their own innocent intentions.

The evidence in the supergrass trials was accepted in most of the Diplock courts by most of the judges even though those verdicts happily were thrown out eventually by the Appeal Court. Nevertheless, the fact that the evidence was accepted in the first place raises questions not necessarily about the personal integrity of the people involved but about the cultural background from whence they came and their capacity to understand the cultural background of other people.

Nuala O Faoláin in The Irish Times recently contrasted the British Judiciary's cultural background with that of the six people convicted of the Birmingham bombings and talked about the difficulty of their understanding the experience of people on the dole, how a huge thing was made about people wanting to borrow £1 from somebody because nobody would make that much fuss over £1. However, if you are living on £25 a week, £1 is a lot of money. If you are a senior barrister or Queen's Counsel, £1 is very little money. I am simply saying that to underline the cultural differences that can exist even in societies where perhaps there is not the additional problem of a divided society. The cultural gap between a large section of the Northern Judiciary and most of the security forces and many of those from the nationalist, Catholic community that are dealt with by the courts is enormous. We have not come any way yet towards dealing with that huge division. That is why I still suspect the Judiciary in Northern Ireland.

I am not convinced at all that supergrass trials have ended. The most recent statements I have heard suggested that the principle of using uncorroborated evidence of a single individual had not been disposed of. It is not being used at present but there was no guarantee that it will not be used again. We must remember that in the process the supergrass trials became an extremely effective means of preventive detention. It would be nice to know we had some absolute assurance that supergrass trials had ended.

I have such enormous reservations about the whole procedure of extradition to Northern Ireland and Britain for the reasons I have outlined. I know that many of the people on the Government benches, if they were here, would share those views and indeed many of the people sitting in front of me share those views. Regrettably we have been intimidated by what we see as world opinion and definitely British public opinion into doing something about which we have the most profound reservations. I was going to be critical of individuals in the Fianna Fáil Party, but I shall not be. However, I do think they have opened a can of worms which may produce many more problems than they anticipate. I do not trust the security forces in Northern Ireland to operate this sort of legislation with any degree of fairness.

I trust our present Attorney General. I know him, respect and admire him; every Attorney General of whom I have been aware, whatever my views on his ideas in certain areas, I would trust and believe would operate legislation like this fairly. However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether those to whom people are to be extradited can be trusted. I do not think yet that they can be trusted, I regret to say. I would not make any great distinction between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions for the certification of warrants. When I have so eminent an authority as Deputy John Kelly, who would hardly share my general political perspective on this matter, saying he does not understand why people are making such a fuss about this, I cannot argue with it.

The problem is what we are doing and what it will symbolise to those to whom we should be giving hope. It will symbolise our rejection of the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly of those who have suffered most over the past 16 or 17 years. That rejection will produce, as most repressive responses to violence do produce, a further violent response. It is important to remember that virtually every serious escalation of violence in Northern Ireland has been as much a response to repression as it has been a calculated attempt by those who use violence to up the ante. The level of violence in Northern Ireland prior to the curfew of the Falls Road in 1970 was limited, even though it was unacceptable. The level of violence which followed on internment was greater than that which came before it. The level of violence that followed on Bloody Sunday was greater than that which came before it. We ought, therefore, to be careful in the interests, I shall not say of short term expediency but of what is judged to be pragmatic, not to do things which may be seen as sowing the seeds of deeper violence.

I shall vote against this Bill on Second Stage, not because I particularly object to the safeguards contained in it but because this Bill represents the Government's effective concession of the principle of extradition to Britain and Northern Ireland. I shall, of course, introduce one or more amendments on Committee Stage to try to ameliorate the unfortunate consequences of this and, at least, to ensure that the same principle applies here which still applies in Britain, even when they amend their own legislation, which is that our Judiciary should have the final say on whether what people have to face is a real case or not.

It is not authoritative, but I note a report in The Irish Times of today that the British are endeavouring to remove the prima facie requirements from their own legislation, but they are making extremely heavy weather of it. They have according to these reports, found themselves obliged to introduce other judicial safeguards, perhaps less than prima facie but which would leave people with the right to seek a judicial review. I did not say whether it would be a judicial review of the evidence or a judicial review simply of the procedure. It is quite apparent to me that, notwithstanding their enthusiasm for having us unlimited in our extradition legislation, the same authorities in the United Kingdom are extremely reluctant to allow similar procedures, similar principles, to apply to their own citizens. Regrettably, and to a certain extent the Opposition parties have contributed to this, we have been intimidated into doing something which we would not otherwise like to have done. I very much regret that it has been done. It will not necessarily contribute anything to the resolution of the problems in this island and may, indeed, undermine such attempts because it may leave those who are most likely to support the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland with absolutely no feeling that they have any allies other than those whom they traditionally supported, the Provisional IRA. That I would regret particularly deeply.

I shall make just a brief contribution to this debate. At the outset, I should like to say I believe Senator Ryan is absolutely entitled to his point of view, his approach and stand on this legislation. It outlined the different political perspectives we have seen and shall see in this whole area of debate. I claim the right to call those who perpetrate most of the violence in this island, the IRA, the INLA and their fellow travellers, terrorists. He seemed particularly sensitive and delicate about using the word. He said he does not like calling the IRA or the other groups terrorists because this would in some way diminish the people who support these terrorists in Northern Ireland, the nationalist community. That is an extraordinary approach to logic.

Hitler who was a terrorist and a brutal leader in his time was, as we all know, supported by the German people. Therefore, in the same way, would Senator Ryan not say that Hitler was wrong, that he was brutal and a terrorist? We have to show the nationalist people of Northern Ireland that the support they give to the IRA is misguided and ill-conceived. I believe that the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is helping to show that the legitimate forces in Northern Ireland can offer the nationalists the support and protection they need. Senator Ryan spoke a lot about oppression and took us on a tour of the outrages committed by the RUC and the military during the past 16 years. I am not saying that the things which the RUC and the British Army did against the nationalist community were right but I think that many people would choose the oppression of the RUC rather than the oppression and outrages of the IRA who give no option or choice.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide safeguards for the citizens of this country who may in future be sought by Britain to stand trial for offences committed in that jurisdiction. To date since the 1965 Extradition Act, 733 people have been extradited to Britain and 158 to Northern Ireland. We have an obligation to ensure that there can be no shelter in this part of our island for anyone who perpetrates violence in any other country. It would be ignominious, for instance, to believe that the men who were responsible for the Enniskillen bombing should have cause to feel secure in the Twenty-Six Counties. There are many people who will still have a half romantic notion about these killers and the extent of the support given to the INLA, if we judge by the access to safe houses the O'Grady kidnap gang had, is very regrettable. Our actions must send a strong message to those people I can only call closet terrorists that our laws and procedures have the single objective of bringing violent men whose purpose is sinister and evil to justice whether it is justice in this country or in another jurisdiction.

I question whether there is a need for this legislation given the present safeguards. We have to look at what we mean by the word "terrorist". Since last Tuesday the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987 has been in force. Its title signifies its purpose and enables this country to take its responsible role in controlling and aiming to defeat acts of terror. No person responsible for offences such as the hijacking of planes, kidnapping and using explosives and firearms may now find refuge in this country. We are very clear in our minds when we talk about international terrorism because we have seen on television, film of hostages in mid-air, aeroplane seizure dramas, because we know about the bombing campaigns in Paris recently, and in other places and because we know too, of kidnappings and of killings of diplomats and politicians. We would have little problem in supporting measures to end these outrages.

However, it is not so simple when we come to our own situation and the violence on this island. As I have mentioned, it has to be said that there was and, in many cases still is, an ambivalence to our native terrorism. Some people still tolerate and try to make excuses for the propaganda of the IRA, Sinn Féin and the INLA and all the other splinter and breakaway groups who claim that the atrocities are perpetrated as part of a legitimate political campaign and that the end, a united Ireland, justifies the means. Such is the public acceptance by us of the reign of violence here and it is an acceptance which is born out of helplessness that we do not always see the many acts of killing and destruction as terrorism but they are nothing else.

There are no instances of brutality and cruelty committed in the international arena which have not been exceeded in horror and sadism by the IRA. It is only when we see the image which this country has abroad that the degree to which we are regarded as a cradle for terrorists comes home to us. I am not suggesting that this State or the forces of law have had a laissez-faire policy to terrorism because that is not the case. It is just that the awful events, such as Enniskillen, flashed by the media around the world, form opinions and attitudes around the world of Ireland and things Irish and they are negative attitudes.

The people involved in the campaign of violence have access to a horrific armoury and explosives. They use legal systems and country boundaries to their own advantage and for their own invalid purposes. There is good evidence to show that the terrorist network is well organised, well funded and has access to the training facilities and refuge of other countries. This was seen very clearly recently in regard to Libya.

Given that backdrop, most reasonable people would support the action taken by the Coalition Government last December in bringing the necessary legislation through the Oireachtas to enable the ratification of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism with a 12 month delay procedure but the events of the past six months, particularly the kidnapping of Dr. John O'Grady and the cruel treatment to which he was subjected, the horror of Enniskillen and the apprehension of the Eksund with its lethal cargo, make it imperative that we ratify the convention now. Anything less would subject this country to international resentment and reproach and rightly so.

I do not think, however, that the Bill before us is necessary. There has been a great deal of posing by people who should have known better on this matter. The Bill gives a special role to the Attorney General and extends discretion to him on all applications for extradition to Northern Ireland and Britain but the experience of cases taken through our courts up to now would indicate that the greatest care is already taken to ensure that any person who is party to such a warrant would be assured of a fair trial in a British jurisdiction. This is clearly seen in the recent case of Shannon v. the Attorney-General where Justice Henchy said that if an individual can show that they would not receive a fair trial in the country seeking their extradition, the court will not allow the extradition of that individual. The interesting thing about the Shannon case and indeed about the McGlinchey v. Wren case is that both McGlinchey and Shannon were acquitted after being extradited to the North.

In this context, I would like to refer to what the Fine Gael spokesman for Justice said in his Second Stage speech on this Bill in the Dáil. He said that the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Dukes, in the debate last December recognised that there has been some problems in our dealings with the United Kingdom in the context of extradition. He informed the House that a tightening up of the administrative arrangements had been agreed whereby a warrant for the return of a fugitive would not be sought unless the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland or the Crown Prosecution Service in Britain had considered the evidence and were satisfied that there was a clear expectation of a prosecution. The Minister said we, for our part, had made a reciprocal decision that we would continue our existing practice of having our warrants assessed for evidence by the Office of the DPP before they were sent for execution in Northern Ireland or Britain.

The Minister informed us also that the British authorities had also agreed an addition to this arrangement, i.e. in all cases where a warrant was sent to this jurisdiction for backing that the British Attorney General would send to our Attorney General, through diplomatic channels, a confirmatory note to the effect that the British Attorney General has satisfied himself that the relevant prosecuting authorities had complied with the arrangements set out. As Deputy Barrett asked too, I ask the Minister now if these arrangements have worked satisfactorily or if it is the case that his Government did absolutely nothing to bring about the implementation of the arrangements. If these new arrangements were satisfactory, what do we need this legislation for?

I am glad the Minister's speech was peppered with the evidence of Fine Gael amendments. The attitude of Fine Gael on this Bill, as on the primary school circular, was consistent with constructive opposition and shows that a creative role can be played by an Opposition party with concrete results. It is regrettable to see the role of the PDs who continue to pursue hamfisted politics, opposing for opposition's sake and, in this instance, prepared to disregard the consequences for the country of an election on this issue.

The matter of extradition is one to be addressed by us as parliamentarians presenting the views and wishes of the electorate. They rightly should resist any outside interference such as the attempts made by Prime Minister Mrs. Thatcher this week. She showed an insensitivity in making a provocative statement on this debate in Westminster. Our Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas should not allow it to influence what we do one way or the other, and in a similar vein the stand of MP Ken Livingstone must be seen. His support for the IRA and his refusal to understand and be guided by the wishes of those who democratically represent the Irish people put him into an autocratic status. He epitomises the stance of a number of left wing people who, despite all efforts to reason with them, seem to believe they know better what is good for the Irish than the Irish themselves. They are somehow regarded as letting the side down if they do not embrace every anti-establishment group including the violent IRA and INLA.

I note in many of the speeches made in this debate in the other House and here that Government speakers have emphasised that this legislation is not "introducing" extradition, that extradition has been here for many years. Once again we have seen the new hysteria that has been created and whipped up by some unscrupulous factions who have cared very little for an honest approach and a correct interpretation of what this legislation is about, but they have chosen to distort the debate with the suggestion that it is about bringing in extradition rather than changing existing law.

There has been a satisfactory resolution to the differences which divided the Government and my party at the start of the debate. I am particularly pleased that the new section 44A prohibits improper communication being made to the Attorney General for the purpose of influencing him and that the Bill's operation will be monitored and reviewed by the Dáil in 12 months.

Like my colleague Senator Fennell, I listened with interest to what Senator Ryan had to say. I can only say that, if people plant bombs such as in Enniskillen and take a number of human lives as a result, they are terrorists and I make no apology for calling them so.

The system in operation between this State and Britain strictly speaking is not about extradition at all. For a number of years we have been involved in backing warrants. It is a relic of the old days when British rule prevailed throughout these islands. Each country had its own jurisdiction and judiciary and, when a warrant was sent out, it was simply backed or endorsed by the chief of police in the relevant area. There was no need to bring a person before any court. Then in 1965 there was a celebrated case when, although the High Court had granted habeas corpus to a wanted man, he was taken out of the jurisdiction and the Supreme Court then delivered a condemning judgment. As a result of this the Extradition Act, 1965, was introduced. It provided for extradition from this country to countries other than Great Britain and Northern Ireland but the old system was maintained with the difference that the wanted person would be brought before the District Court and the District Court would than explain to him what rights he had. He had a right to challenge the matter in the High Court unless he signed an agreement to be extradited.

It seems strange now, but in 1965 the idea of a person pleading a political offence, although the Act provided that a person could not be extradited for a political offence, seemed unlikely. However, due to the continuing violence in our country for a number of years many people put up this plea of a political offence. It was enough to say that the motive was political and it did not matter how horrendous the crime or the circumstances of the crime were, the fact that it was politically motivated provided an exemption from extradition. In the McGlinchey case the Supreme Court held that murder was murder and that the old definition of a political offence was now obsolete. The court, in effect, said that something could be political only if fair-minded citizens regarded it as such, and since fair-minded citizens believed in the rule of law the concept of a political offence was obsolete.

At present, however, there is concern for any Irish person who is standing trial in a British court. I would say that the climate is so much against Irish people on trial in Britain that anyone would do better before a single judge in the Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland than before a British jury. That is saying something when one realises that in the Diplock Courts alleged confessions with corroborative evidence are enough to put people away.

The courts in Northern Ireland may have their defects, but when it comes to the administration of justice — again let me refer to Senator Ryan — I would rather accept a defective administration of justice in the Northern Ireland or any other court system than the kind of administration of justice that is handed out in the kangaroo courts of the IRA and other such violent groups. Only when it comes to your own door do you realise this. Over two years ago a citizen of Northern Ireland living in this State, about 100 yards from my house, was one day driven in his own car to his own house and there executed by paramilitaries. There was no court of appeal in that case.

Defects in the court systems in Northern Ireland and Britain are all very fresh in our minds today especially when we read the daily accounts of the Birmingham Six trial. We must be grateful to the Irish media, especially The Irish Times, for the detailed reporting of evidence in this case. From reading the evidence I cannot help but feel, and I am sure many people share my view, that if the lawyers who are now representing the appellants had defended them in the original case then the verdict might have been a different one. One thing I am certain of is that the men who were involved in that case were beaten up when they were in the custody of the police or prison officers or both. I hope their Lordships, when examining the evidence before them, will bear these facts in mind.

It is only reasonable, in view of our experience with the British and Northern Ireland authorities, to insist that the extradition process be made as watertight as possible by ruling out the possibility of sham warrants intended to hold a suspect for questioning. That is not what extradition is about. The amended Bill before the House is to provide additional safeguards to our extradition procedure. Under the new Bill the Attorney General is required to give a directive that a warrant shall not be endorsed unless there is clear intention to prosecute and that such intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence and that a suspect can only be tried for the offence named.

It has been argued in the other House that the role of the Attorney General in this matter is unconstitutional. I would not argue as a layman that his function is unconstitutional but I disapprove of the Attorney General's function in this matter. I accept he is not a member of the Government and is only a legal adviser to the Government. The Attorney General is expected to balance up both the legal and political considerations in every case. In view of the closeness between law and politics, is it any wonder that in every constitutional state Government the Attorney General is cast as a political friend of the Government rather than a career legal civil servant? Until 1974 the Attorney General bore responsibility for initiating criminal proceedings in all trials of indictment. In that year, because of the danger of a conflict of interest between his two separate duties, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was constituted. This was to remove the danger of party political rather than political, motives being of interest to the Attorney General. For that reason I would prefer if the Attorney General's duties in the area of extradition, as outlined in the Bill before us, would be performed by the DPP.

The protections guaranteed to an individual in having his case examined by the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions in a sense gives a stronger protection rather than having the matter considered by the courts. The court can only examine documentation before them but the Attorney General and the DPP check the facts and the background in each case. Due to the fact that all criminal proceedings pass through the Office of the DPP he would be best suited to carrying out the duties outlined in the Bill.

As well as providing additional safeguards, the new legislation has all the old safeguards. The safeguards that the case has to go before the District Court, that a suspect's rights have to be explained to him, and that he has a right of appeal to the High Court to seek habeas corpus are still preserved. I am glad that the members of my party in the other House made very constructive contributions to this Bill. I am glad also that the Minister has initiated some of the amendments to the Bill. That is what constructive opposition is all about.

Referring back to the view of the Supreme Court, I think that we, as fair-minded citizens, want to see terrorists who commit these terrible crimes brought to justice either in the state in which they commit the crimes or some other state that might have evidence against them. However, we also want to ensure that they are tried in a fair-minded manner. Two recent cases that come to my mind under our extradition law are the McGlinchey and Shannon cases. They were extradited out of this country but there was not sufficient evidence to find them guilty of the offences they were charged with and they were handed back. I sincerely hope that is the way extradition will continue to operate. As fair-minded citizens we will be watching anxiously and I am glad that Dáil Éireann, as a result of an amendment to the Bill, will review the workings of the Bill each year.

A. M. Connolly in a recent article entitled, "Non-Extradition for political offences: A matter of legal obligation or simply a policy choice?" stated:

It has come to be accepted by an ever increasing number of states in the world, irrespective of geographical location, ideology or political structure, that there are certain types of behaviour for which persons should be brought to justice, and not allowed, merely by crossing an international boundary, to avoid accountability.

In 1981 following a decision by the US Court of Appeal, Seventh Circuit, Ziyad Abu Eain, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the PLO, was surrendered to Israel notwithstanding that an extradition treaty between the United States and Israel provides that extradition shall not be granted when "the offence is regarded by the requested party as one of a political character". He pleaded that his offence was of a political character. He was accused of placing a bomb in a rubbish bin in a crowded market in the Israeli city of Tiberias. The bomb exploded killing two young boys and injuring more than 30 people. The United States judges expressed their concern that the United States should not be regarded as a "safe haven for terrorists, and that such persons should have to answer for their acts". The US court said: "We recognise the validity and usefulness of the political offence exception, but it should be applied with great care lest our country becomes a social jungle and an encouragement to terrorists everywhere". Having exhausted all the judicial remedies Abu Eain petitioned the Department of State for relief. This was denied and the Department of State endorsed the United State Court of Appeals' view of a political offence and issued the following caution:

Anyone contemplating the murder of innocent civilians in a misguided effort to further a political cause must be on notice that he will not be permitted to take refuge under a political offence exception.

In Ireland, of course, the Legislature and the courts have in the past approached the task of definition of a political offence in an empirical fashion and have accepted that where there is sufficient evidence of a political motive on the plaintiff's part in committing the alleged offence he should not be extradited. However, since the early eighties there has been a shift — and I believe a welcome shift — in judicial attitude towards such a plea. Thus in Hanlon v. Fleming, 1981, the plaintiff who was wanted in the United Kingdom for the offence of handling stolen goods, namely, a number of electronic detonators and a small amount of high explosives sought to argue that this was "a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence".

Before the High Court, Hanlon presented evidence of his involvement with the IRA and it was contended that the proceeds of several robberies, cheque book and credit card frauds which he had perpetrated in England over a number of years had been transferred to the IRA. In the absence of corroborative evidence the High Court was not prepared to accept, and I quote:

That any of the proceedings of his criminal activities was used for the purposes of the IRA in such a way as perhaps to lend political colour to the offence.

On appeal, the Supreme Court saw no reason to disturb the finding of fact by the High Court and in doing so stated as follows:

Even if the judges findings were otherwise, even if it had been found as a matter of fact that the explosive material referred to in the charge specified in the warrant had been intended for transmission to the IRA, it would not necessarily follow that the accused would be exempt from extradition on the ground that the charged offence is a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence. There has been no decision of this court on such a point. It must be left over for an appropriate case.

In December 1982 the Supreme Court confirmed and elaborated upon this sentiment in the now well known case of McGlinchey v. Wren (1982). In that case McGlinchey was wanted by the authorities in Northern Ireland for the murder of an elderly women who had been riddled with bullets early in the morning in her own home. Before the High Court he replied, inter alia, on section 50 (2) (a) of the Extradition Act, 1965, claiming that at the time of the killing he had been an active member of the Provisional IRA; that this organisation had claimed responsibility for the murder and that what he had done was in the context of being a political offence or was connected with a political offence. The Supreme Court, unanimously — all five judges — decided per Chief Justice O'Higgins and I quote:

The excusing per se of murder or of offences involving violence and the infliction of human suffering by or at the behest of self-ordained arbiters and the very antithesis of the ordinances of Christianity and civilisation and the basic requirements of political activity.

Chief Justice O'Higgins also stated in this case, I quote:

All that can be said in this case is that with or without the concession made on behalf of the plaintiff this offence could not be said to be either a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence. Whether a contrary conclusion would be realised in different circumstances would depend on the particular circumstances and on whether those particular circumstances showed that the person charged was at the relevant time engaged either directly or indirectly in what reasonable civilised people would regard as political activity.

The Supreme Court developed the case law further on this subject in Shannon v. Fanning in 1983 and Quinn v. Wren in 1985. These cases substantially paved the way for the last Coalition Government to bring forward a Bill in 1986 to ratify the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. I welcome the decision by the Government, and by the Minister for Justice, to allow this Act, the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, to come into operation as from 1 December 1987. As from that date, in the case of particular categories of crime, such as hijacking aircraft, kidnapping, killing by the use of explosives or automatic weapons, the murdering of a diplomat or a high official, it will not be possible for persons accused of committing a crime in this category to plead the political offence exception as to why they should not be extradited.

I am glad that we have ratified the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and that we have brought this Act into operation. As a member of the Community of European Nations, sharing common values and principles, we must join in the common fight against terrorism. The campaign of violent subversion which we face today is not limited to the confines of any country or continent but is a campaign which is international in character and which uses, as the Taoiseach said in the Dáil, legal systems and frontiers for its own ruthless purposes. The people organising this campaign have access to a vast amount of deadly weapons, explosives and materials.

It must also be emphasised that we have had extradition for a very long time. I notice that it has been said both in the Dáil and in this House that we have had extradition basically since the foundation of the State. Until 1965 extradition for trial in other countries was governed by: (1) section 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, in the case of Britain; (2) section 3 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, in the case of what was formerly called the British dominions; and (3) the Extradition Acts, 1870-1916, in the case of other countries. The procedure for extradition to Britain, contained in section 29 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, was based, as has been said — this was referring to the more recent legislation — on a system of backing or endorsement of warrants by Irish police officers issued in Britain.

The 1851 procedure was declared by the High Court in the State (Dowling) v. Brennan and Kingston (1937) to have been continued in force in Saorstát Éireann by virtue of Article 73 of the Free State Constitution of 1922. In 1950 the continuance of section 29 of the 1851 Act, under Bunreacht na hÉireann 1937, was established in the State (Duggan) v. Tapley (1950). In 1964 a turning point came and a case, the State (Quinn) v. Ryan (1964), arrived in the Supreme Court which moved that court to reverse the earlier authorities. The position created by this decision was that there was no lawful machinery for the extradition of alleged offenders to Britain.

The position — and this is of interest — in regard to Northern Ireland had been irregular even before the Quinn case because the 1951 procedure envisaged Britain and Ireland as a single political unit. No adaptation of that procedure authorised, or ever attempted professedly to authorise, the handing over of persons arrested in the Republic of Ireland to the authorities in Northern Ireland. In O'Boyle and Rogers v. Attorney General and O'Duffy (1939) this point was successfully made in the High Court. Thereafter, from 1929 up to the decision in Quinn's case in 1965 extradition across the Irish Border appears to have been carried on reciprocally and informally by the respective police authorities without any lawful authority or even ostensible authority. After the Quinn decision, extradition generally was based on a comparatively new statutory basis with the passing of the Extradition Act, 1965. The British enacted, simultaneously, The Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965, which had the effect of making the new system reciprocal.

The Bill before the House—the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987 — seeks to provide for certain safeguards in relation to the procedure under which persons charged with, or convicted of, certain offences in the neighbouring jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, may be extradited to those jurisdictions.

In summary, the Attorney General will have to be of opinion that there is a clear intention to prosecute on the existence of sufficient evidence. The rule of specialty will ensure that, as a general principle, persons can only be tried for the offence for which they are extradited and any additional charges can proceed only if the Irish authorities agree. A new régime of observation and monitoring of those arrangements will be instituted on the basis of which the Attorney General will submit an annual report to the Government. The question of what exactly is "the exercise of a judicial function" or "a judicial power" such that only a judge can constitutionally exercise it is perhaps one of the greyest areas in constitutional law.

We have it, however, on the authority of Deputy John Kelly that there is no evidence that the 1937 Constitution or, indeed, its promoters intended to make any change in the pre-existing general patterns, and that before 1937 no one would have challenged the present Bill on the grounds that it infringed the constitutional preserve of the courts by giving this discretion to the Attorney General. However, the argument advanced on RTE radio by Deputy O'Malley on Sunday is certainly wrong. He said that the Supreme Court had recently decided that the act of returning somebody for trial was a judicial act and impermissible if performed by the Attorney General or the DPP. This, of course, was not the case in the Supreme Court in Costello v. the Attorney General and DPP, 1984, when that court merely decided, and quite rightly, that once a district justice had decided not to return a person for trial, it was unconstitutional for the Attorney General or the DPP to effectively overrule that judicial decision. But there is no constitutional bar to a purely administrative authority returning someone for trial in the first instance. This was acknowledged over 20 years ago by Mr. Justice Walsh in the State (Shanahan) v. the Attorney General, 1964.

Deputy McDowell was also quite wrong in his reading of this Bill when he told the media that the Garda Commissioner was entitled to bypass the Attorney General altogether, for the necessary and clear implication of this Bill is that before endorsing an arrest warrant the Garda Commissioner must know that there has been no direction given by the Attorney General, and this presupposes that the Attorney General has had the opportunity to consider whether to give a direction. To interpret the Act otherwise would be a deliberate frustration of the Act's clear intention and would amount to unconstitutional conduct.

Whether this Bill is constitutional, I would much prefer the safeguards envisaged by the previous Governments and outlined by Deputy Dukes, when, as Minister for Justice he introduced the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1986, into Dáil Éireann. On 4 December 1986, he stated, as reported at column 1386 of the Official Report:

Nevertheless, a full review has taken place and it has been decided bilaterally that a warrant for the return of a fugitive will not be sought unless the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, or the Crown Prosecution Service in Britain, has considered the evidence and is satisfied that it is sufficient to ground a clear expectation of a prosecution. This means sufficient evidence of a kind that is admissible in court. In effect, this means that a warrant will not be sent from Northern Ireland or Britain for execution in the State — or vice versa— unless the case has been examined at a high level to see if there is sufficient evidence on which to bring a charge. This accords with the principle that extradition is for the purpose of charging a person and not merely for questioning him.

At a later stage in the debate, Deputy Dukes went on to say:

The British authorities have now agreed an addition to this arrangement. In all cases where a warrant is sent to this jurisdiction for backing, the British authorities will send to our Attorney General through diplomatic channels a confirmative note to the effect that he, the British Attorney General, has satisfied himself that the relevant prosecuting authorities have complied with the arrangements described. That note will serve as an additional reassurance that those arrangements had been complied with in each case.

If, however, these powers have to be given to a designated State officer, I believe that they should be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions who has a clear and unambiguous functional independence from the process of Government. In modern Ireland the source of the Attorney General's authority and the warrant for the existence of his office is Article 30 of the Constitution. That Constitution clearly provides that the Attorney General relates very closely to the Taoiseach both in his appointment to office and in his resignation or removal from office.

One feature which has not changed is the practice whereby the holder of the office of Attorney General is a member of the party currently in Government. Established long before independence, this tradition was continued in the new State, and the 1937 Constitution did not change the practice. Indeed, by providing in Article 30.2, that the Attorney General is nominated by the Taoiseach and in Article 30.5.4º that he retires from office with the Taoiseach, the Constitution has, by implication, confirmed this tradition. As a matter of practice, therefore, the Attorney General is a member of the Government party and under section 6 (2) of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, he may represent that party in the Dáil.

In conclusion, therefore I hope this Bill achieves the twin objectives of combating and defeating international and cross-Border terrorism on the one hand and of protecting the rights and freedoms of our citizens as individuals on the other. As a commonsense approach in this direction, I welcome the assurance given by the Taoiseach in the Dáil that there will be a review of this legislation in 12 months and that this assurance will be enshrined in the legislation on the basis of a Fine Gael amendment tabled in the Dáil. I wish this Bill well and I look forward to the review in 12 months time.

It is, I believe, a very sad reflection on this Oireachtas that, on a day that it was announced that the unemployment figures have gone up by 3,000, the Seanad should be debating the Extradition (Amendment) Bill 1987, which in real terms is nothing more than useless legislation and which, even if we stretch probability to its limits, will make no difference to the extradition procedure that already operates in this country.

The impression has been created, and it is an onerous one, that individual warrants can only be proceeded with if the Attorney General agrees with them. It must be stressed that the Bill imposes no obligations whatsoever on the Attorney General. The Attorney General would be given the power to stop a warrant. There is no obligation on the Attorney General to involve himself in any stage in the proceedings. This point cannot be overstressed.

The Bill before the Seanad has been cobbled together to placate Fianna Fáil backbenchers on the one hand and, on the other hand, has been amended in the other House to provide Deputy Dukes and the Fine Gael Party with a face saver in their determination to avoid a general election and to keep Fianna Fáil in power. I will return later in my speech to the amendment relating to the situation where, to quote the Minister, "the Attorney General might be subjected to representation or improper attempts to influence his decision as to whether to give a direction under section 44A." The Minister went on to state that the Government did not think it necessary to include a provision of this kind in the Bill in the first place. However, once the Fine Gael amendment was put down, this was the price the Government paid to ensure its survival, that is, to include in the Bill what they saw as an unnecessary amendment. Out there in the country emigration continues apace and unemployment figures rise. The Oireachtas responds to this by bringing in useless legislation and engaging in cynical exercises inspired by nothing more than the desire to avoid putting seats to the test of the electorate. Is it any wonder the young people are leaving our shores?

The Bill must be put in context. Under section 43 of the 1965 Act, the Garda Commissioner is obliged to endorse an extradition warrant for execution, provided certain minimum things are complied with. Under section 44, the Minister for Justice is empowered, but not obliged, to refuse to endorse that warrant if he believes it should not be endorsed. The Minister for Justice also has powers to refer any question in his mind to the High Court which may, on referral, refuse to endorse the warrant. There is no obligation on the Garda Commissioner under the present Act or under the amended Bill to consult the Minister or the Attorney General. The Garda Commissioner must back a warrant irrespective of the offence involved and the Minister and the Attorney General can stay out of the proceedings.

This is where we get to the nub of the uselessness of this Bill in terms of providing safeguards for our citizens being extradited to Britain or the Six Counties. In the 23 years of the operation of the 1965 Act, during which time upwards of 1,000 people have been the subject of extradition warrants to Britain and the Six Counties, the Minister for Justice has not once intervened to refuse to endorse a warrant. Warrants have been refused in the High Court where political offences were involved on the application of the suspect to the High Court under section 50 of the 1965 Act. The Taoiseach, when Minister for Justice, put in the safeguard in the 1965 Act that the Minister for Justice could refuse to endorse a warrant but this safeguard has never been used. This present so-called safeguard now adds the Attorney General to the list and it is hardly likely that it will be used either.

An amendment to the Bill states where in the extremely unlikely situation the Attorney General becomes involved with a warrant for extradition, it is unlawful to make representations or improper attempts to influence his decision. This has mind-boggling implications in terms of its practicality. For instance, the Attorney General attends Cabinet meetings. Must he, under the amendment provisions, be instructed to leave any Cabinet meetings where a particular extradition warrant is discussed? Is he precluded from having any discussions with the British Attorney General, the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice other than those which relate to the proper communication of information that is relevant? How will this area be monitored and the spirit and letter of the amendment implemented? The Labour Party are far from satisfied with this Bill. We contend that further illusory safeguards have been produced. The Labour Party are concerned with real safeguards and will be seeking to put down amendments on Committee Stage in that regard.

I am surprised and disappointed at Senator O'Shea who said we were wasting time by discussing a useless Bill while there are so many unemployed. They may be unemployed but they can all go home to bed tonight. The poor people in Enniskillen who were going about their merciful duty of praying for the dead are now buried as a result. I am surprised to hear that comparison when over the past few weeks the events, the stark terms of the threats which terrorists made, the vicious kidnapping of Dr. John O'Grady, the Eksund affair and the atrocity of Enniskillen have been brought home to us.

One thing that has not been touched upon by the various speakers although the Bill has been fairly well debated — it has been avoided in another House too — is the matter of safe houses for terrorists and murderers. If we had civic spirit, it we pointed out these people, if there was no room or haven for them here, we would not have half the problems or crimes. One can compare it to stealing property; if there were no buyers there would be no thieves. If people reported those looking for succour to the police force they could save many more lives. O'Hare was able to drive through the country and to live in different houses and when he was trying to make his escape caused another murder. The garda who raided the house is lucky to be alive because he, too, could have died as a result.

I should like to pay tribute to the army, and the police on both sides of the Border, to the medical profession, the nurses and all those who helped after the Enniskillen atrocity. I should also like to pay tribute to the great courage of Dr. John O'Grady for what he suffered when he was brutalised by the cutting off of his fingers with a chisel and to pay a tribute to the people who saved him.

You can make passing reference to the people you mentioned but you should get back to the Bill. I appreciate your remarks, but having made the reference please continue on the Bill.

Portlaoise Prison should more properly be called a Grade A hotel; they have televisions, snooker and billiard tables, libraries and videos to pass the time until they get out to commit more crime. It costs £30,000 a year to the taxpayer to keep them there. Because of keeping the Garda and the Army on the Border, successive Governments have paid only £40 a week or £2,000 a year to an old age pensioner on which to survive,

Senator Robinson said that the Bill is a charter for lawyers but every Act is a charter for lawyers. A senior counsel can make as good a case for or against; it is only a matter of which side he chooses to represent. Doctors differ, patients die. Lawyers differ, the Bills die. There are different viewpoints. People should talk about the victims, not about fine technical and legal points. What protection will they get? Who talks about them? Who will do something for them? You would think it was the victims who caused these crimes, not the perpetrators. It is a terrible situation. I welcome this Bill. I am very happy about it. I commend the Bill to the House.

The contributions today have been very interesting, especially the contribution by Senator Robb who this morning reminded the House starkly of what the underlying cause for this legislation has cost, in human suffering, apart from the campaign doing away with places of employment over the past 15 or 16 years. This was a sad story. I listened to Senator Robinson's clever analysis of the procedures and of the impact that this Bill will make. There has been many wide-ranging speeches here today. The Minister listened very attentively to all of them. Every word spoken here in the Seanad this afternoon will, I am sure, be taken into account at some future time. This Bill has evoked a great amount of debate not only in the Oireachtas but in the United States as well as in the UK and in other places.

Section 7 sets a time limit of 12 months on this Bill. Will the Minister clarify whether this section refers only to the 1987 Bill and to this Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987, or does it actually mean that, after the middle of December of 1988, Ireland will have no extradition laws unless the Oireachtas by a positive order decides to renew the Acts of 1965 to 1987 and continue them for a further year? We would be unique in Europe if we were to decide that we would remain aloof from the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism.

Over the past 15 years this country has played its role, and has benefited to a great degree in many areas from our membership of the European Community. The aftermath of the work of terrorists of any nationality damages the freedom of the individual. As long as this country is free, we should in a very wholehearted way, subscribe to anti terrorist Acts, and we should strengthen our laws to ensure that people who live by terrorism will not have a safe haven here or, indeed in any of the countries that have come together to improve the living and working conditions of their people. I hope we will continue to be a signatory to the European Convention and that we will join in a very determined way in a united fight against terrorism both at home and abroad.

Everyone has seen on TV and read in the papers of the ruthlessness, brutality and arrogance of the persons this Extradition (Amendment) Bill is designed to deal with. We should not do anything to render it more difficult for our courts to deal with those savage criminals. These criminals invariably do not recognise our 1937 Constitution, our courts, our Government or any of the institutions of the State, but when it suits them they appear to be the only sector in the community who constantly claim and benefit from "constitutional rights" under a Constitution they do not recognise. If ever there was a daft country, we certainly have one, because there is a mass of contradictions here. Not only do these people claim the benefits of their constitutional rights under the Constitution with which they do not agree, but under that Constitution they get free legal aid and they can go from the District Court right up to the High Court and the Supreme Court at enormous cost to the State. The taxpayer pays the lot. I do not know if there is any other country in the world that provides that kind of comprehensive service to dissidents in the State.

I was very taken with the speech by Senator Doyle, when he spoke about the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and in the UK. I do not set myself up as a legal luminary, and I do not like to judge the administration of justice either at home or abroad, but I know that our courts system, the system that has evolved in this country, by and large has served our people in an exceptional fashion. There are very few people who complain about the administration of justice in this country. Senator Doyle made the point that the sectors of the community who are most loud in their condemnation of this Extradition (Amendment) Bill, and who attack the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and in the UK are the paramilitaries and the Provisionals and those categories of persons. They, on the other hand appear to be the only people in the European Community, and in many countries in the world, who seem to hang on to a system of capital punishment. It is indeed, extraordinary to find that even at the end of the 20th century, a person can be condemned to death by a firing squad by these paramilitary people for even taking on a contract to work for the public service in Northern Ireland. Even colleagues of these paramilitaries who find that some of the takings of the armed robbery sticks to their fingers, they do not hand it all up, can find themselves knee capped or sentenced to some similar horrendous type of penalty by kangaroo courts. Unfortunately many people read the papers one day at a time and do not seem to correlate the activities of these people.

There is still, as has been said so many times here today, a double think in this country. People have a certain amount, some would say too much, sympathy for people who are against the State and its institutions. I still have great sympathy for many of the young people who become ensnared in paramilitary activities and then find themselves before the courts and in the prison system. It is indeed very difficult for them. From experience I have seen that once a person joins a paramilitary organisation there is no way he can get out of it. It is a horrifying ordeal to see the finest specimens of young men languishing in a place like Portlaoise with a 30 to 40 year prison stretch to serve. That is very sad. The structure that these people organise for themselves means that even in prisons these people do not have freedom from their organisations, whether they be the Provisional IRA or any of the other smaller branches of that movement. Those in prison have to toe the line and take whatever exercise is handed down to them. Again we have a very difficult situation and one that I think is misunderstood. In every Irish person, irrespective of their political or religious views there is to be found a streak of nationalism, a love of and interest in the country and a desire to work and live for it. It must be our educational system that is responsible. The way in which Irish culture and history are taught seem to leave an indelible mark on people and make them look on Irish nationalism in a very negative way.

History should be taught to our young people in a way that so would provide them with a basis from which they would learn to love and serve their country rather than leave them with a picture of hate figures going back for over 1,000 years and an inspiration to go out and take revenge on the fourth, fifth, sixth or tenth generation. That is nonsense. I do not want to have the INTO on my back, it is bad enough to have to deal with them in their present campaign without attracting more into the firing line, but there is something amiss in our educational system. I suppose we are not unique, though, because if you look at the Greeks and the Turks they still have a big problem, which stems from the Trojan wars and that even predates our skirmishes.

This country has been blessed in its institutions and in its public service. I would like to take the opportunity of paying a special tribute to the Department of Foreign Affairs for the work they have done in so many countries for people who find themselves in trouble for whatever reason, whether by way of having lost their belongings — money, passport, etc. — while on vacation or otherwise. The people who represent this country in the 100 or so countries around the world, would drive hundreds of miles to facilitate, to rescue, to assist, to repatriate and to provide accommodation, shelter and finance for an Irish citizen in trouble. I would like our appreciation of these people to be expressed from this House. We recognise the personal sacrifices that are made by our Foreign Affairs personnel.

However, to get back to the Bill, I suppose one of the big problems the Minister finds, is that when the Extradition Act, 1987, was going through the House, there were sections that did not appeal in a full sense to the party who were then in Opposition and who are now in Government. Now that the roles have changed it is difficult to have a complete change of face. The Fianna Fáil Party in Opposition were a strong, determined and fearless Opposition. The Government of the day had a fairly rough time with them. In government, I think Fianna Fáil should apply the very same tactics and should do what is right for the country, without fear or favour. I know that the Minister will not mind me saying that. Some of the difficulties with this legislation may have arisen from the difficulty the Minister has has in recharging the party's batteries to take on this issue. I know the Minister has given this a lot of thought. The Bill, certainly in the present circumstances is needed and I hope that whatever form this legislation leaves this House in early next week, it will serve the country and its people and strengthen the hands of those whom the taxpayers pay to protect life, limb and property.

This legislation should put the criminal elements in our society on notice that there is no soft hiding place for people who do not respect our laws, that people who abuse in such a terrible fashion the rights and privileges of the ordinary citizens of the State who only want to be left to get on with their everyday business will be dealt with by the law.

Debate adjourned.

In accordance with an order of the House, there is agreement to move the Adjournment at 8 o'clock. Also in accordance with the same order, the House decided to adjourn at this time and to convene again at 10.30 on Monday morning.

The Seanad adjourned at 8 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Monday, 7 December 1987.