Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1988

Vol. 119 No. 5

Adjournment Matter. - Entry of Irish Citizens to Britain.

Mr. Mooney

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to raise on the Adjournment the need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek an explanation from the British authorities of an incident at Leeds-Bradford airport when a leading Irish cultural representative was forced to give his name in English on a landing card and the implications of this incident for other Irish citizens using British provincial airports or seaports. I also thank the Minister of State for coming to this House to deal with this matter, particularly in Holy Week.

While I have no wish to exacerbate the difficulties facing the Irish Government in their handling of current Anglo-Irish relations, I believe that the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is a legitimate and continuing concern as it has been directed almost exclusively towards Irish citizens since its introduction in 1974. The facts of this case are as follows. The leader of Ireland's premier cultural organisation entered the United Kingdom at Manchester airport where he presented the completed landing card required under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and his currently held Irish passport. He was asked to give a translation of his name in the English form and refused, whereupon the officer concerned allowed him to proceed. However, later that evening having attended a cultural function in the Leeds area he was challenged at the embarkation point at Leeds-Bradford airport by a plain clothes security officer and asked to give his name in the English form. Once again the request was refused, on the basis that the Irish form of the name is the form normally used by this citizen and the form stated on his Irish passport. Following this impasse the security officer eventually allowed him to proceed but only after keeping him standing in a queue for some time, creating inconvenience both for this person and the remainder of the intending passengers. I am sure the Minister will agree that such activities are unacceptable and that the strongest possible protest should be conveyed to the British authorities.

I fully accept the right of the British Government to enact and operate any legislation which they believe to be in the best interests of the security of their citizens. Indeed it is the duty of any State to take whatever legal steps it thinks necessary to uphold the rule of law. However, respect for the law also brings with it an obligation on the part of the law enforcers not to abuse their power by indulging in this type of pettiness and in some other notorious incidences, actions bordering on a form of racial prejudice.

Irish is the first language of the Republic of Ireland as enshrined in our Constitution. Successive Irish Governments have subscribed to the aspiration that the old Gaelic culture can be revived. Our language is to be cherished and if an Irish citizen travelling abroad wishes to use the first language that right should be respected.

I have to put on record that for the vast majority of Irish people there is easy and ready access to the United Kingdom from Irish air and sea ports and that for this majority their only awareness of the existence of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is due to the completion of a landing card at some but not all British air and sea ports. Indeed I would go further and state a widely held view even in this country that so long as the IRA continue with their campaign of murder and mayhem the existence of an Act such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act is a necessary, if irritating, fact of life.

I have no criticism of the law officers who man the United Kingdom air and sea ports as my personal experience over many years of travel between the United Kingdom and Ireland has been one of uneventful travel. Therefore I share the view of the Federation of Irish Societies, the official body representing the bulk of the Irish in Britain, that the abolition of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is an unrealisable objective in the present climate but that a more humane operation of the Act is desirable and, with the help of the Irish Government, achievable.

I applaud the recent efforts of the Irish Government through the London Embassy to gain consular access to Irish citizens detained under the Act during the crucial initial 48-hour period. I also commend the initiative taken by the British Home Office in immediately informing the Embassy of the detention of several Irish citizens recently held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Such humane initiatives are to be encouraged and I would hope that the representations to the United Kingdom Government following on the incident at Leeds-Bradford airport would lead to the British side issuing guidelines to their law enforcement officers at the point of entry. These guidelines would include some form of education, or re-education where necessary, on Irish matters so that we do not have a repeat of what happened to the Irish citizen I have mentioned or any Irish citizen travelling on legitimate business between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

It has often been noted that there is more uniting the British and Irish people than dividing them and I would hope that the new spirit of co-operation between London and Dublin initiated by this Government, a move applauded by all right-thinking people in both countries, would percolate down to the most humble official who has dealings with this country or any of its citizens.

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

I would like to thank Senator Mooney for raising this important issue and for the manner in which he presented the facts and made his case. It is clear that recent events, particularly the recent detentions of Irish citizens in London, have focussed attention here in Ireland on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Great Britain. The matter under debate here in the House is therefore timely.

The Irish Government recognise that special legislation can be necessary to deal with terrorism. We ourselves as a democratically elected Government are dedicated to protecting the democratic process against those who would wish to impose their views on others by force.

This does not mean, however, that we are not concerned about the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We have raised our concerns with the British Government on many occasions. We have pointed out that the operation of the PTA has been discriminatory and insensitive and has caused considerable resentment among ordinary law-abiding Irish people, in particular those resident in Great Britain.

The Irish Government provided specific views to the British Government prior to the renewal of the current Act. Views were also provided to Lord Colville who was appointed as an independent reviewer of the Act. The particular issues we raised with the British authorities were the following. The low rate of charging of persons detained under the PTA which raises doubt as to whether all of these people were properly detained on suspicion of terrorism. The lack of information once a detention has taken place. This causes extreme anxiety among relations. This lack of information sometimes extends to not informing the Irish Embassy in London. However, I would like to point out that this was not the case in the most recent detentions under the Act in the London area. The lack of access to legal advice in the first 48 hours of detention. The Government are concerned that this right appears to be denied almost as a matter of course in PTA-related cases though the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, and the Police Codes of Practice envisaged such a denial as exceptional. The length of detention can extend to seven days. We believe that such a detention without a specific charge being brought is much too long. The lack of private facilities for examinations at airports or ports which can cause embarrassment to those stopped and examined under the Act, which is the point alluded to by Senator Mooney. The lack of compensation for loss of earnings. The principle of exclusion orders where people are excluded from Great Britain without knowing the nature of the charges against them or having the right to challenge an order in Court. We welcome Lord Colville's recommendation that exclusion orders should be discontinued. I hope the British Government will accept that recommendation.

The other major area where we have voiced our concerns is on the question of boarding cards and the added issue of the use of Irish names in filling in these boarding and landing cards. This is the issue which relates to the motion under debate which was raised by Senator Mooney this afternoon.

As Members of the Seanad will be aware from media reports, the individual in question in this discussion is Labhrás Ó Murchú, Director General of Comhaltas Ceoltóiri Éireann. Mr. Ó Murchú wrote to the Taoiseach on 8 February of this year concerning incidents at Leeds, Bradford and Manchester airports. Mr. Ó Murchú said he was presented with a landing card on his arrival which he filled in using the Irish form of his name. Mr Ó Murchú also presented his passport showing his name in Irish. The British official on duty objected and expected Mr. Ó Murchú to use an anglicised form of his name on the landing card. He was, however, admitted to Britain after a short delay.

As a result of Mr. Ó Murchú's complaint a meeting on the matter was held at the Department of Foreign Affairs with a representative of the British Embassy on 29 February. At that meeting the British authorities were asked for an assurance that anglicised versions of Irish names would not be requested at least in situations where a traveller could show usage of a name in Irish on a passport or credit card. The British Embassy were further requested that steps be taken to ensure that the relevent officials at points of arrival and departure be made aware of the position.

The British Embassy replied on 7 March and gave an assurance that where a traveller's name is in Irish on his or her passport then he or she is not obliged to provide an anglicised version of his or her name. The British Embassy further pointed out that the onus is on the traveller to prove evidence of nationality and identity and that any traveller to and from Britain may be required to complete a landing or embarkation card. The Embassy also said that this did not apply to Ireland only. However, as Senator Mooney rightly pointed out, the general consensus is that it is applied almost exclusively to Irish people.

I welcome the assurance given on the issue of Irish names. If there is any evidence in the future that the assurance from the British Government is not put into operation at British airports or ports, the Government will raise the issue again. I hope that the advantages enjoyed by the citizens of both countries under the common travel arrangements will continue.

Mr. Mooney

I should like to thank the Minister and, through him, the Irish Government for their alacrity on moving on this specific issue and for having received specific assurances from the British side in relation to Irish citizens in this context. I welcome the assurances given by the Minister that incidents of this nature will continue to be closely monitored. I should like the Minister to convey my thanks and appreciation to the Government.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.40 p.m. sine die.