Items Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together. The Leader of the House to move Item No. 2.
Extradition Act, 1965 (Part II) Draft Orders: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the draft Order applying Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965 to Australia, entitled Extradition Act, 1965 (Part II) (No. 24) Order, 1988.
The three motions before the House today concern extradition. Their common purpose is to facilitate extradition under Part II of the Extradition Act 1965, and so enable Ireland to act in accordance with its international obligations. Consequently, I propose to deal with the motions together. However I will, of course, address each draft order and the relevant international instrument in turn.
I wish to turn first to deal with the European Convention on Extradition. Extradition in Ireland is governed by the Extradition Act, 1965. This Act is divided into a number of Parts. The purpose of the draft order is to apply Part II of the Act to the other contracting parties.
Part II of the Act governs extradition to those countries which are parties to the convention under consideration. That is to say that Part II concerns extradition to all places other than Northern Ireland, England and Wales, Scotland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands which, as Senators will be aware, come within Part III of the 1965 Act and do not concern us here today.
The European Convention on Extradition was concluded in Paris in 1957 having been drawn up under the auspices of the Council of Europe. Al of the 21 member states of the Council of Europe are entitled to become parties to this multilateral convention. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may also invite any other State to become a party.
Ireland signed and ratified the convention on 2 May 1966 and it entered into force on 31 July 1966. To date 16 other member states of the Council of Europe and two non-members, Finland and Israel, have become parties to the convention. Britain is not a party to the convention. The only other European Community member States not parties to the Convention are Portugal and Belgium. I understand that Portugal is well advanced in its procedures in preparation for ratification.
In order to give effect to Ireland's ratification and consequent obligations under the convention, the Government made a number of orders under section 8 (1) of the Extradition Act, 1965, applying Part II of that Act to the other countries parties to the Convention, thus enabling extradition to take place between Ireland and those countries.
Since that ratification the Government have honoured their obligations under the convention. Requests for fugitive offenders received here were duly processed in accordance with the procedures and safeguards provided for in the convention and the 1965 Extradition Act. Those requests by Ireland also followed the procedures laid down in the convention.
However, a recent legal development casts doubts on Ireland's 1966 ratification and the consequent implementing orders. Based on the possibility that the orders could be defective and to allow the State to fulfil its international obligations, it was necessary to take appropriate measures to rectify the matter.
The background to this difficulty lies in a decision of the Supreme Court in the Gilliland case. The Court held in that case that the particular treaty, the subject of the litigation, imposed a charge on public funds within the meaning of Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution and consequently its terms ought to have been approved by Dáil Eireann. This decision had the effect of clarifying the interpretation to be given to Article 29.5.2.
As the European Convention on Extradition was not regarded prior to that decision as imposing a charge on public funds within the ambit of Article 29.5.2, at the time of ratification in 1966, no motion of approval was passed by Dáil Eireann at that stage. The Attorney General has since advised that a charge on public funds within the meaning of Article 29 would also arise in every case of the State being requested under the European Convention on Extradition to extradite the person sought.
In order to rectify this situation and to allow Ireland to comply with the international obligations it has already covenanted to undertake by its earlier ratification four steps were required. It was necessary first to get the approval of Dáil Eireann to the terms of the convention. Dáil Eireann approved the convention on 29 July 1988. Secondly, it was necessary to deposit a new instrument of ratification. This was done on 12 July 1988.
Thirdly, it is now necessary to have a new order made applying Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to the contracting parties to the convention. Section 4 of the Extradition Act, 1965, as amended by section 7 of the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, requires the Government to seek the approval of both the Dáil and Seanad to the draft order. Dáil Eireann approved the draft order on 7 December 1988. This House is now being asked similarly to give its approval to the text. The final step will be the making of an order by the Government once each House has passed the required motions. The draft order before the House today revokes the existing orders and re-applies Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to the contracting parties. The draft order is, therefore, really of a technical nature, merely rectifying a legal difficulty.
However, I would also like to take this opportunity to refer to the convention itself. Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, is based very closely on this convention. Indeed, the side-notes in the Act refer to specific provisions of the convention. Consequently, one could say that the terms of the convention have already been very closely examined by both Houses of the Oireachtas, albeit indirectly.
The objective of the convention is to increase co-operation between the contracting parites in the fight against crime, by facilitating the contracting parties efforts to bring alleged criminals to justice. The convention sets down the circumstances in which extradition may take place between the contracting parties including the procedures and safeguards which must be followed before a requested State hands over any person sought to the requesting State.
I do not propose here to go through the various articles in the convention, which are reflected in the Extradition Act. I would stress that this is a well-balanced instrument in that it affords States the opportunity to pursue fugitives from justice while providing considerable safeguards for the individual.
I think it is important to stress that extradition is not just a process which involves two States. The rights of the individual sought must also be protected. This is one of the principles on which the European Convention on Extradition is based and is also to be found in Part II of the 1965 Act which refers specifically to the convention in the side-notes.
I wish to turn briefly to the convention itself. First, there are three discernable categories among the provisions of the Convention: Those that place duties on the requesting State; those that place duties on the requested State; other provisions which are solely for the protection of the individual sought. Article 1 of the convention lays down a general extradition obligation on the contracting parties. The obligation is subject to the provision and conditions in the convention itself. In other words, no extradition may take place until the terms of the Convention have been fulfilled.
I would like, therefore, to reiterate to the House the purpose of the motion before it today. It is part of a number of measures necessary to remedy a possible legal defect in Ireland's previous ratification in 1966. It merely revokes the existing orders and re-applies Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to the other contracting parties. In essence, therefore, the draft order before the House repeats the previous orders and will enable Ireland to comply with and fulfil those international legal obligations it undertook on ratification. I commend the draft Order to the House.
The second draft order which is before the House today concerns the Treaty on Extradition between Ireland and Australia. This draft order will apply Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to Australia so as to enable extradition to take place between Ireland and Australia in accordance with the terms of the Treaty and the 1965 Act.
The treaty was signed in Dublin on 2 September 1985 and will come into force once each party has notified the other that they have completed all their necessary domestic requirements. The object of the treaty is to facilitate and make more effective co-operation between Ireland and Australia in the suppression of crime. It sets down, in a clear and precise manner, the procedures which must be followed, the documents to be supplied and various other matters which must be taken into account. In other words, the treaty provides a comprehensive set of provisions which lay down the circumstances in which extradition can take place as well as the internationally accepted safeguards for the protection of the individual.
The treaty represents the commitment of both Governments to continue in their fight against crime. As I am sure the House will agree, both Governments wish to ensure that their territories are not used as a safe haven within which criminals may evade justice. This treaty provides such a procedure while also seeking to protect the rights of the individual sought. The terms of the treaty were negotiated in accordance with the internationally accepted rules between civilised nations which are also embodied in the 1965 Extradition Act. I commend the draft order to the House.
I now propose to deal with the motion relating to the Hague and Montreal Hijacking Conventions. Ireland acceded to the Hague Convention on 24 November 1975 and to the Montreal Convention on 12 October 1976. To date there are 137 other States also parties to both conventions.
These conventions were both concluded after lengthy international conferences on air law which were held at the beginning of the seventies in an attempt to deal with the growing terrorist threat to the safety of aviation. The occurrence of such terrorist acts leading to potential or actual loss of life was seen as a threat to the safety of civil aviation causing great concern throughout the world at that time. The object of the conferences and these conventions was to provide an international regime to deal with such unlawful acts no matter where they occur, and particularly to provide appropriate international measures for the punishment of offenders. These conventions are still of great relevance today in the protection of civil aviation.
The 1973 and 1975 Air Navigation and Transport Acts give effect to these conventions in Irish law. The offences created in these conventions are, therefore, extraditable offences under Irish law. The international legal regime created by these conventions is, therefore, incorporated into Irish domestic law. These conventions may, therefore, be used as extradition treaties for the purposes of such offences if no other extradition treaty exists between the parties.
In other words, since no other extradition treaty exists between Ireland and the vast majority of the other parties to these conventions, the conventions themselves function as extradition treaties in this regard. Ireland must be in a position to comply with the international extradition obligations which they impose. Consequently, it is necessary to apply Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to those States, parties to the Hague and Montreal Hijacking Conventions, with whom we have no other extradition treaties.
The draft, in effect, consolidates into one order both conventions and all the existing parties to them. In view of the importance of these conventions and to enable Ireland to comply fully with its obligations, I commend this draft order to the House.
I shall be very brief on this matter. I believe that it is rather unusual on motions like this, which are somewhat technical, to have what would almost amount to a Second Stage ministerial speech. However, if it is unusual I certainly welcome it and I thank the Minister for the very full information he has put before us on this matter today. I hope that in future on matters which appear to be largely technical and formal we will get the information to the same extent as the Minister has given us today.
I have no problems whatsoever with any of the motions before the House. They are matters to which we can give our full support. I would like, however, to take the opportunity to mention very briefly one or two aspects of the subject of extradition which has so completely dominated the news headlines in the past week. The Minister, not once but on a number of occasions, referred to the fact that, while 16 Member States of the Council of Europe have ratified the Convention on Extradition, Britain is not amongst these States. Given the reaction of so many people who should have known better in Britain in the past week to our legal difficulties and problems in this regard, I wonder to a certain extent if Britain is not the State which is more out of step than the other countries.
I hope that in the light of some of the points which were mentioned here last week, and mentioned by the Minister for Justice after his meeting in Athens, we are on the way to seeing some sort of uniform procedures right across Europe on the question of extradition because no country in Europe, no single Government has any reason to be ambiguous or equivocal on the question of terrorism, be it national or international. All countries have a strong vested interest in seeing that those who would subvert the State and, in the process of subverting the State, bring about carnage, death and destruction on a great scale, are brought to book fully for their offences. I urge the Government to pursue that international objective with the greatest resolution and speed.
I believe that it is in all our interests that the whole question of extradition should be depoliticised. There is no place in politics for a question like that. It is a question of law. It is a question of ensuring that there are arrangements between countries which are clear and certain in their operation and of ensuring that extradition is operated within the law and within the safeguarding of the constitutional rights of the individual and also of ensuring that extradition does not become a tool which can be used by less than scrupulous Governments against people to whom they are politically opposed. On the other hand, it must be ensured that extradition does not allow people against whom there is a case to answer to escape from answering that case preferably, if possible, in the country in which the alleged crime was committed.
I believe that if there was the system of extradition that we require — a certain, sure system of extradition — that in itself would not greatly diminish the amount of terrorism. It is very easy for people to see extradition as a be-all and an end in itself and as an answer to the problem of terrorism. Frequently, when police forces and Governments are under pressure to produce results, it is easy to have recourse to the cry for extradition and to claim that there are people wandering safely in some other country who should be brought to book. Getting the evidence which will convict these people is often a much more difficult task. I mentioned this point last week in particular with reference to some of the charges made against this country. It is too easy to make this claim in mitigation of, perhaps, less than effective policing.
Finally, in a week in which extradition has dominated the headlines, it is important that the overall situation should be defused. It would be most regrettable in the national interest if the row over extradition were in any way to hamper the work of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, or if the question of extradition were to become a major stumbling block between our two countries. Clearly, from opinion polls taken this week, the Anglo-Irish Agreement commands the confidence and the support of a very large number of people in this country, people who may not be altogether hopeful that it will result in peace, stability and harmony in this country in the short-term.
Many people believe that it is a somewhat fragile process. Nonetheless, it is seen as providing the only framework within which the two countries and the two parts of this island, and possibly the two communities in Northern Ireland, can begin to talk to each other and get us back to a situation somewhat approaching normality in politics. For that reason I hope that the question of extradition will be dealt with fairly and squarely at the ministerial conference today and that our two countries will be able to put it to one side and see if they can find some way of making the process work so that every occasion does not become a cause célèbre and provide an opportunity for those whose only interest is in the destabilising of this State and the overthrow of the State in Northern Ireland.
For that reason also, I hope the British Government will accept the advice of our Taoiseach, the advice that they should use the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1976, to prosecute the case which is in the headlines at present. Clearly, from what the Attorney General said yesterday there is a case to answer. Clearly the Irish authorities will give full co-operation if that case is pressed by the British Government and clearly also, it would be highly undesirable if this dubious person who is being sought were to be elevated to some sort of hero status. Many people who should know better are glorying in the notoriety of this person at present. It is in the interest of all parts of this country——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair would prefer if specific cases were not dwelt on. A passing reference is all right but one country that is not included in the ambit of these three motions is the UK.
I shall conclude by reiterating my passing reference which you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, say is in order, to the case of the past week and simply hope that the British Government will follow the advice of the Taoiseach and that it will be seen that there is confidence and that there can be confidence between our countries in the operation of this mechanism of justice. I again thank the Minister for his very full statement to the House and I welcome the motion.
I shall not delay the House very long but I believe that we should refer to the fact that these orders do strengthen the Government's hand in the fight against international crime. Whereas the first motion is of a purely technical nature, to bring back what the Government had already signed into a formal legality, there is in these motions a strengthening of the Government's hand. Suggestions have been made that this Government are soft on terrorism but there is absolutely no doubt that we have fought internationally at all stages against international terrorism and that we have ratified the conventions that were necessary to be ratified to bring us into line with most of the other countries in the world. Again, it must be stressed, as Senator Manning said, that Britain has not signed the particular orders mentioned.
It is ironic that we should be here today, 200 years after the formation of the State of Australia, bringing in extradition orders. I presume that there was a time when quite a number of people were "extradited" without having the conventions applied to them and 200 years later here we are signing a convention which would allow for extradition to that country in a legal manner. It is necessary that the conventions of The Hague and Montreal on the unlawful seizure of aircraft should be ratified by this country since there are a number of countries with which we do not have, up to now, extradition treaties.
There is no doubt that we have seen over the past number of years a number of hijackings of civil aircraft which have caused great distress throughout the world. It is appropriate that we in this country should reflect international opinion in this area. It is an area in which there has been a lessening of that type of seizure. Nevertheless at all times we must be on our guard and we must be able, if need be, to extradite people who may come to this State and who have been involved in acts against civil aviation.
As I have said, the orders are welcome. They show the willingness of the Government to fight international crime. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Government, under the Taoiseach, will continue this fight and will bring appropriate legislation or appropriate orders before this House and the other House at all times when necessary.
I echo the sentiments expressed by the other speakers. Without at all dwelling on a matter which is not directly relevant to what is before us, nonetheless, it has to be said that the fact that our Government have not found it possible to grant extradition in this particular controversial case at the moment does not mean that they are soft on terrorism. Indeed, it is insupportable that such accusations should be made in view of our painful experience over the whole history of the State with terrorism. It is also important to encourage the responsible authorities here that in order to establish that they are not soft on terrorism, in order to establish that when there are difficulties in working extradition in a particular case, they should not hesitate where serious charges exist — to use the Attorney General's phrase — to use their own initiative to implement as far as possible the course of justice under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act. I hope that will be done without fear or favour and without being intimidated by threats of martyrdom. We have had enough of that nonsense in modern Irish history.
It is unfortunate that the very term "extradition", the very concept of extradition should now be somewhat suspect in the public mind as a result of recent events and as a result, I may say, of the very dubious activities of so-called anti-extradition groups. There is no doubt that antagonism to extradition in itself is encouraged by those who have vested interests in thwarting the course of justice. Unfortunately, as Senator Manning has said, this agitation is also sometimes supported by public representatives who should know better. Therefore, in the context of these motions it is important to stress that extradition, far from being suspect, has long been a desirable procedure for dealing with fugitives from justice in the international sphere — with appropriate safeguards, of course. It is an international procedure which we all depend upon for survival in this terrorism-charged atmosphere of the late 20th century.
Some kind of international or at least European tribunal may be the forum of the future for dealing with fugitives of this kind. That suggestion has been made inside these Houses and by distinguished jurists in recent weeks as a solution to the problems attending extradition in these islands. However that may be, the important principle that these motions remind us all of is that fulfilling our extradition obligations is really a test of our credentials for responsible and mature membership of the family of nations.
I should like to speak briefly on these motions and to support the Government. I must express great satisfaction that at last we have got around to ratifying these conventions. I believe that it is very important — I share the views expressed by my colleagues — that we should have an international treaty and a uniform policy and system for dealing especially with terrorism.
Motion No.4 deals with Acts against the safety of civil aviation. When it became universally popular in the early seventies to hijack planes, were it not for the fact that the international community moved very fast to get a common agreement, an understanding on that, it would indeed have been very popular for various terrorist organisations to continue dominating the headlines of the international papers with horrendous hijackings. Of course, as we all know, hijacking causes tremendous psychological and physical upset, pressure and hardship on the innocent victims. It is important that countries throughout the world should take a very firm stand to defeat that kind of activity.
The order before the House has played a very significant role in diminishing greatly the number of hijackings these days, mainly because the people who engage in these crimes do not get away with their acts of terrorism. Even in the very last instance of the one from the Soviet Union to Israel, from the point of view of the hijackers it was not a success since they were sent back right away. That is the way it should be. I welcome the statement by the Belgian Prime Minister, M. Martens when he recently called for uniform procedures across the Community of the Twelve to deal with extradition. If by 1992 we are to have a united Europe or a more united Europe where we will not have barriers or frontiers as we now know them, it is important that each of the 12 countries should have an understanding, an agreement, and very definite legal procedures laid down to combat acts of terrorism or lawlessness and to militate against groups who would wish to hold one of these countries to ransom.
It is important that, as we grow closer in Europe, we should work together in the common interest to defeat the people who are not prepared to live by the normal rules of law. The only way we can do that is, in times of relative peace and harmony, to work together to legislate in this fashion, to agree on conventions and procedures which will be followed automatically through the courts and which will take this vexed question completely out of the political arena. It is extremely important that these things should set in train almost automatic procedures so that justice will not only be seen to be done but will be done right across the 12 states of Europe.
I find it difficult to understand why it takes so very long, a lapse of almost ten years, for this country to formally ratify these conventions. We still have quite a number of conventions which we were talking about many years ago but which have not yet been officially ratified by this country. We need to have that kind of protection. We need to give the other States, whether in Europe or across the world in the United Nations, the assurance and guarantee that we will stand by the undertakings our Government give on behalf of the people of Ireland in these international conventions. That is very important. We have nothing to lose one way or the other; nevertheless we are in a position to give a very definite lead. When the difficult cases come up we will have to deal with them resolutely and honestly and endeavour to stand by the aspirations we all have for peace and harmony and, indeed, goodwill.
The Hague Convention has been ratified by practically all of the countries in the United Nations. It is very appropriate that the name of Ireland should be added to that very long list both in Part I and Part II of the Schedule. That is important and it gives an indication of our determination to stand by the obligations or decisions taken by the contracting parties at The Hague. I would hope that as a result we would have some peace of mind in that the ordinary life in the country would not have to be upset or the temperature raised every time these situations arise.
I would like to compliment the Minister of State on the very full explanation he has given to the House this evening. It makes it very easy for Members when we are attempting to assess the merits of the cases before the House. It is a little unfortunate that these three motions came before the House this week. Had they come a month ago it would have been much easier to speak on them fully and perhaps to have had a wider ranging debate, which is the norm for the Seanad.
Motion No.2, dealing with extradition and extending the 1965 Act to Australia, represents indeed an extraordinary quirk of fate and history. I had the honour to represent this House at the inaugural meeting in the Australian new parliament buildings some weeks ago. Australia has been looked upon in our history books as one of the new frontiers. Those of us there had a very heavy schedule. We had an opportunity to look at the archives of Australian history over the past 200 years and in regard to a lot of their foundation stock "extradition" was hardly the "in" word at the time. However, it is an ironic twist of fate to find ourselves in this year agreeing to and signing that Extradition Act with that country.
I wish the Australian federation every success. Australia is a vast country. In this phase of our development in Europe we have a very big population. Nevertheless the new federation of Australia is a very open society able to maintain a very high standard of civilisation and order. Perhaps it might not go amiss if we were to look closely at their legal situation, which has drawn much on the experience of Europe.
May I again compliment the Minister on expediting the enactment of these conventions? I hope they will ensure that there will be additional peace and harmony in this country as a result.
First of all, may I thank very sincerely all the Senators who contributed to the debate here today? I reiterate that the draft orders before the House are of a technical nature and their purpose is to allow Ireland to comply fully with its international obligations on extradition under a number of international conventions.
As Senator Manning, Lanigan and Murphy quite rightly emphasised, extradition is one of the methods essential to the international community in its fight against crime and in particular the bringing of fugitives to justice. Its object is to ensure that states have an international legal framework within which they may tackle crime, particularly international crime such as drug trafficking. Domestically all states need the machinery to be able to undertake such an international role and the draft orders before the House, when enacted, will enable Ireland to act in accordance with its international obligations in relation to extradition.
Senator Manning mentioned that I had said that Britain is not a party to the European Convention on Extradition. However, Senators will have seen newspaper reports of Secretary of State Hurd's statement that Britain hopes to become a party to the convention in the future. Senator Manning also raised the question of safeguards for the individual. Could I say that the convention contains provisions which are solely there for the protection of the individual sought? Senator McDonald also spoke about protecting the rights of the individual. I can reassure him that these draft documents do that. The case which Senator Murphy raised and, indeed, which is probably at the back of most Senator's minds is not at issue here today. That concerns Part III of the 1965 Act and extradition to Britain. As I said earlier, we are dealing with Part II of the Act. The Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil yesterday on that issue explained the decision fully.
Senator McDonald spoke about the reason it took so long. It did not take long. It was just that 11 orders will be revoked under the draft order relating to the European Convention on Extradition. These will be replaced by the present draft order which will apply Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to all the parties to the convention. Consequently, this draft order is more of a technical nature since it reapplies Part II of the Extradition Act to the parties to the convention in order to rectify a possible legal difficulty. The draft order relating to The Hague and Montreal hi-jacking conventions revokes and replaces six previous orders. It also applies Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965, to 46 States who recently became parties to the convention. That is why the draft order is before us and it is not just being introduced now. The draft order relating to Australia revokes only one order in full, that is, the order which gave effect to reciprocal bilateral arrangements on extradition between Ireland and Australia which the treaty will replace.
The draft orders concern four international instruments each with its own specific purpose. The European Convention on Extradition provides a comprehensive but simplified framework for extradition between 19 European nations. Ireland's ratification in 1966 may possibly be defective and a new order is necessary to clarify that position. The treaty on extradition between Ireland and Australia was signed in Dublin on 2 September 1985 and, as Senators Lanigan and McDonald remarked, it is indeed an extraordinary quirk of fate that 200 years afterwards we are signing an extradition treaty with Australia when so many of our people had no option but to be deported there. The draft order relating to it will give the treaty effect in Irish domestic law, allowing Ireland to proceed to ratification of the treaty. I think it is further evidence of the common opposition to criminal activity.
Senators Lanigan and McDonald raised the question of the Montreal and Hague hi-jacking conventions. Yes, they are a very necessary and successful international response to the need to protect civil aviation. To date 137 countries are party to these conventions, a fact which underlies their importance. The three draft orders before the House will enable Ireland to comply with its international obligations under these important instruments. I recommend the draft orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the draft Order applying Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965 to the Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Extradition.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the draft Order applying Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965 to the Contracting Parties to the convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and to the convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.
Question put and agreed to.