Vol. 413 No. 5
7 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Justice if he intends amending the Extradition Act, 1987, as a matter of urgency to close any legal loopholes that fugitive terrorists can exploit to escape extradition; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
9 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Justice if the Government intend to introduce any amendments to extradition legislation in the light of judgment given in the Supreme Court on 15 November 1991, and other difficulties which have emerged recently in regard to the extradition process; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
12 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Justice if he has satisfied himself in relation to current extradition arrangements between Ireland and the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
19 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Justice when he proposes to introduce legislation to change the law on extradition; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
27 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice the reason for the delay in closing the loopholes in our extradition legislation.
I propose to take Priority Questions Nos. 7 and 9 and Questions Nos. 12, 19 and 27 together.
As has already been announced, the Government have approved the preparation of legislation which will include provision for the amendment of the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, in the light of the Supreme Court judgments of 15 November in the Magee, McKee and Sloan cases. Details of the legislation will be published in the ordinary way when it has been finalised and approved by the Government and, as the Taoiseach indicated in the House last Thursday, it will be introduced in the House as soon as possible.
Would the Minister not agree that this is not an ordinary piece of legislation, that it has wide-ranging consequences for relationships between North and South? In view of the serious loophole that exists in our extradition laws, does he not accept that to say publication of this legislation will be announced in the ordinary way is unsatisfactory? Is he not big enough to accept the fact that there is a Bill on the Order Paper in the name of the then spokesman on Justice, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, which was published by Fine Gael on 28 June 1990 which actually closes the loophole confirmed by the recent Supreme Court decision? Finally, does he accept that perception in this whole area is very important in relation to the difficulties in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that as long as people feel there is a safe haven across the Border for those who engage in terrorist activities, such as the possession of machine guns with intent to endanger life or to store explosives — even though I have to admit there is nobody in this House who accepts that that should happen——
The question is over-long.
——it is perceived that we are a safe haven on this side of the Border? Does he not agree that it is in the interests of everybody to bring in this legislation, if not this week, then next week, when I can assure him this side of the House will co-operate fully in having that legislation through in one day. There is no desire to make a political football out of this.
Brevity, please.
I accept that perception in this area is very important. The Deputy will concede that on the basis of the Supreme Court making a judgment in three cases — which were the first major test of the 1987 Act — and if having decided on a Friday in relation to it, the Government decided on Wednesday, on Thursday of last week to make the changes to close loopholes, there can be no perception of a safe haven here. The 1987 Act is in place and it would have been premature until it had been fully tested by the courts to have made any changes. Deputies should not lose sight of the fact that the 1987 Act gives full effect to the obligations we assumed when we signed the European convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and accords fully with international norms in the limitations it places on political offence exceptions for extradition purposes. Indeed, it is important to remember that Ireland is one of only eight countries to have acceded to the convention without entering a reservation. The remaining 14 parties have entered reservations which have the effect of making their legislation in this area less stringent than ours. I can assure the Deputy there will be no delay in bringing forward this legislation but it has to be carefully drafted to ensure that it complies with our Constitution.
I would remind the Deputy also that we have in place the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act and I recommend — and have publicly recommended to the UK authorities — that we make greater use of it. On the 16 occasions it has been used it has proved successful on 13 occasions. I make this point publicly on all occasions when we discuss this matter at Anglo-Irish level. Apart from the changes in the law here, it will be necessary to introduce legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament on the rule of specialty because the Deputy, like myself, would have a strong view that if a citizen of this State is to be extradited he or she should only be brought before the court on the specific charges for which they were extradiated and that no changes in those charges can take place. It is a complex area but I can assure the Deputy that within a week of the Supreme Court making its judgment on the 1987 Act, immediate action was taken by me and the Government.
While the Minister would like to give the impression of speed of action on the part of the Government, would he not accept that the judgment of the Supreme Court to which he referred could not have taken this Government by surprise and that documents which his partners in Government prepared some two years ago would have advised him fully on that aspect? Would the Minister also agree there are other glaring loopholes in the legislation that need attention?
Will the Government, in this legislation, for the first time, provide for a statutory definition of a political offence? Will the problems such as those which arose in the Ellis case, be dealt with, so that the rule of specialty will be given statutory power? Are the Government giving any regard to the proposition that in all extradition matters, in order to protect our constitutional rights, at least the prima facie case should be established in this State before a person is extradited?
The Deputy will have to await the publication of the Bill to see what is included and excluded and he will have the opportunity in a, no doubt, detailed Committee Stage to make suggestions to improve the legislation. With regard to the Government not being ready to handle a situation, depending on a decision of the Supreme Court, this legislation was only brought in in 1987. It was important to have it fully tested through the courts. It was tested and the judgment was handed down. Within one week of the judgment the Government passed proposals which are now with the parliamentary draftsmen to prepare a Bill.
The time for Priority Questions is well nigh exhausted.
I accept that the Minister was quick with his statement, but it is action we need in this case. Will the Minister agree that following the High Court decision nearly 12 months ago it would have been prudent for any Government to have legislation prepared in case the Supreme Court confirmed the High Court decision, so that we could be seen to act quickly and effectively to deal with terrorism? Will the Minister accept that if an Opposition party can produce a Private Members' Bill which clearly covers the loopholes in the question, the Government with the resources available to them should be able to produce similar legislation in a very short time?
The Deputy will be aware that it was not merely a statement that was made, but a decision taken by the Government in relation to recommendations I put to the Government. The parliamentary draftsman is working on the Bill which will be introduced in this House. I am as committed and as determined as any Member to ensure that we have the legislation as rapidly as possible so that those engaged in terrorist crimes cannot claim political extemption for them here.
My first question was an attempt, in the orderly fashion of this House, to elicit information with regard to the Minister's views on these important matters. It is hard to accept the Minister's reply that I should wait until Committee Stage when, inevitably, I will not find the Minister present as he was not present during Committee Stage of a Bill from his Department for some considerable time. What are the Minister's views on information being given outside the House? Is it intended that the role of the Attorney General will now be supplanted by the High Court in any new legislation?
The Deputy will have to wait for the legislation to be published. With regard to my attendance in the House, I find it extraordinary that the Deputy should take this attitude, having spent six months, practically every morning, asking for a solicitor's Bill to be taken, and now that it has been published for about a month, finds it inconvenient to take it every week.
I have no difficulty in taking it.
That is not what is happening, and the Deputy knows it.
It is the Government Whip.
