Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1982

Vol. 98 No. 8

Extradition Proceedings: Motion.

Mr. Ross

I move:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the recent position of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in relation to extradition and urges the Government to reconsider extradition proceedings as the most effective means of combating cross-border crimes.

I am very pleased to be able to move this motion in the House this evening. I welcome the Minister. I am sorry the Minister for Justice could not be here. I hope that the Minister will not — by the end of this debate — believe that it is right to extradite people for political speeches rather than for political offences.

Extradition is an unknown word in the Irish political vocabulary. Up to about 15 years ago criticism of the Churches or criticism of the men of 1916, criticism of that whole realm in Irish mythology was almost unheard of. It was heresy, there was a long litany of gods and godesses to whom one had to genuflect; there was a long litany of taboos. One of the things that I resent about the Irish political scene is that for a long time it has been wrong to diverge from this mythology, to attack or to criticise this mythology. I believe that extradition is one of the last taboos in this mythology because even now it is so little talked about. I do not believe there has been a parliamentary debate on extradition in the Oireachtas since the foundation of the State. The ambivalence continues when one raises the subject at any stage in Irish political life. There is this tacit feeling which politicians of all parties seem to have that they baulk at the idea of lifting the lads and sending them over the Border. The lads, I would remind this House, are normally and usually murderers. Party leaders I think — for reasons which I understand — feel that it is unpatriotic and anti-Irish to take on these people; there is a silent, underhand connivance with the men of violence which still exists. Luckily, we have open condemnations of violence from all parties. But I believe there is still this underhand feeling that this one can still not be tackled.

At this stage I might say a word on the Fine Gael amendment, and I think this proves my point. The Fine Gael amendment, unfortunately, is a very open and obvious attempt to duck the issue of extradition. I respect and do not agree with the Government's view on extradition. But I would have thought that Fine Gael, who have made so much of the Constitutional crusade, who have made so much of putting their hands over to the Unionists in a gesture of friendship, might have been able to tackle this issue of extradition and not to avoid it by putting down an amendment which they know very well the Government will have to support, because it is Government policy, but which will in fact allow them to avoid taking a stand on extradition itself.

One of the things I would like to hear in this debate is not so much the Government's view on extradition — I know what that is — I would like the Members of the Opposition here to tell us exactly where they stand on this and not to avoid it by talking about an all-Ireland court. I would like the House to imagine what the situation would be in the Republic of Ireland if the extradition issue was reversed. Let us suppose that the UDA, the UVF, or any other Loyalist paramilitary organisation — for their own sinister aims — decided to do the opposite thing. Say they decided that members of the Garda, members of the Army, even civilian targets in Sligo, Louth, Leitrim, Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan — decided that these targets were legitimate, that they could come over the Border, murder these targets and then go back to the hills of Antrim and to Belfast. What would be our Government's reaction to that? I suggest to the House that they would ask Britain, an openly friendly power, to hand over these men to them to face justice. What would public reaction be here if the British Government said: "We are very sorry, we shed very open tears for the wives and families of these men, it is a terrible sin" and they condemned the murders in the strongest possible terms. But if they also said: "But we have a Constitution, unfortunately, which does not allow, according to international law, people to be extradited for political crimes and so these men who have murdered members of your security forces must, as a result, be allowed to go free in the streets of Belfast and be allowed to be given the opportunity to murder again."

The problem of extradition was first recognised only at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement. Before that it was regarded as a minor irritation but not as a major problem. It took a bargain for an Irish Government in 1973 to recognise that there was a real bolt-hole in the Republic into which criminals could actually flee. The Criminal Law (Jurisdication) Act was then introduced — I would remind the House not until three years later, it took three years for the Commission that was set up actually to come to a conclusion and to make a recommendation. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act was recommended as some sort of a panacea for the problem of cross-Border crimes. It was an ingenious Act in its inception. It was theoretically extremely clever and was a very neat operation. But the difficulties with the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act were foreseen by those eight judges, unanimously, both Irish and English, at the time of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act and at the time when they actually set it up. They said that this was the compromise because the Irish judges did not agree with extradition. They said that the difficulties with this Act would be the difficulties of getting civilians to cross the Border and to give evidence.

These difficulties have been transparently open and obvious in the workings of the Act ever since. Up to 1980 I think there were four prosecutions under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. Nobody in this House can suggest to me that there were not hundreds of cross-Border crimes in that time. The present cases which no doubt will be quoted to us, the high profile cases and the prosecutions which have been brought recently, should not mislead us into believing that this Act is working; it is not. Several of the present cases have been to do with members of the IRA escaping from legal custody in Northern Ireland and these men have rightly been brought to book. But the reasons it is easy to bring them to book is because it depended on RUC evidence and the RUC and the Garda are prepared to cross the Border to give evidence. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that civilians will do so. As a result of this a tiny fraction only of those who are guilty of cross-Border crimes are still being prosecuted and have been prosecuted. One had only to see the recent "Panorama" film on BBC television which showed and interviewed people who admitted that they were guilty of cross-Border crimes and murders and were walking free in the streets of Dublin. The names of these people are known to the RUC, to the Garda and they are certainly known in London. But because successive Governments have conveniently hidden behind the guise of international law and behind the guise of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act there are men here enjoying immunity. The Gardaí feel impatient. The Garda see these men, know these men and know that they are walking free having committed the most appalling crimes.

In March of this year this edifice began to crack. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors put forward and passed a motion seeking an urgent review of the constitutional and legislative conditions governing extradition. This was a direct result of Garda morale and Garda frustration with the fact that they could not arrest and bring to book people who had committed crimes for which they were suspected and which they were convinced they would be sentenced for and convicted of in a court of law.

I find it strange, and I will say no more, that this Government — who showed such uncharacteristic sympathy and sensitivity for the case of the Garda on the issue of capital punishment while they were in Opposition — can now ignore and ride totally roughshod over the wishes of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors over extradition.

I would like to come to the legal arguments very briefly. The legal arguments no doubt will be and are put forward as an insuperable objection to extradition. I regard them more as a smoke-screen. I do not want to get bogged down in them simply because there are very distinguished authorities on either side on this issue. But the opponents of extradition say that extradition is contrary to international law and therefore it is unconstitutional. I should like to quote briefly here Chief Justice Maguire in the Supreme Court, the State (Duggan) versus Tapley. I will give one judgment on our side of the House to try to justify this position in legal terms. I do not want to give a large number because there are hundreds and there are hundreds on the other side. But Chief Justice Maguire held — in the Supreme Court in the State versus Tapley in 1952 — that there was no principle of international law compelling a State to withhold surrender of a fugitive offender, and I quote here:

...international law permits and favours the refusal of extradition of persons accused or convicted of offences of political character but allows it to each State to exercise its own judgement as to whether it will grant or refuse extradition in such cases and also as to the limitations which it will impose upon such provisions as exempt from extradition.

Nothing could be clearer than that. What that says is that you can define when you regard them as political fugitives and when you regard them as actually suitable for extradition and not suitable for extradition.

I accept the genuine arguments which will be put, undoubtedly, on the other side about this. I believe that the legal arguments are something of a stalemate and the legal position is, if not untested, unresolved. I think we should all accept that. But what I would suggest is, if the legal arguments are the only ones, or if they are the principal ones about which we are going to disagree, then let us draft a Bill on extradition. Let us draft a Bill, let it be an Extradition Treaty which would have to go through the Oireachtas. Let us then have it tested, no doubt, in the Supreme Court where it would have to be tested. It is the function of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

There are an enormous number of armchair lawyers who say that things like this will be interpreted as unconstitutional and cannot be introduced because they are unconstitutional. That is not our job and it is not our job to usurp it. It is our job to make the law and then it can be referred to the Supreme Court if it is necessary. This I regard as a red herring. I regard this as a terribly convenient camouflage for those who for other reasons do not like extradition. At that stage if the judges find against the Bill, which I do not believe they would, but if they do, it is still open to the Government, any Government of the time, to take other action. This Government certainly do not seem reluctant to hold referenda on less relevant and less necessary things. If no Bill is drafted within a short period of time — which I suspect it will not — I will have great pleasure in introducing one in this House if I can get the necessary signatures.

Having dealt with the military and legal aspects I should like to come now to the rather more important political effects which extradition would have. I am privileged to be one of the six people in this House who actually has constituents who cross the political and religious divide in Northern Ireland, most of them, nearly all of them of moderate opinion on all sides. I believe that the moderates of all communities find extradition the great running sore. It is difficult to explain how strongly they feel about it. There is no point in trying to appease the Paisleys or the extreme Protestants; giving extradition would in fact be an inconvenience to them because extradition is as useful to Ian Paisley as was internment to the Provisional IRA. It is a propaganda weapon which he uses and it will not convince him of anything if we do it. Take, for example, the Alliance Party, a party which crosses the political divide and has a large proportion of all religions in it. They say, quite openly, and have done for many years, that there can be no co-operation, no good neighbourliness with the Republic, unless we introduce extradition. They are the sort of people to whom the crusade introduced by Dr. FitzGerald was really trying to hold out the hand of friendship. I find it regrettable again — and I cannot emphasise it any more — that the Fianna Fáil Party will not take a stand or are trying to avoid taking a stand on extradition today. I can tell them without any doubt that ducking this running sore is not going to convince anybody in Northern Ireland. If we are serious about unity of the country, if we are really serious about it, which is often doubtful, this is the sine qua non because they see us as possibly conniving with the Government. They see us as possibly turning the blind eye on both sides of this House. The onus is on us not only to condemn the Provisional IRA but to counter them.

I would like to remind this House — and I think it is time that the House was reminded — that the Provisional IRA very cleverly have achieved one thing — abroad they give the impression that they act in our name, they claim to act in our name and they have succeeded outside this island in a great confusion of identity. In the United States this is particularly obvious, in Britain it is obvious, in Europe it is obvious — that there is confusion of identity between the Provisional IRA and the Irish people. The other thing which they have done which is so destructive is that they have discredited, successfully, unfortunately, the true tolerant pluralist republican tradition of which we should all be partakers. That is something which they have successfully achieved. They have blurred the republican tradition which was an extremely tolerant noble republican one in this country. I think there is nothing anti-republican or anti-Irish about extradition. Indeed I would see, if we united with the people of Northern Ireland in extraditing, that that would be a justifiable republican stance.

I should like to say a few words about Border security. It is probably appropriate here to congratulate successive Governments for the last ten years on Border security. There is no doubt that it has improved enormously. Whether it is done out of any noble motives or whether it is done because successive Governments have seen that the threat from the Provisional IRA is as great to the Southern State as it is to the Northern State, I do not want to comment on, but I think there is probably an element of both in it. I would have thought that one of the impetuses towards unity, the common interests which we could hold, is that if we identify and fight a common enemy we are much more likely to be a united people. In this context I think I should make a comment on what Dr. Garret FitzGerald said in his Dimbleby Lecture and afterwards at the SDLP Conference in Belfast, both of which I attended, in which he suggested an all-Ireland police force and an all-Ireland court. As regards an all-Ireland court — which I gather we will be talking about later — I personally feel that this is a non-starter, it is very long-term, it is impractical and has been dismissed unanimously by the Commission of Judges set up: in one page out of a book of 70 pages it was dismissed unanimously as impractical in immediate circumstances. I believe that this is the case. I believe it is a procrastinating case and I believe that it will put off the day. How many more murders are going to happen? How many more men are going to go apprehended while we fiddle around waiting for civil servants and judges of all sides to come up with an all-Ireland court? We would need to change the Constitution of the country for that.

Professor Dooge

No.

Mr. Ross

Well, the judges were of the opinion that we did. I shall go on to talk now about an all-Ireland police force. The recent deterioration in Anglo-Irish relations, as a result of the Falklands crisis, has not in fact, luckily, disturbed in any way the relationship between the RUC and the Garda. I do not want to say anything which is politically embarrassing to the other side but this is at a high point and a greater point of co-operation than at any stage since the foundation of the State. On this we should build. On this we should think seriously about an all-Ireland police force as a force towards unity. If I may anticipate one of the more emotive points which will be made from the other side, I would like to anticpate the point, which I gather will be made, about the fear of the treatment that men will get in custody if they are handed over to the RUC, to the British Army or to the courts in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we, in the Republic, should be casting the first stone on this. Violence, of course, from all sides, whether it is from the Army or from the IRA, should be condemned. But I do not think that the sins of the authorities in the past should justify the protection of murderers in the future.

Because I have been advocating extradition for several years I have been very interested and I have been attacked about this problem. I have made investigations about it. I am totally convinced that at present there is no organised brutality, there is no institutionalised brutality, ill treatment or torture going on in Northern Ireland. Ever since the Bennett Report and the appointment of Mr. Jack Herman as Chief Constable there have been few allegations even made in this regard, let alone any evidence of it. Let us remember that the Government here, and successive Governments here, have quite rightly seen themselves as the protectors of those men in custody and, quite rightly, took Britain to the European Court in 1975 and, quite rightly got a result there. The silence of recent Governments about what is going on with men in custody in Northern Ireland indicates surely that that is no longer the truth.

I would like to say something also about the Diplock Courts. I know that there are many who fear the handing over of men from here to the Diplock Courts. I believe, with many people in this House, that the Diplock Courts are wrong. But remember that we operate in this country the Special Criminal Court which is an extremely effective but very undemocratic means of putting away terrorists. I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Minister if he would consider some time in the near future, and as soon as possible, abolishing the Special Criminal Court. I believe that the Diplock Courts are wrong and that the Special Criminal Court is wrong. Unfortunately, the price which we have to pay in a democracy is that our courts system is seen to be democratic, unfortunately, because occasionally — for the protection of the innocent — some guilty must go free. It is a heavy price but I believe it is worth paying. For instance, if the Diplock Courts were abolished in Northern Ireland would the Minister then consider extradition a more palatable solution?

In summary, I would like to rest my case on extradition not on the legal arguments, because they are insoluble, but on the practical military value which this would have, on the fact that the people of Fermanagh, South Tyrone and Armagh could sleep easily in their beds; on the breakthrough and goodwill this would have with the moderate majority in Northern Ireland — I cannot emphasise that too much — the need to boost sagging Garda morale on this issue, which is quite obvious, on the changed circumstances in Northern Ireland where torture is no longer practised, on the need to distinguish the noble republican traditions from the obscenities perpetrated by the IRA and another dramatic step forward in the long struggle for reconciliation. If we had this common objective we would begin to share a common identity.

Professor Murphy

Representing an entirely different constituency from Senator Ross I am glad to support his motion, if only because the infirmities and inconsistencies of the present position should be pointed out. Successive Governments, Coalition as well as Fianna Fáil, have not honestly faced up to the extradition issue. Only this week there are press reports — I cite the Irish Times of 6 July, 1982 — that the Government are still promoting their indefensible stand on this issue by putting pressure on all the Irish members of the European Assembly to maintain the present position on extradition. I do not know whether the non-Fianna Fáil members of the European Assembly will accept this pressure. Although it is a British Tories' motion which is compelling us to face up to this issue, I suggest that there are times when our interests are identical with those of the British Tories. There are also times when they are diametrically opposite, as in the Falklands crisis, when there was no sense in our supporting a neo-imperialist adventure on the part of the British Tories. On this issue we would do well to listen carefully to what the British Tories have to say in the Assembly this week. It may well be that extradition is not a panacea for the ills of cross-Border terrorism. This is a view which I heard the Northern Ireland Chief Constable express some months ago. He is not necessarily rhapsodic about extradition as the final answer.

(Interruptions.)

Professor Murphy

I should be glad to be able to proceed without interruption.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Murphy to proceed without interruption.

Professor Murphy

His opinion was that the presentation of hard legal evidence is the nub of the problem, whether it is the Criminal (Jurisdiction) Act or whatever. The difficulty of bringing evidence into court that will stand up is his problem. I am not saying that I support this motion because I believe that extradition is a panacea. Perhaps the situation calls for a combination of solutions of which extradition may be only a part. The important point is that our insistence on non-extradition for political offences must not be made a taboo or a sacred cow. That is why I am glad we have an opportunity of discussing it freely and fully here. No doubt Senator Robb will have more to say about the next point I make. Northern Protestants regard our attitude on this matter as evidence of our real lack of interest in tackling the problem of terrorism and our lack of concern at the deadly predicament of their co-religionists in the Border area. The perception of the Northern Protestants in this matter may be wrong, but there is no doubt that that perception is genuinely held and held with intense conviction. That is another reason why we must discuss this matter instead of fall back on spurious reasons why we cannot allow it to be discussed.

The most important reason why I wish to support Senator Ross's motion is that I believe it is in the interests of this State that we should open our minds on the extradition issue. Ultimately this is the State I am concerned about. The most important reason for discussing this is that the terrorism we are talking about is, for the most part, not entirely — because we do not forget that our people have been the victims of gangs from the loyalist side — terrorism perpetrated by people who purport to act in our name, people who have a messianic conviction that they represent the real Irish people and some day in the future when all the horror is over the future Irish people will accept their obscenities as having been prophetically enacted in our name. That is one of the most sinister traditions in Irish nationalism. We in this State should do more to foil the designs of those whose actions contradict true republicanism and whose ultimate strategy is the destruction of this State, whose ultimate objective is to create the wilderness of Eire nua and call it unity. That is why I am glad to be able to support this motion.

In both the present administration and its predecessor, the central constitutional argument is that non-extradition for political offences is the recognised principle in international law and, therefore, we cannot adjust our legislation accordingly. It would first of all contradict the prevailing norms in international law, it would also contradict the European Convention of 1957, and that it is unconstitutional. In regard to the first point, to practise non-extradition for political offences would be a violation of international law, I would cite the majesterial judgment of the then Chief Justice in 1952 in the State (Duggan v. Tapley) in which he argued compellingly that no principle of international law compels a State to withhold surrender of a fugitive political offender.

We should make a distinction here between what is permitted and what is obligatory. If one consults a cross-section of academic international jurists, who have no axe to grind, they will in all probability say that it has long been the practice in international law not to permit extradition for political offences but there is no obligation on any State to act accordingly. The only thing which obliges a State to act in international law is the extradition treaty to which they subscribe bilaterally with another State. We should look squarely in the face the spurious reason which successive Governments have given for not permitting the extradition of political offenders, that it would confound and violate the principles of international law.

The other main argument has been that if we hand over so-called political offenders it would be in conflict with Article 29.3 of the Constitution. If that is so it is another reason for looking afresh at our Constitution. I never cease to be astonished at the number of occasions in Seanad Éireann when the infirmities and antiquities of our Constitution are revealed. I do not accept that our present practice about extradition, our refusing to hand over political offenders, is imposed upon us because of Article 29.3, although it is commonly put forward.

In the newspaper report to which I referred already relating to the discussion in the European Assembly this week the phrase "constitutional requirement" was used. On 30 April this year the papers carried a report of a discussion at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Once again, in relation to the reasons why we have not signed and ratified the European convention against terrorism, an omission which I consider to be disgraceful and scandalous, the weak excuse put forward was constitutional difficulties.

Is this in fact true? What does Article 29.3 of the Constitution say? It says:

Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.

Initially, in the 19th century the international conduct of States in matters of political offence recognised the desirability of protecting what one might call bona fide dissidents, that is to say those who were in protest against tyrannical regimes, whether they were the Bourbons in Sicily, the Romanoffs in Russia or, indeed, for much of the time the Pontiffs in the Papal States, but these were people so different from the latter day 20th century terrorist that they might as well be living in another planet. I submit that the current interpretation of Article 29.3 is out of date. Indeed, there may have been a time when the generally recognised principles of international law would have compelled us not to extradite political offenders. We are a long way away from the world of early nineteenth century politics and the world of Sicilian tyrannies, we are into the late twentieth century with its unprecedented terrorism, with the appalling destructive power in hands of paramilitaries of various kinds who can not alone terrorise the citizens of their own State but who can terrorise the international community.

There is another thing about Article 29 of the Constitution. This may not be an impressive judicial point but it is a commonsense one. Sections 1 and 2 stress the specific resolution of international problems. Surely to God, if we are talking about peace in sections 1 and 2 we must have a high regard for peace in section 3. The constitutional argument simply does not stand up. I know Senator Ross has said that this is a matter for the courts but I am beginning to wonder about this. What is so sacred about the Constitution that someone with a reasonable degree of intelligence cannot spell out the commonsensical implications of it.

I begin to be somewhat of a Protestant in my approach to Bunreacht na hÉireann and I believe in the value of private judgment. You can amend the 1965 Act without falling foul of the Constitution. No one has ever actually put this to the test. You could, for example, specifically amend it by saying "OK, we will give sanction to political offenders, we will not tolerate a member of Sinn Féin, no matter how much we disagree with his philosophy, we will not tolerate him being pushed around because he holds the views he does, but by the same token we will more than willingly give him up if he has maimed and destroyed in our name." I do not see why you cannot amend the Act by stressing the right of the political offender while absolutely insisting it is not to be done by any violence or, even if you have to permit some violence, you can then made a schedule of offences which you will not tolerate.

The Fine Gael amendment smacks of a deplorable moral cowardice entirely at odds with the high ideals professed by the Leader of the party when in this House he introduced his constitutional crusade which I enthusiastically supported. Like Senator Ross I think the argument for an all Ireland court simply does not stand up at the moment. It is a back door, anyway, to a kind of political unification and it is not acceptable for that reason, apart from the fact that it was convincingly dismissed unanimously by the Law Enforcement Commission. The real reason why we do not want extradition is genuinely that we probably distrust the Northern Ireland legal system. It is not as specific as ours. There may be some grounds for that, but then we should say that. We may be afraid that people may be extradited not to answer a specific charge but for questioning. I have misgivings also about the RUC. Why should we assume that the mercies of the RUC are any less tender than our own Garda Síochána? I am afraid that the real reason is the last Hibernian taboo — after all I know they have done awful things but are they not our boys and we cannot let them down like that. Is that not the ultimate cop-out, to use a description which may be inelegant but very graphic?

Professor Dooge

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Government" and substitute "to consider urgently the best means of improving the position in regard to fugitive offenders and in particular to examine the feasibility of a single court with jurisdiction in all parts of Ireland."

We have been asked this evening to discuss the question of extradition. We are not a debating society, we are a legislative House, we are part of Oireachtas Éireann. We should approach this motion in a serious fashion; we should approach it in as calm a fashion as we can. It was regrettable that Senator Ross spoke, in moving the motion, about those who had held responsibility in successive Governments as being guilty of "silent, underhand connivance" with the men of violence. I do not think we can make progress in discussing this question if such accusations are to be made across the floor of the House.

We must be careful in what we as Seanad Éireann say and place on the record and accordingly I am not prepared to vote this evening for any form of motion which does not unambiguously express a view that I hold. I certainly do not hold the view that to reconsider extradition proceedings is the most effective means of combating cross-Border crime. There are many ways of combating cross-Border crime. The high degree of co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the RUC has, over the past few years, made remarkable and commendable progress in the control of cross-Border crime.

Senator Ross has said that we are tolerating a position under which hundreds of men who should be extradited are walking around freely in this country. I ask him whether he can substantiate the assertion that hundreds of men against whom evidence is available are walking around free? That is the nub of this particular problem. Extradition on evidence is something that can be rationally argued; extradition on suspicion is something that is not found in any State of our particular tradition. We also are asked in this motion to take note of the recent position of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors. Senator Ross referred to what they said in March at their annual conference. Since then political parties have received a letter from the executive of this same association indicating what their present position is and their position in June certainly does not read in the same terms as their position in March.

Professor Murphy

Pressure.

Professor Dooge

Perhaps.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

In view of the time restriction on Members the Chair cannot countenance interruptions. Senator Dooge to continue.

Professor Dooge

Indeed, the Garda have said in relation to the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act that the Northern authorities have not produced sufficient evidence for the South to proceed with prosecutions under this Act. This has been the difficulty. Would it be any better under extradition proceedings? What is being sought? Is it extradition for trial? Is it extradition as part of the judicial process which is what extradition legally is or are we being asked to consider extradition for questioning? Extradition for trial is the only thing that properly can be considered and I think we have already seen a confusion here by Senator Ross in this regard, or at the very best a failure to distinguish. If we were, as both Senator Ross and Senator Murphy suggested, to introduce legislation which might alter the definition of political offence in regard to extradition we would have to be very careful on this point.

Senator Ross said that extradition has never been debated in the Oireachtas since the foundation of the State. I was in this House in 1965 when we debated an Extradition Bill and that particular measure makes a distinction between extradition to Britain or Northern Ireland and extradition to any other country. In fact, the position of our law at the moment is that if we hand over an alleged criminal to Britain or to Northern Ireland we do it on the backing of a warrant, we do it without prima facie evidence. Now, if we are to make any progress in this regard, if we are, in fact, to speak of any modification of the position in regard to extradition, it cannot be the handing over on the backing of warrants. We would have to bring our whole extradition law together in a uniform fashion.

The problem of extradition is a most important and vital one both from the aspect of security and from the aspect of the relationships between the two communities in Ireland and between Britain and ourselves. If we wanted to do something about extradition what could we do? Well, one possibility would be to amend the Constitution. Some people say it is the Constitution that stands in the way. It is not. All the Constitution says, as Senator Murphy pointed out, is that we adhere to the norms of international law. I agree with Senator Murphy that the question here is — what is the norm of international law?

We could attempt to clarify this by judicial means. The question has never been determined by the Supreme Court, only by the High Court and this could be remedied by taking a case to the Supreme Court from the High Court or by passing legislation which in my opinion would very quickly get to the Supreme Court, either referred to it by the President or else appealed to it on one of the first cases taken. We would be in a better position if we had a determination from our Supreme Court on this particular question.

In regard to the question of our amendment, we have put forward in our amendment that there should be immediate progress in an area on which immediate progress is possible. Now it was said, both by Senator Ross and by Senator Murphy, that the idea which is being put forward by us was dismissed in a single page in the 1974 report of the Law Enforcement Commission. That is not so. The idea that is being put forward by us, the idea that was discussed between the British and Irish Governments during the term of the last Government, is something that was not at all considered by the 1974 Commission.

Following the meeting of the then Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in November 1981, they noted with approval the efforts being made under the criminal law (jurisdiction) legislation to ensure that those who had committed crime in one part of Ireland should not be able to escape prosecution and conviction by seeking refuge in the other and invited the two Attorneys General to consider what further improvement to this end might be possible. Those discussions were held and discussion of the question continued up until the time that we left office.

In this regard let me attempt to indicate what is proposed in this amendment. What is this concept of a single court or a joint court as distinct from the all-Ireland court which was rejected in a single page in the 1974 report? It is an attempt to go beyond the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act of 1976. That Act did establish extra territorial jurisdiction but, as has already been said, there were many problems. There was the problem of taking of evidence which would have to be taken on a commission. What is envisaged in this amendment is a court which would have twin jurisdictions rather than an all-Ireland court of single jurisdiction. An all-Ireland court of single jurisdiction, rightly dismissed in one page of the report would have to have an absolutely uniform system of law, would have to have uniform procedure in regard to rules of evidence or it would not be able to operate, Quite rightly the Law Enforcement Commission indicated that the time which would be necessary to achieve this would indeed be far too long to think of in practical terms. But this is not necessary; it would be possible to have a single court which would have jurisdiction throughout Ireland applying the laws and the procedures of this part of the country in this part of the country and applying the laws and the procedures of the other part of our country in the other part of the country. Such a court could consist in any one case of two judges appointed from the place of sitting and one from the other part of Ireland. It would ordinarily sit at the place where the accused were in custody unless the accused consented to return to the place where the act of which they are accused was committed. This proposal is something on which we can move. This was something on which there had already been movement and this is something I feel that we must do.

What we have put forward here is entirely in accord with the ideas which have been put forward by Deputy Garret FitzGerald and I would like to quote from his Dimbleby Lecture on Irish Identities, a copy of which I have placed in the Library. He said there were two brief points he wanted to make before concluding:

The first is that progress is most urgent, and I believed likely to be most acceptable, in the area of security. Two lots of courts and two lots of police, divided by a Border which only the terrorist can cross with impunity, is a recipe for anarchy. Surely we could put aside our differences and come together, under whatever umbrella of authority may be most effective for this purpose, whether Anglo-Irish or North-South, in order to face an all-Ireland terrorist movement with an all-Ireland judicial and policing system. No obstacles of constitutional theory or political prejudice, in either North or South, should stand in the way of such a potentially effective step towards restoring peace in the island.

What is proposed in the amendment is an organic growth from the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act of 1974 to a single court of the type described and then with increasing trust on either side further progress towards such questions as the joint questioning of suspects and with further development of trust and co-operation ultimately to a joint security force. These are the directions in which we could move with profit. They are the directions with which we should move without delay and I would urge the Government that the talks initiated by the last Government be continued with vigour and urgency.

Mr. P. Reynolds

I formally second the amendment.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Lenihan)

In urging the Government to reconsider in a cross-Border context the question of extradition, the sponsors of this motion appear to be proceeding on the assumption that extradition is solely a matter of Government policy — no different in this respect from any social or economic issue of the day — to be varied at the will of the Government if circumstances should so demand. I want to say clearly and unequivocally in order to put the debate in context at the outset that if that is the assumption which underlies the attitude of the motion sponsors it is based on a very fundamental misunderstanding.

As an instrument of mutual co-operation between sovereign states — this is what we are talking about here — extradition is rooted firmly in international law. It cannot just be dismissed or gainsaid in any easy manner. It is governed by well defined principles to which civilised states have generally given their assent. It is as valid today as it was in earlier days. Senator Murphy tried to draw some distinction between modern age and earlier times. One of these basic principles that has withstood the test of time is that extradition is not granted for political offences. That principle has been widely accepted for a very long time and is now deeply embedded in international jurisprudence and, in particular, in regard to the international jurisprudence relating to extradition. All the states of Europe, including the United Kingdom, accept the principle in full and, as far as I am aware, it is reflected in every treaty — whether of a bilateral or multilateral nature — that exists between the states of Europe.

The most important of these treaties is the European Convention on Extradition which was concluded in 1957 between the member states of the Council of Europe and which came into force in 1960. Article 3 of that Convention states that extradition:

...shall not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested party as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence.

The House will note that the Convention uses the mandatory "shall"— not the permissive "may"— in this article, making it abundantly clear that extradition for political offences is not allowed under the Convention. Eighteen of the 21 member states of the Council of Europe have either signed or ratified the Convention.

Professor Murphy

But not the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lenihan

I am coming to that. There is a special arrangement we have with the United Kingdom which was referred to by Senator Dooge. Ireland ratified it in 1966, effect having been given to the Convention in Irish law by the Extradition Act of the previous year, 1965, which I was glad to have piloted through this House at the time. Section 11 of the 1965 Act is in substantially the same language as Article 3 of the Convention, placing an absolute prohibition on extradition for political offences.

Our section of the 1965 Act is in exact terms as the Convention ratified by the states of the Council of Europe. In so far as extradition with the UK is concerned — here is the point — though this is not based on the European Convention as such, the position in relation to political offences is substantially the same. In other words, we have under that legislation a bilateral arrangement with the United Kingdom that is on all fours with the arrangements under the European Convention we have with other states of Europe. Part III of the Extradition Act 1965, which contains the legal framework for the backing of warrants system that operates between the UK and ourselves, specifically prohibits the execution of a British or Northern Ireland warrant if that is for a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence.

Side by side with the passage of our legislation in 1965 through the Dáil and the Seanad corresponding British legislation passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, that is the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act, 1965, and it has precisely the same effect.

We are not just talking about Ireland and other European states, we are talking about specific legislation enacted by the UK in the same year as we enacted our legislation and specific legislative arrangements that apply in the United Kingdom as much as in the Republic of Ireland and apply between Ireland and the European states to which I have referred.

This is the statutory basis, both international and domestic, of our law relating to extradition for political offences. It is not, however, the full picture. The most important point for present purposes is that successive Governments here have been advised, whenever this question has arisen as an issue, that the principle of non-extradition for political offences is a generally recognised principle of international law binding on the State under Article 29.3 of the Constitution. This means that the State is precluded, without breach of the Constitution, from entering into an extradition arrangement which would allow politically motivated offenders to be extradited. Such a course would obviously be unthinkable for any Government here.

Along with the statutory arrangement of the Extradition Act we have our particular and specific adherence to international law written into Article 29 of the Constitution. Those, in my view, are very important safeguards in our Constitution and matters not to be treated lightly in any way.

I think it is important to emphasise in this regard the fundamental — because it is fundamental — nature of the obstacle to the course of action called for in the motion. I also want to draw attention to the fact that this is not a new problem as far as Irish Governments are concerned. The legal advice available to successive Governments has been to the same effect.

Professor Murphy

Bad advice, if the Minister asks me.

Mr. Crowley

The Senator should cease interrupting.

Mr. Lenihan

It should be clear, therefore, that there is little point in the Seanad adopting a motion in terms which call on the Government to take action along these lines when it is clearly not within the powers of the Government to do that. Moreover, at present there is in my view general acceptance that the non-extradition law for political offences, which, as I have said, is the general rule throughout Europe and, indeed, in many parts of the world, is the correct one. We are not alone in this. We are adopting a common view that has withstood the test of centuries in practically every democratic country.

Having dealt with the legal position, I now want to deal with another assumption implicit in the motion, that extradition is the key to the solution of the problem of cross-Border difficulties and crimes. Extradition is only one method of dealing with fugitive criminals. It is by no means the only one, and in the circumstances that prevail in the Ireland of today it is very debatable indeed whether it would be any more effective than the means which we now have. The alternative of putting the offender on trial in the jurisdiction in which he is apprehended — which is the scheme enacted in the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 — is also capable of dealing with the problem and gets over the major difficulty about politically motivated crime.

There is a good deal of loose talk about people wanted in Northern Ireland for serious crimes walking the streets here. It is a popular motif in the less credible organs of Fleet Street. It is even said that there are hundreds of them. Let us be clear on this. There may be a small number of people who are at liberty down here and in respect of whom evidence is available that they committed offences across the Border before the 1976 Act came into operation. We could not then and we would not now, or at that time, make such a piece of legislation retrospective. If such is the case, the regettable fact is that — as a matter of law — nothing can be done about it short of making the 1976 Act retrospective. There are only one or two people in this category. The reason for this is that the 1976 Act was not retrospective in its application, that is to say, offences committed in the North before the 1976 Act were not offences under our law, and we cannot proceed against any such people. Indeed, there is a specific constitutional prohibition on declaring acts to be infringements of the law that were not so at the date of their commission. So far as crimes committed after 1976 are concerned — that is the realistic position we are in now six years afterwards. The position is that successive Governments have made it clear time and again that the 1976 Act will be used to deal with cross-Border offenders whenever the evidence — I emphasise the word evidence which Senator Dooge referred to earlier — is made available to enable us to put them on trial.

When evidence has been made available — we should bear in mind in this connection that there is provision for the taking of evidence on commission in Northern Ireland under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act — the law has been invoked in recent cases to prosecute in our courts persons arrested down here for offences alleged to have been committed in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act will continue to be successfully applied so long as the necessary evidence is made available. We are not talking about automatically arresting people and bringing them to trial but about arresting people on the basis of evidence on which they can be brought to trial. No state would operate any jurisdictional exchange legislation of this kind except on the basis of evidence sufficient to justify arrest in the circumstances I have mentioned.

I appreciate that with the particular type of crime involved it is often not easy to get evidence sufficient to put the offender on trial, but this is not a difficulty peculiar to proceeding here under the 1976 Act. It also applies to extradition itself. If one has to talk about an extradition method of dealing with it evidence would have to be the basis which an extradition application would be brought in the courts. There is an effective alternative and, as I have said, we for our part have demonstrated our willingness to use it. It is under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. The extradition issue has, however, been used in some quarters against us for political reasons as allegedly exemplifying that we are soft on subversive criminals and that we are deliberately allowing our territory to be used as a safe haven for those who perpetrate crimes of violence in Northern Ireland. This again is part of the cheaper Fleet Street syndrome of criticism in regard to Ireland. Anyone who has bothered even casually to look at the legal measures which have been taken under successive Governments to combat subversive crime will know that that is not true. We have, when required, taken the necessary measures. Such a person cannot be under any illusion about our determination to take every possible measure to ensure that fugitive offenders do not go unpunished if they are apprehended down here.

In this connection I should like to mention that the Minister for Justice is not in the House today because he is unveiling a plaque to the memory of Garda Personnel in Castlerea who participated in a positive way in regard to subversives acting in the west of Ireland.

Our security forces have acted with full authority whenever required, and all the communications and understandings we have with the British security forces are to the effect that security co-operation is working excellently between the security authorities of both jurisdictions. In this context it should be stated that nine years ago we brought in the Special Criminal Court legislation. There may be differences of opinion about it, but it was certainly strong legislation at the time. We brought it in to deal with this problem and successive Governments have retained that court system with a view to dealing with it. I want to emphasise those points because sometimes, under the thrust of a debate about extradition, it is not understood clearly that we are doing the positive things, in particular, in strengthening our courts system to deal with the problem and with regard to security co-operation with the Northern Ireland and British authorities. In addition to those two positive areas we have the criminal law jurisdiction legislation. The first two areas, in my view, are more positive and of greater thrust and capacity to deal with the problem than legislation itself. Extradition is a very small element in this overall equation, if any element at all. I have shown that the criminal law jurisdiction legislation of itself is sufficient to fill that gap.

The motion refers to the views of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors. While the association did pass a motion at their annual conference at Bantry seeking, in their words, "a review of the constitutional and legislative conditions governing extradition" the Minister for Justice, Deputies and Senators, recently received a communication from the association which indicates that they have reconsidered their position on this matter. After the Bantry conference the question of extradition for political offences was re-examined and they have now stated their position which, in fairness, I think I ought to put on the record:

The refusal to extradite a person from one country to another, because the offence claimed is of a political character, is a fundamental principle of international law to which Ireland unreservedly subscribes and has quite correctly provided for under her Constitition.

They went on to say:

It is not feasible for Ireland to consider unilaterally amending its Constitution, and consequently its laws, to exclude such a basic international concept, which continues to be observed by the rest of the international community. We cannot simply subscribe only to those tenets of international law that suit us.

As regards the amendment put down by Senators Dooge and Reynolds which calls on the Government to consider the best means of improving the position in regard to fugitive offenders and in particular to examine the feasibility of a single court with jurisdiction in all parts of Ireland, we consider that this is a much more acceptable approach to the problem of cross-Border crime. It is right in principle that we should look at the present position to see whether improvement is possible — of course, it is always possible in the area of security — in particular to see whether action can be taken by the Government in this regard on their own authority. Again — and this is an ongoing matter — we can update our security, improve our arrangements and so on. Accordingly, we accept what the first part of the amendment seeks. As regards the question of an all-Ireland court, we agree, and always have agreed, that this would be a most desirable development. Indeed, it is something that this Government have consistently supported over the years. However, it must be acknowledged — I believe the sponsors of the amendment will agree — that it is not a matter that could be attained by the unilateral action of the Government, indeed of any Government. It necessarily implies consent on the other side. The whole motion of an international court is one that, in my view, represents the only really fundamental objective to which we should seek to attain in our circumstances. Such a court would act as an umbrella for all of the police questioning and procedure problems, security problems and security aspects, all the matters that inevitably obtain within the two systems that operate in this island today. All these matters would naturally fall within an overall all-Ireland court to be examined and investigated, if required, in a particular situation. It is essential to have an all-Ireland court as a pre-condition or prerequisite of any further coming together in this whole area of policing and security.

Of course, there must be consent in this matter. This is not a matter for unilateral movement by Ireland, it is a matter for bilateral, trilateral or whatever number of arrangements one can envisage in regard to this matter. It is a matter for the United Kingdom and Irish Governments and the two communities in Northern Ireland. One is really talking about a quadrilateral type of arrangement and discussion that would lead to such an all-Ireland court situation to supervise the whole of this difficult and complex area. That is the way we should be going. We have existing procedures. We work in co-operation with the British authorities in regard to security in this area, and it is as well to strengthen aspects of co-operation on a pragmatic level between the two jurisdictions, the two Governments, to ensure that the system within our jurisdiction is as efficient as possible and that we work eventually towards an all-Ireland court that can supervise joint procedures in the future.

In so far as the motion requests the Government to take action which could further the attainment of an all-Ireland court it is fully acceptable to us. We join with the sponsors of the amendment in asking the House to endorse it as well as endorsing the earlier part of the amendment, asking that we urgently consider the best means of improving the position with regard to fugitive offenders. This is a matter that can always be improved. I ask the House to adopt the two elements in the amendment and reject the motion on the basis that it is not a practical way forward in our present situation. Clearly, it runs counter to the international obligations and international law to which a sovereign state must subscribe.

Mr. Ferris

In speaking to the amendment it is fair to say that we welcome the placing of the motion on the Order Paper to give us an opportunity to outline our stand on the emotive question of extradition as we know it. It is a matter of deep concern to us that the Garda authorities at their conference in Bantry — I was closely associated with members of that body — talked about the possibility of reviewing the whole question of extradition. It is true to say that because the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976 could not be made retrospective the Garda authorities were aware that people who had committed crimes previously could not be apprehended under that law. They felt a basic inability to be able to perform the duties for which we hold them responsible. I am glad the Minister has referred to that aspect of the 1976 Act because we can see their frustrations in this field in that they were unable to carry on under the existing law and apprehend known perpetrators of violence.

We welcome the opportunity to debate this motion because relations between Britain and Ireland at present are in need of some gesture of goodwill. The fact that the Seanad debates a motion like this gives an opportunity to the press, and the British press in particular, to hear the sentiments expressed by the movers of the motion. I respect their views because they have inbuilt fundamental philosophies about the reasons why they felt extradition is now a necessity. Reading the Minister's statement, and Senator Dooge's contribution in putting the Fine Gael side, the British Government will realise that the question of extradition, although it can be used emotively by some sections of the British press, is not just a simple lack of commitment on our part to do something constructive about people who we all agree should be brought to heel as a result of some of the extraordinary crimes they have committed.

It is well that the British, and the British press, recognise the constitutional embargo that is on us and accept that the non-implementation of extradition laws does not show a lack of concern for the problem we are faced with. The Labour Party today discussed this important motion at length. Our party is affiliated with many international labour and socialist groups and we are conscious of the fact that it is fundamental international law that political prisoners are not extradited. We accept that law and as a party we are against implementing a law that would overlook the rights of political prisoners. Political prisoners here can be of one description, but we can identify with some political prisoners in other parts of the world very easily. In some countries people are oppressed by dictatorships or extreme right-wing movements. It is important for us as a small party to ensure that fundamental international law is protected.

There is a rather unfortunate situation here because of the political Border that divides our people in that so many people hide behind a smokescreen of political activities and carry out the most horrific crimes in our name. Without our permission and a mandate from our people they bomb and kill off innocent people going about their ordinary everyday chores, whether they be at work, at play or shopping or other normal activities. The people who carry out bombings and indiscriminate murders say they do so on the basis of a political crime, but that is something we all abhor. It is one of the reasons why the sponsors of the motion feel they are justified in asking that action be taken in the field of extradition.

Accepting the fact that there are meanings in the words "political activities" that allow these people to claim this privilege under the Constitution, our party went along in 1975 and 1976 with the Government in implementing the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. The Minister, Deputy Lenihan, was the Leader of the Opposition in this House at the time, and he opposed and defended certain rights of political prisoners during that debate on the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Bill on the basis that he felt it was coming very close to the rights and privileges of individuals who could be moved across the Border or vice versa. Our party went along with that Bill because we felt there was a crying need, particularly after the agreements at Sunningdale and the fall of all the institutions in the North of Ireland, for some positive gesture by the Government in the Twenty-six Counties at the time. Indeed, Deputy Cooney, then Minister for Justice, in proposing that the Bill be read a Second Time on 24 April 1975, column 450 of the Seanad Official Report said, and I quote:

This Bill is designed primarily to deal with the fugitive criminal who is able to avoid being extradited by successfully claiming the political exemption which the extradition process allows. It has its genesis in the Sunningdale Conference of late 1973 when all parties there ——

— and all parties were there representing the minority in the North, the Government of the South and the British Government

—— which represented all shades of responsible constitutional political opinion in this island agreed on the dire necessity for an answer to this problem.

In fairness to Deputy Lenihan I could quote several extracts from his contribution which would agree with that and talked about the possibility of an all-Ireland court or a court to serve the all-Ireland situation. He quoted also from the Sunningdale Agreement which was very relevant at the time. I feel that in fairness to Deputy Lenihan, as he is present today, I should quote from a contribution he made in that debate in which he said, and he was quoting paragraph 10 from the Sunningdale Agreement:

Among them were the amendment of legislation operating in the two jurisdictions on extradition; the creation of a common law enforcement area in which an all-Ireland court would have jurisdiction, and the extension of the jurisdiction of domestic courts so as to enable them to try offences committed outside this jurisdiction.

It was agreed that problems of considerable legal complexity were involved and that the British and Irish Governments would jointly set up a commission to consider all the proposals put forward at the conference in Sunningdale and to recommend as a matter of urgency the most effective means of dealing with those who commit these crimes. There is obviously a commitment on all sides in this House, whether we agree with extradition or disagree with it, that something needs to be done to bring the perpetrators of these crimes even if they are purported to be in a political cause — which all of us refute.

Senator Dooge has mentioned that recent discussions with the British Government would raise the possibility of a court dealing with these cases not in a constitutional way but in a non-constitutional way that could effectively deal with this matter. I think the public would agree that something of this kind should be set up; some area should be agreed between us as political organs in this country so that as democratic political parties we outlaw violence completely and within the framework of our existing Constitution we try to ensure that whatever legal structures can be set up should be set up without delay. My party would recommend that the amendment would be accepted in the hope that it would be a step forward in this fundamental area of constitutional law.

Mr. E. Ryan

On a point of order, the position is now that five Members have been called from the other side of the House and no Member has yet been called from this side. It is true that the Minister did speak but he is not a member of any group in this House and should not be taken into consideration from that point of view. I submit that two or three Members from this side of the House should now be called to redress the balance.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Robb.

Mr. Robb

I am sure if I were to ask the people of this part of Ireland — in fact any part of Ireland — if they approved of murder, 99.99 per cent would pronounce their unequivocal disapproval. I am sure if I were to ask if the people of Ireland would like those who are guilty of murder taken out of society so they cannot repeat the act 99.99 per cent would say "yes". But if I were to point out that many men with legal training will state that extradition is the best way of obtaining conviction of the guilty — and I stress the guilty — and ask whether the people of Ireland would vote for extradition the percentage would drop quite dramatically.

The reason for that is not hard to find, because extradition is not just a legal problem. One has to weigh in the balance the moral issues, the emotional issue — that is the issue of extraditing into that part of Ireland which still represents, in the consciousness of traditional Irish republican thinking, the last element of British imperial control in this island — and also the political problem of extraditing into a part of Ireland where there is, as yet, alas, no consensus. Should the forces of law and order come down as angels from heaven in Northern Ireland, at times of sectarian or social stress they would be perceived or perhaps even portrayed as the oppressors in one sense and the protectors of the institutions of the State in the other. So, we have a problem then that is legal, moral, emotional, and in the final analysis I would suggest it is a political problem. So, I would ask fellow Senators today to weigh with yourselves what proves you by conscience in relation to how you feel for your offended fellow-Irishmen and what proves you by consciousness in relation to your political historical consciousness before the bitter legacy of Irish history.

Before I go further I will hold up this map of the County of Armagh from which my fellow Senator here comes and who can speak much more realistically about what is happening. The orange circles represent Protestant Irishmen who have been killed in the last ten years; the green circles are Catholic Irishmen who have been killed in the last ten years and the blue circles members of the British regular forces who have been killed in the last ten years. No one will pretend that all of these people or even more than a small percentage came from across the Border. But I say to you that there is a great human tragedy being fought out and you have to ask yourselves in relation to the future of Ireland and to how we see a settlement in Ireland, as to what role you are now prepared to play to deal with the threatened vulnerable consciousness of those people in Ireland who are most reticent at the present moment to entertain the sort of Ireland which you and I would like to live in.

I feel, therefore, before I get into the meat of the subject, that because I believe passionately in the creation of a new Ireland, because I see in that the opportunity for social change and because I have articulated the need in the North of Ireland for legal justice, I can therefore start by first appealing to INLA and PIRA to call a ceasefire to enable the sort of strategy which we have articulated this year — and which was mentioned at the recent SDLP Conference — to operate so that we can create a settlement in Ireland — because it is settlement, not extradition, that will finally lay this thing to rest.

But in the meantime people die, people are murdered in front of their wives, coming out of their workplaces, coming out of their places of worship. They are murdered before their children in their front rooms, in their parlours. These are not wealthy people of great influence; these are the men and women of little or no property whose only crime may have been that as an unemployed member of the Irish polity they had uniforms on their backs. I am asking Senators, therefore, to consider cross-Border crime but particularly to consider how we are going to stop cross-Border murder. You have your part to play and so have we. We in the North have to look at the special rules — they have already been mentioned — in relation to arrest, the means of interrogation, the admissibility of confessions and the whole Diplock system as to whether cases should not be scheduled rather than descheduled as they are at present. Therefore, we have reservations. Certainly, you will all have reservations — your consciousness as Irishmen, and lack of consensus in the north, the social alienation which is increasingly mounting throughout the island, north and south. We have our misgivings — I have mentioned some of them. Then when we come to debate this we find that we look at the principle of asylum and we look across the water and we see that Britain has been the champion of political asylum for political offences for the last hundred years. In the thirties the League of Nations extradition for political offences was unacceptable to the British. In 1960, in reciprocal legislation at the time of Ireland's signing of the European Convention on Extradition the British stated again that they found extradition unacceptable for political offences. In 1962 they would not even sign the United Nations convention on genocide because mandatory extradition was included in the statute, and in 1965 at the time of the passing of the Extradition Act, Sir Dingle Foot made the same point and pointed out to the tradition which went back to 1870.

Extradition to Ireland, as quoted by him might be refused where the offence was in an act of a political character. In Europe we have a European Convention on Extradition of 1957 to which some allusion has been made, and in the United States of America, as far back as 1792 Thomas Jefferson said treason was sufficiently punished by exile. In Ireland the Taoiseach of 1955 made the same point. So that there is, in fact, a substantial body of opinion which rejects the idea of extradition for political offences. It is therefore easy to understand Article 29 (3) of the Constitution. Ireland accepts the general principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relation with other States. But it is far from certain that such a generally acceptable principle does in fact exist that forbids extradition of political offenders. There is much divided opinion on this. Let me mention the eminent Chief Justice Maguire and the various judgments following his statement. There is the judgment of Duggan v. Tapley 1952, O Laighléis v. the State 1962, and in 1966 Sumers Jennings v. Furlong which make the same point.

One aspect has not been mentioned here this afternoon — the fundamental change that has come about in Europe as a result of international terrorism. Only one Member said it is a disgrace that Ireland has not signed the European Convention. I would agree and endorse that. No one has alluded to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Article 1 of that Convention specifies those acts which can no longer claim political, immunity and in particular, in Article 1 (e) they specify the sort of acts which are taking place daily in Northern Ireland. In case you have misgivings about signing it, if you go to Article 5 in the European Convention on the Supression of Terrorism there is a get-out clause — any State that is concerned about extradition into another State in which there is a risk that either punishment or prosecution will take place on the grounds of religious, racial prejudice or on the grounds of political thought can be excluded from the provisions of Article 1 and the extension of Article 1 in Article 2. There is, in fact, considerable ground and increasing international opinion for the extradition of people who are claiming political immunity for offences which come within the definition of terrorism.

Article 28.3.3 of the Constitution states that any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressly for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion cannot be invalidated by invoking the Constitution. This Article goes on to define time of war to include a time when there is taking place an armed conflict in which the State is not a participant but in respect of which each of the Houses of the Oireachtas shall have resolved that arising out of the armed conflict a national emergency exists affecting the visual interests of the State. This was invoked at the time of the assassination of the British Ambassador and this, I would maintain, exists today when Dr. FitzGerald, the Leader of the Opposition, stated — here I stand to be corrected — that either dozens or hundreds of IRA men were being exported from the northern situation into the Republic. If that does not constitute a slight emergency for this State then I do not know what does.

Sunningdale has been mentioned, and I would remind Senators that at Sunningdale paragraph 10 of the joint communique states that it was agreed by all parties that persons committing crimes of violence however motivated in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial irrespective of the part in which they were located. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves have people been brought to justice who have been guilty of crimes of violence? Certainly, since the 1965 Extradition Act people who have committed ordinary crimes have been brought to justice. Certainly, since the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act was passed in 1976 people who have committed crime, be it political or otherwise, are no longer immune no matter where they committed that crime in Ireland. But the legislation has not worked, and it has not worked for a number of reasons. One of these I would say is the problem of the reluctant witness. Another is the problem of collecting the evidence that you need for a confession, and this brings about the next point. How do you determine that a confession is voluntary? If you look at the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3, you will find that it is determined there that you must not contravene a code which excludes torture, degrading or inhuman treatment, and if you only stick to that code you have a lot of scope left for wrapping up and verballing, as it is called in the north of Ireland. Therefore, if we are pursuing extradition we must consider on what grounds we are pursuing it and under what conditions.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has one minute to conclude.

Mr. Robb

Thank you. I would therefore conclude by saying that extradition is tied up with the need for an Irish settlement, with legal justice in Northern Ireland, but above all else it is symbolic to the people of Northern Ireland who must be persuaded that you are serious when you want to woo them into Ireland. You cannot want to marry us and at the same time allow people to murder us. It is as simple as that. When you speak to the relatives of people who have been murdered or mown down in Northern Ireland you find that they feel deeply about the fact that people can come to the Republic and can have a haven there.

Therefore, I will conclude, a Cathaoirligh, by saying that as far as I am concerned, and I feel very strongly about this, I will support Senator Ross in his introduction of a Bill to amend the Extradition Act of 1965, section 50, for the purpose of excluding from the category of offences in which the claim of political offences may be raised, all offences committed in Northern Ireland which are scheduled in the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. If passed, it may be referred to the Supreme Court by the President; if, however, the President signs it and it becomes law its application can still be challenged in the ordinary way before the courts. Northern opinion will watch for the response to this in the Seanad as a practical, pro-life statement designed to counteract the murder campaign they are enduring.

Mr. Crowley

I yield to Senator Mara, if that is in order.

Mr. Mara

I am delighted that Senators Ross, Murphy and Robb have brought this motion before the House. It enables us on this side of the House to clear up some misconceptions, to nail some canards and untruths and to state clearly what our attitude is to the question of extradiction for political offences to Northern Ireland or indeed to any other part of the world, the United Kingdom, Europe, America. One thing bothers me about the motion. That is the reference to the position of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors. I am the son of a garda and it was always a tradition that members of the Garda — particularly serving members — did not involve themselves in politics. They have a special position in our society; they have a special relationship with all Governments. I say this with regret but it should be said: I do not believe that policemen should involve themselves in political, public controversies.

The amendment in the name of Senators Dooge and Reynolds is one which we will not oppose because the concept of an all-Ireland court is one with which we would agree. However, if Senator Dooge really believes what he said in the House, and I am sure he does, what he should have done is to have brought forward a motion of his own and debate it in this House rather than introduce it as an amendment to the motion in the name of Senators Ross, Murphy and Robb. This is a crafty amendment because if it succeeds — which it will — the motion will fall and Fine Gael will be saved from having to vote against extradition, thereby having the best of both worlds. Deputy FitzGerald will be able to continue as the darling and the favourite son of the British media and at the same time he will not have antagonised any sector of opinion in Ireland. He can continue to appear as a custodian of the Constitution. I would like some speaker on behalf of Fine Gael to spell out again for the benefit of this House what precisely their position is on extradition for political offences.

There is a lot of confusion in the minds of commentators and people involved in Irish affairs as to what extradition is or what it is not. Extradition is a procedure of international judicial assistance to enable states to obtain the surrender of suspected or convicted criminals who are or who have fled abroad. Extradition is sometimes thought of as being an aspect of municipal law rather than a part of international law. This is because until recently there were very few multilateral agreements covering extradition, and all of the agreements were bilateral. The subject spans both national and international law and raises for many states, including our own, the complex questions of constitutional justice. Our position and the position of our courts on extradition has been that Article 29.3 of the Constitution provides that Ireland accept the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states.

Our courts have considered that one of these generally recognised principles of international law is the principle of non-extradition for political offences. The Irish extradition legislation is embodied in the Extradition Act, 1965. That Act is based on the provisions of the European Convention on Extradition to which Ireland is a party but to which the United Kingdom is not. The Convention enshrines the principle of non-extradition for political offences. It has been ratified by and is applicable as between Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Federal Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

Before there can be extradition in respect of any offence covered by a statutory provision, there must first be a warrant. One should be able to assume that no warrant is issued by any judicial authority for anybody's apprehension unless sufficient evidence has been adduced before that judicial authority to satisfy it that there is a case warranting the arrest of that person for an offence. To present warrants for extradition which are solely or principally for the purpose of interrogating the person sought would be a gross abuse of the process of extradition. Yet, that is apparently what some people seem to think that extradition is about when they come to speak of fugitive political offenders in their hundreds who are within our jurisdiction in this State. When other countries seek the extradition of a person in a British court, not merely is such a practice not tolerated but under the British Extradition Act the requesting country is obliged to establish a prima facie case before any extradition would be contemplated or ordered. It is believed that the reason the United Kingdom did not become a party to the European Convention on Extradition was because that convention did not require the establishment of prima facie evidence. Therefore, it would appear that among certain elements in the British establishment and Government — and not for the first time — the people who argue the so-called British case for extradition have a double set of standards, one to apply to the Irish and one to apply to everybody else.

Senator Ross mentioned that extradition was part of our mythology. I say that it is not part of our mythology. It is part of our law and our Constitution and is not in any way mythological. All parties, from the beginning of this State, have accepted that. In 1955, John A. Costello, himself a distinguished lawyer, stated in the Dáil that the question of extradition stands and is governed by the principles and practices of international law. This is something which the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Parties have accepted, something which the lawyers who argued our case at the Commission on Law Enforcement and who made a report to the Minister for Justice and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have accepted.

Senator Murphy made the point that the Tapley case went against this view. In their arguments, Mr. Justice Walsh, Mr. Justice Henchy, and Mr. Doyle and Mr. O'Quigley who wrote that report effectively demolished that argument. It is in that report if anybody wants to read it.

There are other aspects of extradition to Northern Ireland which are of a political rather than a constitutional nature. There is the question of an impartial police force, an impartial Judiciary and of the whole structure of society in the Northern State. There is the question of the way in which the jobs, the professions have been organised. The point was made in this House that we should do more in this State. In my view we have done an enormous amount over the years. We have changed our laws; we have introduced special courts and we have introduced many other measures here towards the protection of human life along the Border areas. We have spent enormous sums of money on our police forces, much more in relation to our resources than has been spent by the UK Government.

However, I wish to move away from that area and to move on to the question of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act which is the effective instrument covering fugitive offenders in this State. This was set up after the Sunningdale Conference in 1973. It is a system which was recommended by the Law Enforcement Commission to both Governments. It is a system that has not worked as well as it might, perhaps, but we must ask ourselves why that is so. My view is that for certain political reasons the authorities in Northern Ireland did not wish to see it working and for many years effectively boycotted the procedures. There are questions that civilian witnesses might or might not have been willing to come forward, but there were provisions in this legislation which enabled evidence to be taken on commission. In recent times this legislation has been used, and used successfully.

Since 1976 nine persons have been tried for extra-territorial offences, and most of these in fairly recent years: six were convicted and three were acquitted. They were charged with murder, and the Supreme Court ordered that the three be released, nothing that the prosecution had not established a case against them. In addition there are three other Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act cases pending at the moment. The murder cases are being instituted under the parallel British Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. The first prosecution involved five persons charged with murder and two with offences connected with abduction. These successful prosecutions for extra-territiorial offences are evidence of the view that the absence of extradition for political offences is not a bar to the successful prosecution and imprisonment of those who commit serious crimes in one jurisdiction and flee to the other. There is no doubt in my view that the relevant legislation can continue to be successfully applied where the Northern Ireland authorities simply supply evidence that persons residing in the jurisdiction of the State have committed offences in Northern Ireland. We are back to this question again which was raised by other Senators, that it is only where the evidence is available. If the evidence is available they will be tried in this country on foot of evidence supplied by the Northern Ireland authorities and if the evidence is substantial and sufficient they will be convicted and put away.

Dr. West

What strikes me first in this discussion is that if 200 people had been killed in a single county on our side of the Border no obstacle would be regarded as fundamental in dealing with the problems of bringing the fugitives to justice. I am not very impressed with all the legal arguments saying why we can or cannot take a particular course, because if we really desired to do something then we could find a way to do it.

I believe that what motivates the movers of this motion is the desire to stop the hideous spate of killings along the Border. The movers of the motion were perfectly correct in suggesting that we should examine our extradition procedures and see if a modified form of extradition can be clasified as a constructive step towards stopping the hideous killings along the Border, and certainly for most of these crimes it seems that the hearsay evidence points to the fact that the murderers move back across to this side of the Border.

I am one of those people who believe that the fundamental political problems of this island stem from partition. On the other hand, being absolutely realistic I do not see an immediate solution to our constitutional problem. I would like to do so but I do not think it is on the cards for the near future. Therefore, we must be realistic and then face up to the consequences. We must examine the problems which the Border poses particularly in terms of security, and if we can improve our legal practices we should do so. I am in favour of the motion but I must say first that I interpret extradition as being extradition when there is sufficient evidence to justify such extradition. Not only that but I think there must be an examination of the available evidence by the country which is doing the extraditing. In other words I do not believe that you can just extradite suspects purely on suspicion. One has got to have a a priori examination of the prima facie evidence. This means establishing some sort of structures. I do not take the view taken by Senator Ross and Senator Murphy in totally rejecting the Fine Gael amendment although the amendment itself as spelled out here would not commend itself to me: what Senator Dooge said in explanation of his amendment was something that we should examine carefully, because the feasibility of a single court certainly can include what members of Fianna Fáil have been referring to as the all-Ireland court and Senator Dooge drew a careful distinction between the concept he was putting forward and the concept of the all-Ireland court which was ruled out at the time of Sunningdale, not ruled out because there was anything inherently wrong in the concept of it but it does seem to be a political non-starter without the unification of this island. I do not think we can have an all-Ireland court in the firmest possible way without making a great deal of progress on the constitutional problem. I would welcome this but it is just not on the cards at the moment.

Senator Dooge talked about a court with two distinct rules of law, the rules of law which apply in the North and the rules of law which apply in the South, being used to examine evidence, being used to check whether there was a prima facie case for dealing with suspected terrorists. Some progress in that direction would have to be made before extradition was possible. I say this because I do not think you can extradite on suspicion. There has been suspicion of the lack of impartiality on the part of the RUC. One has absolute corroborated evidence as provided by the Bennett Report that suspects during their interrogation were ill treated. Equally on this side of the Border, we cannot throw stones because there was corroborated evidence in the Ó Briain Report that suspects were ill-treated here. I believe there is a good deal of evidence that IRA prisoners in custody have been ill-treated in Britain. All this means that you cannot have extradition without examining the evidence. It is not enough to say that it must be assumed that anyone who issues a warrant for extradition has the evidence. That is not good enough. We have got to have the evidence and the evidence has got to be examined by the extraditing country, and we should be working towards a situation of that nature which is more efficient than the extra-territiorial jurisdiction which is in operation at the moment. We could move in the direction that Senator Dooge has suggested. I am not, because of his suggestions, totally opposed to the Fine Gael amendment, but I do think this problem is one of much urgency.

We have one group of Irishmen killing another group of Irishmen in the name of and with the supposed approval of Ireland as a whole. That has got to stop and we have got to do everything constructive that we can to stop it.

The Falklands crisis has been referred to. I believe that we were correct in maintaining our neutrality, in stressing it, but I do not think we did it in a very polite way. It could have been done in a more civilised way, but basically the stance in maintaining our neutrality was correct. However, there is a lesson to be learned from the Falklands crisis, and that is that warfare, guerilla warfare or otherwise, has changed. There are hideous devices available for only £200,000 which can deal death and destruction on a big scale. I would guess that the hatred and bitterness among many terrorist groups, including our own, is such that they will be at this very moment out to obtain, to get their hands on, some of these devices. The amount involved — £200,000 — would be the equivalent of two good bank raids, so it is certainly within the range of many of the organisations we are talking about. What I do not want to see is — as I believe inevitably will happen — a terrorist organisation in this country getting their hands on one of these missiles, hundreds of people being killed, and then being shamed into changing our laws or getting over the obstacles which the Minister regards as fundamental. The killing has gone on long enough. We have got to do everything constructive that we can to stop it, and I support the motion in the names of Senators Ross, Murphy and Robb.

Mr. Crowley

It was interesting to listen to Senator West putting his point of view forward in relation to evidence, and of course that is the fundamental difference between what he has been saying and what Senators Murphy and Ross have been saying, because they seem to think that just on foot of a warrant, we should willy-nilly agree with extraditing our people. It is interesting also from another point of view: that here we have many people with a lot of knowledge talking in this Seanad about the violence that has been created in this country. There is no doubt about the fact that there is violence, but we on this side of the House wholly condemn this violence. However, there is also the institutional violence which nobody has mentioned, and indeed the perpetrators of that institutional violence are the very people that we are being asked to hand our people over to. A few interesting statistics might not be out of the way here.

At the moment there are 2,000 people interned, all from the one community in the North of Ireland. Does that look like fair treatment? More than 20,000 people have been arrested and interrogated for more than seven days, all of them from the one community in the North of Ireland. There were 300,000 house searches in the North of Ireland. There are 1,521 formal allegations of ill treatment while in custody against the establishment. Two million pounds has been paid out in ex-gratia payments to people who have been abused by these forces and 89.4 per cent of those people charged under the emergency legislation in the North are convicted on their own confessions. Of those, 90.6 per cent allege ill tratment. There are 1,400 people in prison in the North as a result of involuntary confessions. There have been 60 per cent refusals on bail application, of which 94.4 per cent are non-Unionist people.

Surely we must take note of those statistics. While I agree with Senator Robb that symbols are important and that the type of image we give here is important to an eventual united Ireland, surely the basic problem that we have in this country is not extradition but partition. We can introduce all the laws we like about extradition and bring in all the fancy legislation we want but we will not change one whit the situation in this country. Until such time as we bring about a solution to partition we are not going to solve the problem which we are faced with. We have got to be very careful also that we do not add more fuel to the British gutter press which was in ebullient mood in jingoism during the Falklands crisis. They are now looking to go back to the old warhorse again in Ireland to have another go. But we know that there are moderates on either side of the political divide who are genuinely working to try and bring about a solution to our problems. We know it is not going to be easy, but anybody in this House who believes that putting down a motion here on extradition is going to have any effect whatsoever on the violence must be considered to be naive in the extreme.

I resent very much the implication by Senator Ross and, indeed, Senator Murphy, that successive Governments have been tacitly backing the men of violence. Senator Murphy went so far as to say that he considered it disgraceful and scandalous that Ireland did not sign the convention against terrorism.

Professor Murphy

So did Senator Robb.

Mr. Crowley

I wonder is Senator Murphy aware of the fact that those people who did sign that convention put so many conditions and riders into their signing that the whole thing was castrated by the time it became a finished product? But of course Senator Murphy in his usual unbiased way forgot to mention that. Of course he is the paragon of virtue from the south, the man who lectures us here and tells us how unsullied and indeed pure and politically and morally chaste he is. But of course we are not all as altruistic as Senator Murphy. I would be the first to confess to that, but I think that the nonsense he has talked here gives plenty of ammunition to the British press to continue their verbal abuse of Ireland. This convention against terrorism that he extols and says that it was disgraceful and scandalous of us not to have signed would have no effect whatsoever in relation to stemming the amount of violence that there is in this country. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that France, Germany and Belgium do not extradite their own nationals at all whether the offences are political or otherwise. Many other countries have reservations in this regard. Indeed there are very few countries in the world who have laws which permit of the extradition of their natives. There has been criticism of the Fine Gael amendment, but I do not see anything to criticise so far as that amendment is concerned. I suppose it is not easy to say this, but I find the Fine Gael amendment totally acceptable.

Professor Murphy

The grand alliance is coming.

Mr. Crowley

Where there is good sense you will always have an alliance, where there is stupidity you will not. This may not suit Senator Murphy, who is fond of courting the media and getting the maximum publicity, but he is very much out on his own on this one. As far as I can see, unless we in this part of the country start nailing the lies about all the hundreds of so-called terrorists who are roaming the streets of this country the better. I do not believe, and I agree with the Minister for Agriculture, that so far as the Garda knew, there were one or two people who should have been prosecuted but who could not be prosecuted because of the fact that our legislation was not retrospective. Surely Senator Murphy and others are not advocating that we introduce retrospective legislation, that we make it a crime after the event. For a so-called liberal this would be the ultimate. We must reject all the allegations and all the propaganda that are being foisted on us, some of it well orchestrated by the British to denigrate what we have been doing. There are many people in this country who are of the opinion that we are spending far too much money on Border security, that we could find other and perhaps better ways of using that money. The figure of £100 million is mentioned in this context. I expect that the figure is much higher than that. It may be said that this is money that would go a long way in alleviating the unemployment situation, for example. However, we do not get any credit when we do our side of the job well.

We must not let this occasion pass without citing the case of Ireland against the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights and to look at the findings of that court, which held by 16 votes to one that the use of the five techniques which I will describe constitutes a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, and held unanimously that there existed at Palace Barracks in the autumn of 1971 a practice of inhuman treatment. The court also held unanimously that it cannot direct the respondent state to institute criminal or disciplinary proceedings against those members of the security forces who had committed the breaches. Are we going to hand over to those authorities some of our people? How many of the people convicted in the North have been guilty? Regarding the Diplock Courts — this is where Senator Ross let the cat out of the bag when he was making the case for extradition because in the wind up he said, "of course, the Diplock Courts are there"— we know what they mean. We know that there are no courts there, that there is no justice being administered in the North as we understand justice. The Senator may be briefed by Senator Murphy even further but I still say that Diplock Courts are not courts in the proper sense of the word.

Professor Murphy

What about the Special Criminal Court then?

Mr. Crowley

Perhaps the Senator would elaborate on those. He seems to be an expert on them.

Professor Murphy

I am simply pointing out the Senator's illogicalities.

Mr. Crowley

Is the Senator making a comparison between the Special Criminal Court here and the Diplock Court in the North?

Professor Murphy

They are identical.

Mr. Crowley

I am very sorry to hear the Senator say that, because I can tell him that they are far from being identical.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Crowley, to continue without interruption.

Professor Murphy

I wish he would.

Mr. Crowley

The European Court came to the conclusion also that the inhuman treatment had occurred in September, October and November 1971 at the Palace Barracks. They found these cases combined with other indications showed that there had been in these barracks in the autumn of 1971 a practice in connection with the interrogation of prisoners by members of the RUC which was inhuman treatment. The British Government did not contest these conclusions. And as I said earlier the five ways in which they were found guilty of inhuman treatment were, (a) wall standing, (b) hooding, (c) subjection of continuous noise, (d) deprivation of sleep and (e) the deprivation of food and drink. The wall standing was forcing the detainee to remain for periods of some hours in a stretched position described by those who underwent it as being spreadeagled against the wall with their fingers high above the head against the wall, Their legs spread apart and feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers. The hooding, according to the report involved putting a black or navy-coloured bag over the detainee's head and at least initially keeping it there all the time except during interrogation. On subjection to noise, the court found that pending interrogation, the detainees were held in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise. The court found also that pending interrogation, the detainees were deprived of sleep, food and drink, that they were subjected to reduced diet during their stay at the centre.

Is Senator Murphy serious when he asks us to introduce extradition to the RUC in the North? The condemnation of those forces is here for all to read in the report of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland against the United Kingdom in Strasbourg on 18 January 1978. Anybody who has even a passing knowledge of what constitutes fair and just treatment would not alone be slow to send anybody for trial there but would want to be malicious or sadistic in order to agree to such a move. Consequently, I strongly oppose any such move as proposed by Senators Murphy and Ross.

Mr. O'Connell

In considering the motion we have before us there seem to be two main purposes in the motion as it reads and as its proposers have spoken. The first one seems to be to propose or support some technical method by which we can deal more effectively with cross-Border crime. The second purpose, which is not directly included in the motion but has been referred to in the speeches of the proposers and supporters of the motion, is a feeling that we should make some kind of gesture to the North indicating our concern at the gravity of the crimes with which we are dealing. When we talk about cross-Border crime it is very clear that we are not talking, for example, about butter-smuggling.

Unfortunately, the motion, as it stands it not a very satisfactory one. Senator Dooge has explained that the position of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors is not one of unrestricted support for extradition. On the contrary, the latest position of the association very much indicates their understanding that the matter is a complex one and that extradition is possibly not the most effective method of dealing with it. The amendment that is being proposed by the Fine Gael Party does attempt to take cognisance of that position and also to put forward something practicable.

It ill behoves Senators Mara and Crowley to lecture this side of the House, anybody in the House or indeed anybody outside the House, on the subject of ambivalence or ambiguity. This is something about which Senator Mara was particularly concerned. He referred several times to what he called "political offenders". I believe that phrase which he used without any restriction or reservation indicates a certain understanding in his mind. Senator Crowley spoke about so-called terrorists. He was a lot more sophisticated about his definition, but that phrase alone, "so-called terrorists", indicates a stance or attitude towards the whole problem which would be easily enough interpreted, maybe unjustly, in a particular way. I was saddened by Senator Crowley's contribution, not because we must feel that much of the data he brought forward was in any way inaccurate or that it was lacking in impact or indeed in some quality of justice or humanity, but because his contribution was one which was fixed permanently and irrevocably upon the past and, unfortunately, upon a very selective interpretation of the past.

If anything is clear about the whole problem it is the fact that all of us, North and South, failed to deal with the Northern problem in the years up to 1968-69 and, as a consequence, have to deal with this kind of situation now. In particular, I might point out — without meaning in any way to be offensive — that the party to which Senator Crowley belongs placed then and places now, as one of their principal objectives, more important indeed than the welfare of the ordinary people of this part of the island over which they have jurisdiction, the question of resolving partition. Yet, though their Leader himself has spoken eloquently upon the fact that Northern Ireland has failed as a political entity, they did nothing about it and did not lift a finger until, at the beginning of the last decade, it became apparent that something very drastic was happening there, that the people of that part of his island had had enough.

It is important that we indicate our concern in some way that goes beyond just a simple ritual debate leading nowhere. I am glad to say that some Members of this House have tried to indicate, in a very clear and unambiguous way, their detestation of violence and detestation of murder as a method of political change. I choose these words with some care because there is, in the situation, a temptation for all those who are concerned about the situation there to look upon violence as a solution to their problem. Stormont certainly looked upon violence, in the end, as a solution to its problem, and that failed. Other people have looked upon violence as a solution. This is a point to which I wish to revert in conclusion. However, what I would like to say here when we talk about expressing our concern to the North and to the people in the North, particularly to those people who are under pressure as a result of what, possibly Senators Mara and Crowley would like to call "so-called crimes"— like, for example, bombing a nurses' home or murdering a public representative in the course of his carrying out a clinic or possibly——

Mr. Lanigan

On a point of order, that is totally out of order.

Mr. Crowley

I never mentioned so-called crimes, but of course Senator O'Connell in his usual insidious way is trying to——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Connell must be allowed to continue without interruption. The time is very short.

Mr. Crowley

I must be allowed to correct. Because Senator O'Connell had nothing prepared it does not mean that he can use——

Mr. O'Connell

I apologise to Senator Crowley for insinuating in any way, insidious or otherwise, that he might believe that these crimes are so-called crimes.

Mr. Crowley

A crime is a crime.

Mr. O'Connell

He used the phrase "so called terrorists". It is a legitimate, maybe, rhetorical device, to move from the concept of a so-called terrorist to a so-called crime.

Mr. Crowley

There is no such thing as a so-called crime.

Mr. O'Connell

I was trying to say, before I was interrupted by Senator Crowley — who seems to have brought from a another place habits which are not, possibly, customary in this House — that when we are addressing ourselves to people in the North, when we are trying to express our concern, we should do this in a way that is neither mealymouthed nor gratuitously insulting. Unfortunately, the majority of our attempted communications with the people of the North seem to fall, in most cases, into one of those categories.

When certain representatives or so-called representatives of Northern public opinion — and I am thinking here of the more extreme Unionist or so-called Loyalist opinion — speak of this part of this island as a foreign country and speak of the possibility that there are hundreds of criminals wandering around here, I believe they cannot have it both ways. They must realise that if they want a solution to the problems of this island they must be prepared to think in terms of this island as an entity. That does not mean a surrender to the idea of a 32-county Republic. But it does mean a realisation on their part that if they have an opinion to express about what goes on in this part of the island then they must be prepared to consider the problems of this island as a whole. They cannot have it both ways, and I believe it is for us to make this position quite clear.

Furthermore, they must come to realise — and it would not be easy for them, particularly in view of the siege mentality which has been built up mainly by people in the South, the siege mentality of the Loyalists and the Unionists — that the reason there is substantial violence and substantial crime, of whatever nature, whichever epithet we like to use for it, political or otherwise, the reason is that during the course of the 60 years in which the present political division of this island has existed, they did nothing to prevent the creation of an alienated minority there. They did nothing, or very little, to bring that minority into their community. Consequently, if there is violence and crime there, a large part of the responsibility is theirs and they must accept responsibility for this. I would like to repeat that this will not be easy for them to realise or admit, though there are indications that some of the more thinking and forward-looking representatives of Unionist opinion are beginning to come to that realisation.

I should like, in context, to make this particular point, particularly since the police force of this part of the island has been brought into the discussion by the motion, that when a police force comes to address itself to the question of crime, to a large extent society and even that police force is admitting failure. Crime is something that a good police force does not try to hunt down, try to identify or bring to the courts; it is something that a good police force tries to prevent. In this context, if we are considering the most effective ways of dealing with cross-Border crime, we are going to have to address ourselves, as the people of an entire island, to the causes of this. We are going to have to try and get away from the hard cast-iron, rigid categories of the past to which Senator Crowley and his associates are so addicted. We are going to have to look to the future and to new ideas. In this context too I would like to place on the record of the House my belief that the problem is a 32-County problem and that we in the South will, in our time, have to face an alienated minority, not coloured in green or anything like that, but a socio-economic minority which we have progressively, in our part of the island, helped to create during those 60 years. I believe that those people too will eventually be forced into violence and into crime and terrorism. It will be only if we are prepared to look into the future in a constructive way and get away from these cast-iron categories, that we will be able eventually to deal with this problem.

Dr. West

On a point of order, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I know there are a number of other speakers wishing to get in on this debate. I would propose that the debate conclude at 8.30 p.m. rather than extend it for a half an hour.

Professor Murphy

I would be glad to second that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The time fixed for taking the Adjournment debate was agreed on the Order of Business today for 8 o'clock, so it is fixed. Nevertheless, it is up to the House——

Mr. Ross

On a point of order, Senator B. Ryan who is taking the Adjournment debate at 8 o'clock is agreeable to take it at 8.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Ryan

I understand a number of people want to speak on this and if it would be possible to extend the time for half an hour, it would be very welcome.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

So, we take the Adjournment debate at 8.30 p.m. What time will the Chair call the final speaker to conclude the debate — 8.15 p.m.?

Mr. E. Ryan

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Crowley

In relation to Senator Ross's motion, which was scheduled to be taken at 8 o'clock and has now been deferred to 8.30 p.m., who needs to be informed of that?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister; is the Minister agreeable?

Mr. Crowley

Is the Minister available?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I call the Leader of the House.

Mr. E. Ryan

I was somewhat surprised, in the course of this debate, at the rather cavalier way in which some speakers seemed to be willing to treat the Articles of the Constitution and our obligations under the European Convention on Extradition. It is usual in this House, when matters affecting the Constitution or obligations to Conventions, such as the European Convention on Extradition, that Members urge that our obligations should be strictly applied, no matter what may be the short-term advantage of ignoring our obligations, or ignoring the Constitution, we should nevertheless abide by the Constitution or by any such Convention.

In this debate there has been a tendency for what would be short-term or for what would be an effort to deal with a particular problem, that we should abandon our obligations under the Constitution or under these Conventions. There is no doubt whatever that Article 29 of the Constitution states that our rule of conduct should be in accordance with the generally recognised principles of international law. There can be very little doubt that it is a generally recognised principle that people should not be extradited for political offences or offences connected with political motives. There is no doubt as to what are the provisions of the European Convention on Extradition, the fact that it also provides that there should not be extradition for offences connected with political objectives.

Consequently, it seems to me that we are perhaps moving very far away from our normal attitude to these matters in this case. In my view there is no justification, in all the circumstances, for taking this point of view. In both international law, in the European Convention and in the Extradition Act of 1970 — under which the UK regulate their attitude to extradition — this same principle applies. Accordingly, it seems to me that we have to have regard in this question, to these generally recognised principles and to these institutions under whose laws and principles we normally act. Consequently we must be very slow to do anything, unless the case is made and made is such a way that there is virtually no answer to it, that we should depart from these principles.

The demand for extradition, the demand that is made in the motion before us, is based upon demand which arises in two separate ways. We have had in the past, on frequent occasions, demand following some murder, some bombing, some outrage of that kind. There is immediately what I think can fairly be described as an emotive demand for extradition on the spot. It should be pointed out that that kind of demand is usually a demand to extradite suspects rather than to extradite people against whom there is evidence. It has been pointed out, and it is no harm to point it out again, that there is no law, there is no country anywhere which is prepared, certainly not in the western world, to extradiate people merely because they are suspected of a crime. I do not think anybody would really support extradition in the context in which we are talking merely because people were suspected. Of course, if they were suspected and extradited on that basis then they would be subject to interrogation with consequences which have already been dealt with by other speakers.

I can understand very well, the feelings, the frustration, the feeling of outrage of people in the North of Ireland, Unionists in the North of Ireland, when offences, murders and other bombings and so on have been committed. I can understand their demand for extradition, their feeling that people who have committed these acts have fled across the Border and the only answer to that is extradition. I can understand people who think that this has happened, who think that the offenders have fled South and that extradition is the only way of dealing with it. But, of course, there are many people who do not really think that but pretend to think it. I remember on a certain occasion being in the House of Commons listening to a debate on the North of Ireland when one of the Unionist MPs referred to a murder that had been committed that morning in his area in the North. He said, "The person who perpetrated this crime is at this time sitting in a public house in Dundalk, or somewhere south of the Border, telling his friends about the great act he has done." The fact was that the Member of Parliament who was making that categorical statement had not the remotest proof that the person who committed the crime had fled South or was in a pub in Dundalk or anywhere else. But his immediate reaction and his categorical statement was that that had happened. That is in the category not of people who think that that has happened but who pretend to think that that happened and who use it as a means of trying to undermine relations between the two parts of the country and trying to ensure that this part of the country is seen in the blackest possible light. But there are people who genuinely believe that extradition would be an answer to the problem.

I have said that the British regulate their attitude to extradition by the 1870 Act. It is of some interest to look at that Act, to see how careful they are; not only do they say that a person who is alleged to have committed a political offence shall not be extradited but, for anybody to be extradited, there has to be a prima facie case against him. There must be evidence produced which would be the same as is required in this country before a district justice will send a person forward for trial. It is a very strict test. It is one which in the United Kingdom is operated in regard to any question of extraditing anybody. But of course they do not extradite people for political offences. Nevertheless spokesmen in the United Kingdom, politicians and lawyers, suggest that we should do what they would not dream of doing in their own country. Consequently, when we deal with the second kind of situation — in which the demand for extradition is made in a sober and mature way — people are talking about a situation in which there is prima facie evidence. Of course the fact of the matter is that if there is prima facie evidence, if there is evidence against somebody who committed a crime in the North of Ireland who is down in this part of the country, then if that evidence is available, the person can be tried, found guilty and convicted under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. The effect will be exactly the same — a person will be convicted if he is found guilty and he will be sent to jail exactly as he would be in the North of Ireland. If the demand for extradition is a responsible one, to apply only where the evidence is available, then this can be done under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act and the same effect can be obtained.

Senator Robb asked us about murder: does anybody approve of murder? Would anybody stand over murder? Is everybody against murder? Of course we are all against murder. There is no question about that. He went on to describe the kinds of ways in which murder occurred in the North of Ireland and the harrowing scenes connected with it. But this did not all add up to the fact that extradition was the answer to it. It did not add up to the fact that if we were willing to adopt this motion, if the State was willing to extradite people who were alleged to have committed offences in the North, that that would stop murder and that that would solve the problem. The fact of the matter is that there is no proof at all that the introduction of extradition would stop a single murder, would stop a single crime of this kind. There is no proof. There is the suggestion that, on the one hand you have these crimes being committed, on the other hand, you do not have extradition, that this adds up to the fact that if you did have extradition then that you would not have the crimes. The fact is there is no such proof that one would lead to the other.

For that reason I cannot accept this motion. I cannot accept that extradition would in fact play any part in preventing crime of this kind. Either we are talking about extradition against suspects, which is totally unacceptable, or we are talking about the situation in which evidence is available, in which case the person could be tried under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. In these circumstances I maintain that a case has not been made for this motion. In these circumstances we should abide by the principles which are in our Constitution; we should abide by the principles of international law; we should abide by the principles in the European Convention on Extradition upon which our Extradition Act is based, an Act which we cannot ignore without breaking our obligations to the Extradition Convention. I fully appreciate the frustration and the feeling which has motivated putting down this motion, but nevertheless I do not think the case has been made and I cannot support the motion.

Mr. Mallon

Could I thank you very sincerely for the opportunity to speak on this motion? Unfortunately I had my baggage almost packed because I was almost coming to the conclusion that another case of British legislation had been implemented and that I was the subject of an exclusion order. Despite that it is very important that Northern voices are heard on this motion. I make that point in reference to Senator Larkin, who is more Northern probably than anybody who has spoken on this motion. I certainly would like to register the fact that it would be a shame if that did not happen. I know the little arrangements that are made within this House are very important to someone who lives in the middle of that map that Senator Robb has already shown, but this motion and indeed other considerations arising from it may be just slightly more important.

I welcome the opportunity to put my views on record in relation to this motion. Much has been said in relation to the constitutional position about extradition. It is about time we dealt in facts. There will not be extradition from this part of Ireland to the North of Ireland because that involves a constitutional change. Irrespective of the niceties one might use about it, the fact is that that is where the reality lies. That involves political parties within this House and within Dáil Éireann making a decision to present a change in that Constitution on extradition to the people of the Republic of Ireland. That is why there will not be extradition, because that question should not be put to the people of Ireland. If we look at the situation it would involve enormous upheavals. I will refer to those as I go along.

The alternative to that is to try to get an acceptable legal alternative. I suggest, that in terms of the 1976 legislation, the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, effective legislation exists. Of course, there is the third alternative. It is the one which is not mentioned in the motion or the amendment, the one that has hardly been debated today at all. That is the real answer to the problem. The real answer to the problem of political violence is not political legislation, it is not repressive legislation. I suggest that if you had 100 such extradition arrangements between this part of Ireland and the north it would not fundamentally change the problem that exists there nor would it fundamentally change the violence, which has not just existed there for this past 12 years. One must ask oneself why indeed, since the foundation of the six county State there has been internment every decade — that is forgotten about — there has been subversion every decade and, indeed, there has been repression every decade.

Let us not talk about this motion in relation to what is happening at the present time or indeed over the past 12 years. Let us discuss it in relation to the solution to the problem. That solution must lie in finding a long-term lasting political solution to a problem which has existed for over 60 years and which will exist for another 60 years, irrespective of the amount of repressive legislation which is brought in here or by Britain in the North of Ireland, or whatever extradition arrangements are made, whatever arrangements will be, for the simple reason that when you have that inherent instability within the State, when you have the type of identity crisis which leads to alienation on the one hand and a supremacist attitude on the other which lead to confrontation instead of consensus, which lead to a position where a section of the population say the process of enforcing law is theirs not ours, we are the sufferers from law, they are the people who implement it. That is what we have to solve in the North of Ireland, not through this type of legislation, not through extradition but through creating a lasting political system with which people can identify.

I would like to make one point on the constitutional position. It is often talked of as if the refusal to have extradition is solely the position of the Irish Government. Let me quote from Dingle Foot, whom Senator Robb mentioned earlier, when he said, speaking in 1965 about the British Extradition Act:

The exception relating to events of a political character is thoroughly familiar and has been included in our extradition legislation since 1870. Indeed the tradition that we do not return to the country of origin persons who are accused of political offences goes back to the Napoleonic Wars.

That is a British statement about a British piece of legislation. However, one must also face the fact that there is this problem.

There are three ways of dealing with it. We change the Constitution, and, sooner or later, the question has got to be asked in relation to this type of motion, why is it not done? The political realities in the Republic of Ireland will provide the answer to that, not the legalistic niceties. The gut political realities are that the balance of probability would suggest that whoever presented that to the people of Ireland would not win it. You can imagine the field day there would be in Britain in relation to that. You can see the editorials in the Sun or Daily Mirror even now. You can see what it would do in the North of Ireland, the way in which certain clerical gentlemen in the North of Ireland would use that for God knows how many years to come. You can see the way in which the paramilitary groupings would use that. Can you see the blood transfusion it would be for some of the paramilitary groupings to be able to campaign on that? That is the damage it would do. That would be the net effect. You would end up with a very big minus in relation to something which can only be dealt with in another way.

In relation to the 1976 Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, I would like to make one point. I am told there were 82 requests since 1971 for extradition of people from this part of Ireland to the North. There have been nine cases brought under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976. The central fact is that exactly the same weight and quality of evidence is required to have a person extradited if extradition existed as it does to have him prosecuted under the 1976 Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. One must ask the question: What has happened to all of these other claims? Have they suddenly disappeared? Must we not come to the conclusion either that that evidence did not exist at all, that the British authorities knew that it did not exist and for that number of years they were playing with this for propaganda reasons, or that they had the evidence and, for whatever reason, chose not to implement it through the existing legislation? If the third point is the relevant point, then we are dealing with a very cynical situation. My view is that it was a propaganda exercise whose bluff has been called by that Act. If that Act did nothing more, it would be of benefit in that it has done that, it has said to the British Government and to the Northern Ireland authorities, "If you have the evidence, present it, and we will proceed." It is a dramatic decrease from the number of claims for extradition to the number of cases brought under that Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. Therein lies the nub of the claims to extradition.

Of course, there is another claim, that is the claim made consistently by Unionist politicians in the North of Ireland, claims that there are hundreds of people roaming about here being harboured in the South of Ireland for offences committed in the North of Ireland. I will deal with those in relation to the point I made previously, because I regard those claims as being utterly spurious. If we look at the most recent question in the House of Commons on 9 November 1981, volume 12 of Hansard, columns 45 and 46 we will see Mr. Dunlop, the MP for Mid-Ulster, asked the Secretary of State how many suspected murderers, informers or perpetrators of other crimes are now believed to be living in the Republic of Ireland and how many applications have been made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the extradition of suspected terrorists. Surely, in 1982 people have a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That is a perfect example of the way in which suspicion is used, not just for making a debating point but being used in such a way that the ordinary people in the North of Ireland believe that there are many people living here in those circumstances and they believe that if only the Republic of Ireland had extradition the problem would be over.

That is where the basic dishonesty of that Unionist position comes in. It is dishonest and hollow for that reason. It is propagandist because, as you will find, especially in July, it will be trotted out again in many places. It is very insincere.

One of the facts of life that we ignore is that the majority of sectarian killings in the North have been committed by loyalist paramilitants. That is a verifiable fact. Are those people harbouring in Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal, Louth or Meath? I doubt it. How do we deal with that problem if extradition is the key to the other problems? That is a problem which must be faced. That is why I say that those calls of loyalist politicians are insincere. They are also contradictory because they are contrary to their own basic political philosophy which says to the south of Ireland, the SDLP, the British Government and everybody else: "We do not want anything to do with the south of Ireland, you have no role to play but there is a role to play here". They recognise it. If that is the case — I accept that it is — then surely that role must translate itself into the central role which we have all got to play, that is, finding a lasting solution. The contradictory nature of that is something which must be made obvious to people.

I want to make this point as unemotionally as I can because it is not a time for raising emotions. If one is considering extradition, one must ask the nature of the State to which one is going to extradite. That must surely be the responsibility of any responsible State. One must ask oneself about the track record of the State to which one is extraditing. Let us forget about the years before 1970. We know what internment without trial created, we know how long that lasted, we know what happened to the families of those 2,000 people who without any evidence against them were incarcerated for up to four years. That is over. We went from that to the searches and arrests — I will ignore that because Senator Crowley has made the point about it, the ill-treatments and the way in which confessions are sought and got in places like Castlereagh and Armagh. That did not happen many years ago. That happened a short time ago. It is on record and proven by Amnesty International. It is on record in the report of Lord Justice Bennett, a British judge. Do not take my word for it, do not take what was alleged as propaganda, take the word of a British Lord Justice who investigated it. Let us see what that does to the attitude of people and to the attitude of the families who suffered that.

I have been in Gough Barracks in Armagh night after night. I have not seen what happened but I have seen the people coming out of it after four or seven days. That did not happen by accident. There is something else we cannot ignore when we look at the record of the people involved. We had a deliberate policy initiated by Roy Mason, which could best be described as shoot, not question. Nine people were killed by the security forces. They were shot dead in circumstances where they could have been arrested. They were unarmed. There is the situation at present, about which there is controversy, where 24,830 plastic bullets have been fired in the North, 12 people have been killed, seven of whom were under 15 years of age. I am trying to put on record the type of State we are talking about extraditing to.

There is another factor which does not get the headlines. It is the arrest, detention and interrogation of people who are known to be innocent so that they can fill in the interrogation jigsaws on other people. That happens in a very widespread way, which adds to the alienation which will prevent any type of solution on a security line.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator's time is up.

Mr. Mallon

Could I make a final point which I may get to speak on at some future date? There is no security answer to the problem. There is no answer in extradition. There is an answer in the creation of a long-term lasting political solution, which is equitable and fair to all of the people within this island. Is it not time that, instead of reacting to what the British do in Ireland in relation to that solution, we, the elected people of this island lead for a change rather than do as we have done for the past 12 years, simply react to whatever Mr. Whitelaw, Mr. Mason. Mr. Atkins or Mr. Prior do? That is our challenge.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Ryan will have four minutes.

Mr. B. Ryan

If I were to be crude I would say that my attitude to the amendment and to Fianna Fáil's criticism and defence of our present attitude to extradition would be almost to say a plague on both your houses. I grew up in a staunchly Fianna Fáil household and it was only when I left home that I realised how misguided was the conception of what was required to produce Irish unity which was the traditional view of the Fianna Fáil Party. Therefore, while I would, in principle, accept the view — I will give reasons why extradition is unacceptable to me — I would not in any way wish to appear to be allying myself with the views of the Fianna Fáil Party on extradition.

Extradition is unacceptable because I do not believe there is a security solution to any of our crime, whether it be terrorist or otherwise. I also believe that there is, whether one like it or not, an oppressed minority in Northern Ireland. While I have enormous sympathy for the position and the aspirations of the majority, I do not believe it is part of my job to ignore the minority. My political predecessors in this House have ignored both communities. I will ignore neither. I will go to Northern Ireland quite happily and defend my position on extradition to anybody who wants to hear me. I will tell them why I will not support extradition. I challenge my friends in Fianna Fáil to say that they will join me in meeting people in Northern Ireland in all areas of Protestant Belfast and tell them why they will not support extradition.

On the other hand, we have the amendment. Unfortunately, Fine Gael disappoint me. I am sure it will not break their hearts. I would have thought they would be able to make up their minds about extradition. They are in favour of it or they are against it. They should not avoid the issue. It is a cute political trick, which works well inside this political club, but as far as I am concerned it will cut no ice with the population outside. They do not see our political games in here in quite the same light we do. So as not to give credence to Fine Gael defending their own position or protecting their own interests, I will not support the amendment.

It ill behoves anybody down here to cast too many aspersions on the security forces in Northern Ireland notwithstanding the excesses. If I were suspected of a serious crime I would prefer to be in the hands of the RUC than in the hands of certain elements of our security forces, having witnessed their appalling performance during the H-Block demonstrations when, no matter what provocation they were subjected to, their reaction was gross, crude and excessive.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator's time is up.

Mr. B. Ryan

I will conclude on that and say that I will not support either the proposal or the amendment for the reasons I stated.

Mr. Ross

When I heard the Minister's speech I was beginning to think that maybe what he was putting forward as the objections to extradition were purely a legal problem. He did very well and quoted chapter and verse about something which is definitely in dispute. I began to think it was probably a camouflage. I was delighted to hear what I thought was the most honest contribution from the Fianna Fáil side of the House later on when I heard Senator Crowley speaking, because he came out with the real reason why Fianna Fáil do not support extradition. Other speakers, like Senator Mara and Senator E. Ryan, made genuine speeches about it and they made me believe in the legal case against it, but Senator Crowley came out with the emotional reasons, with the reasons out of the cupboard and he came out with the reasons that the Minister did not give.

Senator Crowley quoted cases of torture which existed in 1971. He gave us a long litany of very emotional things which had happened to people in custody in Northern Ireland under the guard of the British Army. We had already agreed that nobody in this House condoned that behaviour but no one answered, no one on the other side of the House said and nobody gave evidence that there was any ill-treatment, that there was any torture or brutality going on. Nobody disputed that this was happening since the Bennett Report or since Hermon took over as Chief Constable. Nobody came up with any evidence of that happening, and no Government as far as I know protested about that happening for the last few years. So, we have to accept that that is the status quo now. I am tired.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Ross

The Senator could have had an opportunity to speak earlier. Senator McGlinchey's Government surely would have made a protest about it by now if that was happening, because successive Governments here have been the guardians of people in custody here and have taken the British Government to court on that situation. We did not hear from Senator Crowley anything about the atrocities of the IRA. At least those of us putting forward this motion are quite prepared to condemn violence on either side. We heard nothing from him about the people of Fermanagh, the people of Tyrone, the people of Armagh and the sufferings that they have had to put up with under the auspices of the IRA. I do not like to hear this element of Fianna Fáil that comes out with a one-sided anti-British anti-Loyalist attitude. The Loyalist are the people they are meant to beholding out the hand of friendship to, but they ignored their opinions. They feel a territorial right and nothing else towards them. They have nothing in common with them at all.

I would like to say a few words about the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act because a great deal has been said about it. The Minister said that the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act can continue to be applied as long as evidence available. Then he went on to say that evidence is not available. That is exactly the problem with the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. The Act is clumsy and does not work. It is no good people from the other side of the House standing up and saying that we have had six convictions in six years under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act I do not know how many cross-Border crimes there have been, and nobody else does. There have been an enormous number of unapprehended people in that time. It is quite obvious that if we only have half a dozen convictions in half a dozen years that it is not working and it is not bringing people to book.

As regards the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and the statements that have been made, there seems to be a certain amount of confusion about it. The annual conference passed the resolution that they called for a review of the constitutional conditions regarding extradition. What has happened since then is a decision of the executive, which is not the annual conference, not the guards. The executive have certainly backtracked. I do not know why but I suspect that it is something to do with political pressure, I suspect it is something to do with this motion and I suspect that they were slightly embarrassed by being mentioned in this motion. It is wrong for us to say that that is now the position of the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors. Let us wait until next year and see what the delegate conference decide and not say what the executive decide, for reasons we do not know.

Very little was said in this debate about the actual amount of goodwill that extradition would have on the moderate opinion in Northern Ireland. It is an extraordinary facet of southern politicians that they can talk about Northern Ireland and ignore the Protestants and the moderate Catholic opinion there. What must be emphasised is that this, once again, is such an emotive matter for them. They really believe that this is important. This is the one issue which you come across time and time again up there. Whether you believe it is going to work or not you have to acknowledge it as a problem and a problem which they believe is extremely important. That is why, once again, I oppose the Fine Gael amendment because I think it is an issue on which every politician in this country should take a stand. Fianna Fáil's position is quite clear, Fine Gael's position should be made clear.

Senator Eoin Ryan said that extradition would not stop any single crime although there was no evidence of this. I find that almost impossible to believe with so many cases of people coming over the Border after committing political crime. I find it difficult to believe that in many cases it has not happened that those people have gone back and committed several more crimes. Had they been extradited, arrested and put in custody this would not happen.

Senator Mallon spoke about the track record of the RUC, the track record of the British Government and the track record of the forces of law and order up there. I accept that track record, I accept that it has been deplorable but I think, once again, Senator Mallon should stop looking to the future: look to the present and what is happening at present and accept what will happen in the future. It is very difficult for people from Northern Ireland not to look back and not to remember but I think we are in a new situation now, we are in a situation where there is no torture and we should bear this in mind. I think that it would probably not happen again.

Amendment put.

Mr. Ross

Vótáil.

Professor Murphy

Vótáil.

An Cathaoirleach

The question is: "That the amendment be made". On that question a division has been called. Will those Senators who called for a division please rise in their places?

Senators Murphy, Robb, Ross, B. Ryan and West rose.

Dr. West

Vótáil.

An Cathaoirleach

A division will now take place.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided, Tá, 43; Níl, 5.

Tá

• Barnes, Monica.
• Belton, Luke.
• Bolger, Deirdre.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Bulbulia, Katharine.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Conway, Seán.
• Conway, Timmy.
• Cranitch, Mícheál.
• Cregan, Denis (Dino).
• Crowley, Flor.
• Daly, Jack.
• de Brún, Séamus.
• Dooge, James C.I.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Fallon, Seén.
• Ferris, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Tom.
• Hannon, Camilla.
• Herbert, Tony.
• Hourigan, Richard V.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lennon, Joseph.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Mallon, Séamus.
• Mannion, John M.
• Mara, Patrick J.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Nolan, Matthew J.
• O'Connell, Maurice.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Mahony, Flor.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin J.
• Reynolds, Pat Joe.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.
• Smith, Michael.
• Taylor, Madeleine.

Níl

• Murphy, John A.
• Robb, John D.A.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• West, Timothy Trevor.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Barnes; Níl, Senators Murphy and Ross.

Amendment declared carried.

Question, "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

Before I call on Senator Brendan Ryan on the motion for the Adjournment could the Chair have an indication of when it is proposed to sit again?

Mr. E. Ryan

It is proposed to sit next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Reynolds

Just for the one day?

Mr. E. Ryan

Until all the business is finished.