HC Deb 14 March 1990 vol 169 cc481-6 3.30 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder (North Down)

(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on extradition between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom following the decision of the Supreme Court, Dublin, on 13 March.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke)

The Supreme Court in Dublin yesterday overruled orders for the extradition to Northern Ireland of Dermot Finucane and James Pius Clarke. Both men are convicted terrorists who escaped from the Maze prison during the mass breakout in 1983. Clarke was serving 18 years for the attempted murder of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Finucane was serving 18 years for possession of firearms and ammunition. Upon their apprehension in the Republic of Ireland, extradition of both was ordered by the district court. Appeals on behalf of both men were quashed by the High Court but were yesterday upheld in the Supreme Court, their last court of appeal. The Government are deeply disappointed at that decision.

Details of the judgments, which I understand are lengthy and complex, are not yet available to us, but I believe that the main ground of appeal was that their rights under the Irish constitution would be infringed by the treatment these prisoners would be thought likely to receive in the prison system of Northern Ireland. That this was upheld by the court is both disturbing and difficult to understand. It is an unacceptable slur on the professionalism of the men and women of the Northern Ireland prison service. I shall study the full judgment as soon as it is available and will pay particular attention to the references to Northern Ireland prisons. The conditions in the Maze prison, indeed throughout the prison system in Northern Ireland, are widely regarded as among the best in Europe.

Both the British and Irish Governments have pledged themselves to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with fugitive offenders. Extradition is a vital factor in this. I remind the House that it was the Irish authorities who originally sought these extraditions on our behalf and who have continued to make strenuous efforts, at every level of their judicial system, to bring these cases to a successful conclusion.

I shall obviously also be studying the full judgment carefully to see what implications it has for other cases. It is clearly right that each case should be considered on its merits. But our principal concern, shared with the Irish Government, is that the system as a whole should work effectively, as well as fairly. We will pursue this with the Irish Government.

Mr. Kilfedder

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dublin Supreme Court decision yesterday causes widespread anger and dismay among the people of this country, especially the people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered death, mutilation and agony at the hands of the terrorists for 22 years? More importantly, it generates disbelief and sadness—I wish, even in the anger of this moment, to emphasise the sadness—since the United Kingdom Government constantly stresses that the Irish Republic is whole-hearted in the fight against the IRA.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the decision seems to provide a bar to the extradition from the Irish Republic of terrorists who commit their atrocities either in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, so long as those atrocities are part of their brutal campaign to bomb Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland republic?

Finally, will the Secretary of State ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to arrange an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr. Haughey, to ensure that the next six wanted men will be extradited from the Irish Republic to face justice in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brooke

I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in much of what he has said, but I should reiterate that it was the Irish authorities that brought these cases on our behalf and it was the Irish court, which is independent, that ruled in the matter. Until the judgments of the Supreme Court have been received and studied, any comment on the effect on other cases would be merely speculative. However, if the judgments affect only cases involving Maze escapees, the immediate impact will be limited, as there are at present no other such cases before the Irish courts.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

Does the Secretary of State share my bewilderment over the virtual suppression in the news industry of the earlier Supreme Court ruling of 1 March, that the claim to a united Ireland is no mere aspiration but a valid legal claim? Does he agree that that judgment discredited all the assurances given in the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Does he further agree that it provided grounds for yesterday's decision by the same Supreme Court, which probably felt that, having established its legal claim without any challenge from Her Majesty's Government, it was free to argue that it could not be expected to transfer or extradite its citizens from one part of what it considered to be its territory to another part?

Mr. Brooke

I am conscious of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his question, and he will recall that we had the opportunity for an exchange across the Floor of the House on Monday. As to the supplement to his question, I see no basis for the assertion that the Supreme Court's decision on the Finucane and Clarke extradition case is related to the McGimpsey judgment, which concerned the constitutionality of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, or for the right hon. Gentleman's inference that in the light of that judgment, the Irish authorities could no longer extradite persons to Northern Ireland. I am aware of no evidence from yesterday's judgments to suggest that the Irish now refuse to extradite people on the grounds that they consider that they have a legal claim to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the failure last year to extradite a suspected terrorist, Mr. Ryan, and the failure yesterday to extradite two convicted terrorists reveals—in the most awful way—the unsatisfactory nature of our extradition arrangements with the Republic?

Does not my right hon. Friend understand that those two whose extradition was refused yesterday are convicted terrorists who are likely to return to their terrorist organisations and maim and murder others? Will he undertake to the House that, as a matter of the highest priority, he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will put forward views and proposals to the Government of the Irish Republic on how we can achieve proper arrangements for extradition between our two countries?

Mr. Brooke

The disappointing results in the Finucane and Clarke cases yesterday, to which my hon. Friend refers must be set against the generally satisfactory working of the extradition arrangements between our two countries over the past two years. Since January 1988, 13 persons have been returned to the United Kingdom, and orders for delivery in respect of a further six persons are currently the subject of appeal proceedings before the Irish courts.

Additionally, the Irish state has successfully appealed against the decision of the district court not to order the return of a further two persons. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment at yesterday's decision, but it should be seen against a generally satisfactory working of the arrangements over the past two years.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Does the Secretary of State agree that, contrary to the reaction in some quarters of the press and of some of his hon. Friends about the future of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the forthcoming conference is all the more desirable to enable the Irish side to discuss coolly with him the fact that the judiciary is independent of the Executive and that the Supreme Court is specifically obliged to protect the constitutional rights of citizens?

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Anglo-Irish Agreement offers a valuable framework within which the two Governments can discuss issues of mutual interest and concern, such as the one that we are debating this afternoon. Once we have had the chance to examine the Supreme Court's lengthy judgment more fully, we will make our response within the framework of the agreement. We have already made our representations through the secretariat.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom are disgusted at the failure of the southern authorities to extradite the two convicted terrorists? The judgment in the Supreme Court in Dublin has given great succour and joy to the terrorists' organisation. Can the Secretary of State understand the feeling of terror in my constituency, given that one of the terrorists was convicted of terrorising the people of my constituency along the border? What happened yesterday was another kick in the teeth for the Government.

Mr. Brooke

I have already registered our disappointment in the outcome of the case. However, we should respect the independence of the Irish judiciary in the same way that we would expect them to respect ours. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Brooke

I draw the attention of the House to the silence of the Irish Government in the context of a judgment in the House of Lords last week.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)

Is the Secretary of State aware that most people in the United Kingdom will be very disappointed by his reply to the House this afternoon? For him to say merely that he is disappointed will come as a shock to most people. He should have said that he was outraged at the Irish court's decision.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in addition to the reason given by the Supreme Court, which he mentioned—its suspicions about warders in the Maze prison—there was an even worse reason, which has not yet been mentioned in the press? I refer to the second judgment given yesterday, by Mr. Justice Walsh in the Supreme Court. As far as extradition is concerned—we are talking about convicted IRA men, not suspects—he said: political exemption … should not apply to persons charged with politically motivated offences when the objective of such offences was to secure the ultimate unity of the country. So long as people kill outside Northern Ireland and so long as they do so in the interests of a united Ireland, it is allowed by Mr. Justice Walsh. That is the situation under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Does the Secretary of State recall that, when he and his colleagues tried to gain support in this House for the Anglo-Agreement, the headlines said, "It will bring normality into extradition"? Does he believe that normality exists in extradition?

Mr. Brooke

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the language that I used today. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the sense of outrage at the implicit slur, which played a part in the judgment, on the Northern Ireland prison service. I endorse that, and referred to it in my statement.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Walsh. I was aware of that aspect of the case. We shall examine that aspect of the judgment, together with all others, to see whether it moves the law forward from the Dominic McGlinchey case.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable disquiet in Eire about the decision, that Mr. Alan Dukes has expressed his view on the subject and that we have every reason to question how the judiciary arrived at its decision?

Mr. Brooke

I am aware that politicians in the Republic of Ireland have made comments about the case. I especially noted that they recommended that it should he handled at an early stage within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

Does the Secretary of State agree that, until we know the raison d'etre of the judgment, we cannot make constructive comments? Would not it be wiser to wait until we know the reasons for the decision? Discussions may then take place with the Irish Government about possible improvements to the existing state of affairs.

Mr. Brooke

I hesitate to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but I am answering a private notice question. I was not volunteering a statement.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the House that a private notice question is an extension of Question Time. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side, and then we must move on.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Since it is clear what reasons were given by the Supreme Court in Ireland yesterday, and since the court was dealing with convicted terrorists, does not it sound suspiciously like an excuse for a court to do something that it would otherwise be wrong for a court to do? If terrorists get the impression that courts of law are leaning towards their side, what chance have we of defeating terrorism?

Mr. Brooke

My hon. and learned Friend is right to enter that consideration. We would regard with horror any comment that encouraged murder in any part of the world.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

While I personally found the decision odd and unhelpful in the fight against terrorism, would not it be unfortunate if a judicial decision in the Irish Republic—the Secretary of State stressed that it was a judicial decision—led to a state of hysteria in the House of Commons? Will the Secretary of State be frank enough to admit that some Members of Parliament—we know who they are—will do anything to create the maximum ill will between the Irish Republic and this country?

Mr. Brooke

I do not think that anything approaching an air of hysteria exists in the House. Hon. Members have expressed their understandable concerns about a decision which they found disappointing.

Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)

May I follow the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), and emphasise the sadness caused by the Court's decision? This decision and a previous decision made by the Supreme Court seem to render null and void article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which will have to be reconsidered.

Mr. Brooke

I think that my hon. Friend is confusing the particular circumstances of this case with the other case to which he alluded. But I join my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) in saying that there are unfortunate aspects to this case which we shall pursue through the framework of the agreement.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

We share the surprise and disappointment at yesterday's decision of the Supreme Court in the Republic of Ireland. But to echo what the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday—on the day when a politician could institute prosecutions, the rule of law would end. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would support the Supreme Court's desire to remain impartial, detached and free from all political or diplomatic pressures in its objective determination of the issues involved. However, the court's decision is still very disappointing.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, until the announcement of the court's decision, arrangements had been set in train for handing over the two men at the border? Secondly, can the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act 1976 be invoked to bring proceedings against the two men in the Republic?

Thirdly, on the advice that the right hon. Gentleman has now received, does the decision apply only to this case or to cases that were decided before the Irish Republic incorporated into its domestic law the convention against terrorism? When the case was presented before the Supreme Court, were any steps taken to try to contradict the evidence produced to support the appellants who based their case on Chief Justice Hutton's decision in the Pettigrew case? Was evidence produced to show how much the Irish prison service has improved over the years?

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Irish prison service for doing a job that none of us would undertake willingly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Northern Ireland prison service?"] One would pay tribute to the work of the men and women of the prison service, whether in Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, because none of us would want to do that job.

Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that both Governments still regard extradition as an important weapon in the fight against terrorism and that he will raise those matters at the next Anglo-Irish Conference? If it did not exist, decisions such as this one of the Irish Supreme Court would more than justify the Anglo-Irish Conference and the decision to establish it under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Gentleman's first question related to yesterday's arrangements for handing over the two prisoners at the border. He is perfectly correct—it was visible to everyone on television—that massive arrangements had been made on both sides of the border for the reception of the prisoners. In that respect, the court's judgment was a surprise.

Extra-territorial prosecution would be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but he would consider that only after having had the opportunity to study the judgment in full. The hon. Gentleman asked also about the effect of the convention on the suppression of terrorism. That would depend specifically on the particular charge in each case, and one would have to examine it on a case-by-case basis.

The Government provided substantial evidence to the Irish courts on the central issue of the behaviour of the Northern Ireland prison service, not least to the effect that any such treatment would be a crime in the jurisdiction of the North. The hon. Gentleman's final question was about the importance of extradition in the joint arrangements. We have discussed that matter before in the Anglo-Irish Conference and I confidently expect that we shall discuss it again at our next meeting.

Back to