House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Dec 1993

Column 1453

We all want a just, viable and lasting settlement, which must be reached by the two communities together. No great imperial power can impose a settlement. The days of colonialism are past--

[Interruption.] No doubt to the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). We must take the longer, perhaps stonier, road of getting the local communities and politicians to negotiate between themselves, within a framework set by others, together with all possible assistance and support from friends of Cyprus and from both sides of the community.

We are aiming at a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary put it clearly in the House on 19 November when he said that he was aiming for

"one country, one Cyprus, one Government and two communities."--[ Official Report, 19 November 1993 ; Vol. 233, c. 117.]

There is no question of our recognising the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." We condemned its purported declaration in 1983 and the Government helped to secure the United Nations Security Council resolution 541, which considered that declaration to be legally invalid, and that remains our position.

People get confused about why we have contact with the Turkish Cypriot community at all. We are one of the guarantor powers of the treaty of guarantee, and we have a clear obligation to deal with both communities. For that reason, we maintain contact with Mr. Denktash and others who are prominent and have influence in the northern Cyprus community--but that does not imply recognition.

Future efforts will be directed chiefly towards the success of the confidence-building measures, and the recent elections have given us a new opportunity in that respect. Following those elections, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has sent messages to his Greek and Turkish counterparts, and to Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash, urging them to do their utmost to reach a settlement.

We will follow that up. We have reopened the issue not only by way of direct correspondence with those concerned, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will discuss Cyprus with Mrs. Ciller, the Prime Minister of Turkey, when he meets her in the margins of the NATO summit on 10 January. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will raise the issue of Cyprus when he meets Mr. Cetin, the Turkish Foreign Minister, in Akara during his visit to Turkey on 19 and 20 January. After that visit, my right hon. Friend plans to visit Greece and to follow up those discussions in direct communications with the Greek Government on 21 January.

We should see the package of confidence-building measures as important, but they are only the first step. After that, we must make progress with the Secretary-General's set of ideas--which, naturally, we shall support. We cannot compel a solution to be found, but we must work with a will.

Compromises will be required on both sides. We require genuine power sharing between the two communities. The possible nature of the ultimate political arrangement cannot be foreseen at this point, but I can reaffirm that we will not rest until a final solution has been achieved.

Column 1454

Live Animals (Transport)

1.29 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : This is a matter of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have been involved with horses all my life, as a rider and as one concerned about their welfare ; I am in my 21st year of service on the council of the British Horse Society, to which I have been consistently re-elected. The society is the national controlling body : it controls everything to do with horses except racing. Some years ago, I received the award of merit from the society for outstanding services to the horse world.

This is probably the last chance for us to wish my hon. Friend the Minister all happiness : next week, he is marrying a wonderful lady, and marrying into a wonderful family whom I have known for some years.

The transport of live animals deserves considerable attention from both the United Kingdom Government and the European Community--and, indeed, from the whole world. The British people are enormously concerned about the welfare of animals, which is reflected in the size of the post bags received by Members of Parliament. A recent survey revealed that, apart from housing, animal welfare constituted the largest single element of hon. Members' post bags.

Although animal welfare as a whole covers a huge range of subjects, the House should be in no doubt about the extent of public concern about the transport of live animals. In a recent parliamentary answer, my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledged that his Department had received more than 100,000 items of correspondence on the issue, as well as numerous petitions. A further answer revealed that, since 1 November, the Ministry had received more than 17,000 letters. In recent weeks, more than 800 letters a day have been pouring in. I congratulate the Minister on coping with all that, and the British people on their vigilance in writing.

Why should the British public express themselves in such numbers? They may have been made aware by the campaigns of the RSPCA, the British Horse Society and others--including the International League for the Protection of Horses--of the plight of animals subjected to lengthy and unnecessary journeys en route to slaughter ; but awareness alone does not generate such large post bags. The answer lies in public revulsion at the suffering of the animals--more than 2 million of them--that leave our shores each year, and impatience with the continuing trade and the horrors that accompany it.

In recent years, undercover RSPCA inspectors have documented numerous examples of animals suffering in transit. It is true that some are treated properly, but many experience real, terrible suffering leading to death. In September this year, at the port of Trieste in northern Italy, RSPCA inspectors recorded on film, for all to see, a plethora of abuses to animals after long journeys across Europe. Sheep, for instance, were starved and dehydrated after a long journey, and then unloaded into a holding pen. The water troughs in the pen were so high that the animals were unable to drink from them--what meanness. Dying sheep, exhausted and stressed after one journey, were reloaded without rest on to another vehicle to begin the same nightmare all over again. Dead sheep were dragged off a lorry, which is evidence in itself. A horse was stabbed in the eye because it was reluctant to move due to severe

Column 1455

exhaustion. Such scenes are so horrific and disturbing that I do not think that they should be shown on television before 9 pm. Indeed, I doubt whether they could be shown before 9 pm.

On one occasion, after pigs had made a 35-hour journey from Holland to Rome without rest, food or water--the three essentials of life--RSPCA inspectors witnessed them so exhausted after their nightmare journey that they were not able to walk steadily. They were falling from the vehicle while being unloaded. I have heard many personal testimonies by the late Glenda Spooner, a great fighter for the welfare of horses, who saw horses being unloaded after travelling long distances, stumbling and not behaving as they should, and receiving a severe thrashing for it. The beating was inflicted either out of bad behaviour, to indulge the miserable temperament and mood of individuals or out of sheer cruelty.

Such scenes, which appear commonplace, suggest that the European rules are rarely enforced. The abuses are so widespread that on almost every occasion that RSPCA inspectors monitor ports such as Calais they record yet another journey of 30, 40, 50 and even 60 hours without respite for the animals. Such journey times are in breach of European law. I have asked the RSPCA what intelligence or information it requires to follow such illegal journeys.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said so far. His interest in horses is well known. Does he agree that we need to establish maximum journey times? I am sure that he will share my disappointment about the recent draft directive which failed because it extended the length of journey times above our legal maximum. Does he also agree that, apart from the cruelty of exporting animals, the problem also exports jobs from this country? Should not slaughter take place as near as possible to the point of production? Mr. Greenway : I agree with the hon. Gentleman on both points. It is a tragedy that when, led by the Government, we were making good progress on journey times and on the general welfare of horses and other live animals, we have now moved in the oppositite direction.

I was talking about illegal journeys. The answer appears less conspiratorial than I had suspected. Inspectors wait at Calais or other ports, watching for the arrival of a multi-decked lorry. They look for two drivers, which is a sign of a long journey. When lorries arrive on ferries from the United Kingdom, up to 800 sheep are loaded and the horrendous journey begins. Most disturbing of all is the fact that on almost every occasion the lorries have not been stopped once en route through several countries. Enforcement appears to be wholly mythical.

That begs the question that, if a handful of RSPCA inspectors can so easily find examples of cruelty and disregard for animal welfare, why should basic enforcement be such a problem? It is so easy to find examples of abuse that they should be picked up without the slightest difficulty. Some hard punishment for those involved would have a tremendous effect on a wicked trade.

I am aware that following yesterday's deliberation at the Council of Ministers, there is still much to be resolved on the live transport directive. I hope that equal weight will be given to enforcement and the basic limitation of journey

Column 1456

times. Enforcement matters just as much as limitation ; if that principle is not established, the lengthy and difficult negotiations will have been wasted.

The deliberations on the European directive on live transportation bring me to a matter about which I and the British Horse Society, on whose council I have served for 21 years, feel most passionately. That is the retention of the Minimum Values Order.

The fight against the trade in live horses and ponies has been going on for more than 100 years. The RSPCA, the British Horse Society, the International League for the Protection of Horses and others have sought to stem the suffering inflicted on thousands of old, decayed and worn-out horses, as they are described, sent across the channel for butchery in continental slaughterhouses. That was at one time a lucrative trade and many people were brought before the courts for transporting a horse in an unfit state. In 1900 alone, the RSPCA, secured 4,651 convictions for that form of cruelty to horses. The Minimum Values Order has played a huge part, which cannot be over-estimated, in stemming that trade. Today's Minimum Values Order, which prevents the export of any horses valued at less than £495 or pony valued at less than £220 or any horse over the age of eight years, except in very limited circumstances, has proved a valuable weapon against cruelty.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames) : Hear, hear

Mr. Greenway : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. We have to remember that horses who were, and sometimes are, exported for slaughter have often done a lifetime's hard work and do not deserve that type of treatment. However, there is great worry in horse circles that our open border with the Republic of Ireland--to which the order does not apply, unfortunately--provides a back-door route to butchery and death for many horses. It is a worry because each year many horses are stolen from loving owners and are never recovered. It would appear that stolen horses can be transmitted to the Republic of Ireland without paperwork and could then be shipped to the continent for slaughter.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is in his place, because he and I have done a great deal of work together on that and many other animal issues.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. May I offer him a double congratulation this afternoon ? I congratulate him on all the work that he has done for the welfare of animals ; I also congratulate him on getting this Adjournment debate, and therefore perhaps preventing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) from going out and--who knows--shooting a number of small furry and feathered things and eating them in even greater quantity.

Mr. Greenway : I thank the hon. Gentleman for the initial compliment.

Finally, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for her determined stand during the live transport negotiations by refusing to accept a lowering of

Column 1457

the high standards of protection for animals who are transported live to mainland Europe. That is a matter for great thanksgiving and congratulation and I welcome it warmly.

I hope that in future negotiations, the Government will seek to establish the important principle of maximum journey limit for animals destined for slaughter, as the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) so rightly said. That was supported by 271 votes to six in the European Parliament on Wednesday this week. More importantly, we must establish that the good practice of slaughter happens close to the point of rearing. The hon. Gentleman said it ; I have been saying it for years, in the House and in many other places.

An eight-hour journey limit would allow any purchasers to reach a choice of slaughterhouses of proper standing. Furthermore, we must promote the carcase trade. It represents 80 per cent. of British exports and, as has been shown in a recent report on the economics of the trade, it costs only £1.20 to transport a carcase from the United Kingdom to southern France, but £6.25 to transport the sheep live. Those figures tell their own story.

It is also surely in our best interests for British lamb to be sold as British lamb--the best lamb in the world--and not sold in French butchers' shops masquerading as French produce. British farmers received not a penny more at market for the 2 million sheep who were transported live to the continent this year. Meanwhile, jobs in our slaughter industry decline and the needless suffering continues. The other reason for a maximum journey limit is enforcement. Feeding and resting periods complicate the enforcement of such rules. Indeed, the dreadful case that was successfully prosecuted by the Ministry just two months ago--I congratulate the Minister on that--highlights the difficulty of enforcement. The transporter in question had submitted to the Ministry, as part of the export licence that was used then, details of the stopping points for resting and feeding the animals. However, on no fewer than 42 occasions, he breached the written guarantees on the treatment of the animals in his care.

On one occasion, no doubt to save time and money, the journey lasted 44 hours from Calais to Piannella in Italy during which time the sheep were not fed or watered. On another ocaasion, the same journey lasted 47 hours. I wonder whether that individual would have done that to his next of kin. However, in respect of 42 instances of false declarations, the transporter concerned--a Mr. Mills--was fined only £4,200 and £3,500 costs.

Mr. Morley : Disgraceful.

Mr. Greenway : I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The transporter concerned was fined £7,700 for the trails of suffering that he sanctioned. That is an outrage. I wonder how much Mr. Mills saved in respect of feeding costs and wages by completing those journeys without stops. I am sure that he must have saved quite a lot more than £7,700.

I hope that the penalties for breaches of the live transport rules will be toughened. We cannot let that cruelty pay and we should not allow traders who compromise the welfare of those animals to continue in that business. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an

Column 1458

issue about which many of my constituents, and the constituents of many other hon. Members, feel very strongly.

In the years to come, I hope that I shall not feel that I have to return to the issue to highlight further cruelty and suffering ; a sensible and rational policy, well enforced, would safeguard Britain's reputation as the guardian of animal welfare without compromising Britain's economic interest.

1.46 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames) : I thank my hon. Friend thMember for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) for his kind words and, in the Christmas spirit, I ask him to forgive me for the disagreeable manner in which I let him know that I had to give up a day that I intended to devote to matters relating to conservation in the north of England in order to answer my hon. Friend's debate. I am glad to have given up that day on this occasion

Mr. Morley : And so are the animals.

Mr. Soames : They are not animals--they are birds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is a real expert on the matter. The horses and ponies of the United Kingdom, past, present and future, owe him a considerable debt for his great knowledge and quite exceptional contribution to the horse world which, as he mentioned, was recognised when the British Horse Society gave him one of its highest awards. My hon. Friend has served for 21 years on the British Horse Society, which is one of the most important bodies governing horses in this country. My hon. Friend's knowledge of the matter is well known.

I am also grateful for, and should like to acknowledge publicly, my hon. Friend's support and the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, by and large--and certainly unqualified in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North--for the very tough line that the Government have been taking in the European Community negotiations on the protection of animals during transport. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that what happened in Brussels over the past two days--which frankly was a most unsatisfactory result as far as animals are concerned--was no fault of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who laboured hard and long, as did the chief vet, his colleagues and the officials in the Ministry who spent months preparing for the Council, lobbying in Europe and trying to bring the other countries round to a more sensible and honourable way of thinking about the care of animals. It was a great sadness to all of us that we were unable to reach a conclusion. However, I will return to that point later.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, the treatment of animals in transport and elsewhere is a subject for which the British people have enormous vital, instinctive and entirely justified concern. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the Government's approach fully reflects that concern. We are not prepared to accept proposals that would fail to improve the welfare of animals during transport ; nor will we play politics on the way in which we arrive at such agreements. Negotiations are taking place with people who simply do not understand and who have a cultural and attitudinal difference from ourselves about the handling, keeping and

Column 1459

using of animals. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food demonstrated the strength of our resolve this week in Brussels, when she refused point blank to accept a compromise proposal which failed to address our vital concerns. I hope that my hon. Friend and Opposition Members will not mind if I rehearse the background to the negotiations, as they are complex and the situation bears careful thought.

In 1991, when the existing directive on the transport of animals was adopted, it was acknowledged as being incomplete. It lacked vital and, as my hon. Friend said, enforceable details on the intervals between rest, food and water for animals. This summer, the Commission published proposals to complete the directive based on advice from its own scientific veterinary committee. We regarded the proposals as a sound and prudent starting point for discussions. Pending implementation of the further rules, member states are permitted to have their own national rules.

Mr. Morley : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames : I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman is brief.

Mr. Morley : I shall be very brief.

On the point about national rules and enforceability, the Minister will be aware that we had a brief discussion in Committee about the concept of a licensing regime for animal transporters. The Minister will know also that I have written to him further on that matter. I do not expect a response until he has had time to consider the point, but it might be useful if he would indicate whether it is a principle which might be worth examining further.

Mr. Soames : I cannot comment on that. I have seen the hon. Gentleman's letter, and I applaud him for following up where other people do not bother to follow up after making a suggestion. We shall study the proposal with care. I have no intention of commenting one way or the other on the principle. I shall be happy to talk to him about it later.

The United Kingdom has taken advantage of the right to use national rules, and we maintain a maximum interval of 15 hours between feeding and watering horses and farm animals. We have always made it clear that, in negotiations, we would seek a solution reflecting our standards.

The Commission's proposal set a maximum feeding and watering interval of six hours for horses. For other farm animals, the intervals varied between eight and 24 hours. In negotiations under the Belgian presidency, it soon became apparent that many member states had acute difficulties with the Commission's proposals. In addition, much attention was devoted to measures that could improve enforcement of the rules, and we were extremely keen to encourage that. Those aspects are of fundamental importance for the proper care of animals, and we were encouraged by the realistic approach demonstrated during that part of the discussions. There was general agreement that the proposals should be simplified in order to set a smaller number of categories of animals for which different feeding and watering intervals would be established.

In the initial stages of the discussion, it was pleasing to have the weight of our arguments accepted, because the

Column 1460

presidency proposed rules that were indeed very close to our own ideas. In the final stages of the negotiations, however, it was clear that several member states would support only intervals significantly longer than those that we have maintained in the United Kingdom. There was also pressure to reduce the eight-hour rest period during long journeys, which the presidency had proposed. The final compromise which was on offer failed to meet any of our vital objectives. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it clear in the Council that the compromise was wholly unacceptable to the United Kingdom and, as a number of other states shared our concerns, no agreement could be reached.

I shall read an extract from the communique that my right hon. Friend issued following the animal welfare discussions. It bears some reading.

She said :

"Our vets had worked hard to try to establish satisfactory intervals for feeding, watering and resting animals during transport. They pressed for current United Kingdom national rules to be adopted throughout Europe where the current maximum is 24 hours. We also pressed successfully to link health certificates and journey plans so that national authorities can more easily enforce those intervals.

Going along with a package which was fundamentally flawed would have further prejudiced the welfare of those animals already most at risk. I was not prepared to support this. In the meantime, the United Kingdom's national rule of 15-hours maximum journey periods, between watering, feeding and rest will remain in place. We shall continue to press for these high standards to become the norm in all parts of Europe."

Mr. Harry Greenway : I wish to say how pleased we all are about that and how strongly the whole House and the whole country are behind the Government on the basic points that my hon. Friend the Minister is putting before us. We should make that clear.

Mr. Soames : I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The events have demonstrated once more the huge gulf which sadly exists between those countries in Europe that have an enlightened attitude to animal welfare, and others that see no need for improvements and have little interest even in talking about the subject. It is perfectly clear that the latter countries are the obstacle to progress and it is to them that the protests of animal welfare lobbyists need to be addressed.

I wish to say some harsh words about the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which I regret having to say. I warned the RSPCA months ago that there was no point in its wasting huge sums raised from its hard-pressed supporters to run a series of advertising campaigns in this country promoting animal welfare. The RSPCA already has our support. We are the animals' friends in Europe. We are what stands between the animals and real cruelty in some of the southern states of Europe.

By pursuing that fatuous, money-wasting campaign, the RSPCA has failed to spend any money lobbying where it should have lobbied--in the capital cities of those countries which do not support our proposals such as Spain, Greece, Italy and France. It should have concentrated its efforts--

Mr. Tony Banks : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames : No, I will not give way. I am sorry, but I must get on. The RSPCA really must concentrate its efforts where it can help the animals.

Column 1461

In addition to anxiety about the transport of farm animals, I fully understand and share the special regard for horses. Welfare interests help to ensure that the subject is kept on the European agenda by vigorous lobbying. The horse lobby is an example to the rest of the animal welfare world of how to get one's points across in Europe.

Following earlier talks in the Community, we had obtained agreement that our national rules on horses could continue. We have accordingly maintained our controls, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know as the minimum value system for horses. That was one of our major achievements in the 1991 negotiations. The discussions in Brussels this week did not contain any proposals to place that agreement in jeopardy. Of course, the concern for horses extends far beyond Britain. There is great concern about the trade in horses between eastern Europe and the Community. We are most anxious that such trade should be conducted under proper and decent conditions, if it has to take place at all, so that those vulnerable animals do not suffer the indignity of being treated like junk. The 1991 directive already goes some way towards achieving that objective. It provides the authorities with powers to stop journeys if any animal is suffering.

The key point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the really important point with which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will agree with is that there is no point in any regulation in Europe on the welfare of animals if it is not properly enforced by the member states. Until we have a proper system of enforcement of the rules on transport of animals in Europe, any improvements that we might secure are not worth the paper they are written on. That is why every effort must be made to lobby the countries that oppose these ideas in order to secure the interests and welfare of animals throughout Europe.

In future negotiations, Her Majesty's Government will continue to seek the best possible standards of transport for all animals in the European Community and, above all--almost standing over that--a proper and decent enforcement regime so that the public in Britain and elsewhere in the Community, and everyone who minds about animals may have complete confidence that such matters are handled with the care, attention and decency with which they should be treated.

Perhaps most important of all is that everyone with an interest in improving standards should do everything possible to promote a more enlightened attitude towards animal welfare--an attitude which, is so seriously lacking in some other Community countries. Until that happens, we will fight with all the vigour and force at our command. We have the moral authority of a huge animal welfare lobby in this country, of whose views we are acutely aware. The trouble does not exist here.

I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to press, through his other interests, those countries that so flagrantly ensure that animal welfare is not properly attended to when animals are transported through their territory.

Column 1462

Mr. James Smyth (Extradition)

2 pm

Mr. Ken Livingstone (Brent, East) : I have been associated with many of the campaigns against miscarriages of justice that have resulted from the problems of Northern Ireland and the way in which those problems have spilled over into Great Britain during the past 25 years. I must start by making it absolutely clear that I do not for one minute believe that injusticies have been done only to nationalists and Catholics. Many miscarriages of justice have been perpetrated against the majority community and loyalists in the north and I have been associated with the campaign for the UDR Four. Whereas in war, truth is the first casualty, in the dirty war that has been going on during the past quarter of a century, justice has been one of the first casualties, as the urgencies of the hour have tended to lead to unreasonable decisions that are taken without due regard for the facts.

My involvement in the case of Jimmy Smyth arose because I happened by chance to meet him and his defending counsel when I addressed an Irish Americans for Clinton rally, just before the November presidential elections in California. Following a discussion about the work that I had done in the House, I was asked to submit to the defence 242 questions that I have tabled in Parliament, 30 written questions, 13 oral questions and six of my speeches. That led to my being invited to appear to give evidence in court, as an expert witness on British Government policy. The Government may not have been terribly happy about that, but I seem to have spent a great deal of time examining British Government policy.

I must read into the record two decisions taken by the judge presiding over the case because they are very concise and easy to follow and enable me to boil down the essence of the matter very rapidly--

Mr. A. Cecil Walker (Belfast, North) : I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, Mr. Deputy Speaker--, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw :--

The House proceeded to a Division : but no Member being willing to act as a Teller for the Ayes, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- declared that the Noes have it.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : They have been nominated. On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You asked for names for the Tellers for the Ayes and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) said, "Mr. Cecil Walker and Mr. John D. Taylor."

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Both hon. Members have been in the House long enough to know that the Chair looks to one side for the Ayes and to the other side for the Noes. I looked to the right and there were no Tellers in position for the Ayes. The hon. Gentleman should know the rules of the House. The Tellers for the Ayes were not present.

Question again proposed , That this House do now adjourn.

Column 1463

Mr. Livingstone : I hope that hon. Members who are interested in preventing this debate will not miss any of it. As I did not expect to continue my speech, I lost my place in my notes.

The case in question is taking place at the moment, and yesterday the closing written submissions were submitted by the defence and the prosecution. The court's written judgment is expected to be delivered some time after Christmas. Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was about to read into the record two accounts written by the presiding judge that perfectly capture the specific problems in understanding this case. They are two judgments by Judge Barbara Caulfield, a United States federal judge who was appointed by President Bush on the nomination of the Republican senator for California, Senator Wilson, who is now Governor Wilson. This is not some dear old radical hangover from the good old days of the new deal : it is a fairly recent judicial appointment under the Republican Administration. This is the first airing and testing of the extradition treaty that was negotiated by Prime Minister Thatcher with the then President Ronald Reagan. The House will recall that the British Government were profoundly unhappy with the operation of the previous extradition treaty and, after considerable pressure by Mrs. Thatcher, an amendment was carried. It is under that that the case is being heard.

On 14 September 1992 the United Kingdom filed a formal request for the extradition of James Joseph Smyth to serve the remainder of his sentence for a 1978 conviction in Belfast, Northern Ireland. The case is being heard under the supplemental extradition treaty between the Government of the United States and the Government of the United Kingdom which went into effect on 23 December 1986. That is quite specific. The treaty negotiated by Mrs. Thatcher with former President Reagan spells out that

"extradition shall not occur if the person sought establishes to the satisfaction of the competent judicial authority by a preponderance of the evidence that the request for extradition has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him on account of his race, religion, nationality, or political opinions, or that he would, if surrendered, be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions."

It is remarkable that such a wide-ranging defence opened up after Mrs. Thatcher's intervention, because that ruling effectively changed the way in which extradition cases would be heard. Now, the British Government and their conduct of policy are on trial.

Judge Caulfield issued a decision on 29 September 1992 on whether Jimmy Smyth should be granted bail. It examined the basic bones of the case, based on the judge's reading of the Diplock judgment that convicted Mr. Smyth in 1978. She stated :

"Mr. Smyth has indicated that he will attempt to prove at the hearing that he is not guilty of the crime of attempted murder for which he was imprisoned in 1977. He will argue that his imprisonment was the result of his political views and religious background rather than his conduct. He has indicated that he will offer expert testimony regarding the due process problems of the Diplock court system which can lead to unjust convictions and did so in his case. This court has had an opportunity to review the opinion of the Diplock judge who convicted Mr. Smyth in 1978. The evidence against him was almost entirely circumstantial. The fact that the victim and his wife, who were purportedly in the presence of the perpetrators for ten to fifteen minutes, were unable to identify Mr. Smyth is noteworthy, as is the lack of any forensic evidence connecting Mr. Smyth to the crime scene. Despite the fact that

Column 1464

numerous fingerprints were recovered at the scene none of them were Smyth's. Indeed, the only eyewitness evidence against Mr. Smyth was the testimony of an off-duty police officer who stated that he saw a man near the victim's house, lost him three times as he chased him in his car and eventually captured Mr. Smyth about a mile away from the crime scene. This is not a case where the defendant argues that the evidence does not establish his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt ; rather it raises serious questions about the validity of Mr. Smyth's underlying conviction.

Between 1972 and 1976, Smyth was detained on at least six occasions. Only once was he charged or convicted of any offence--that being in 1972 when he was sentenced to six months for disorderly conduct ; a conviction that was overturned on appeal. On one occasion, Mr. Smyth was interned for an entire year without charges. He maintains that, during his detentions, he was beaten by police and military personnel.

After Mr. Smyth's internment, his name was in the police files. He was stopped and questioned by police as many as four times per week while walking home. He was often put up against a wall, spread-eagled, and then soldiers or police would come up behind him and stomp on his feet. On one occasion, Mr. Smyth was kicked between the legs. On another occasion he was given two black eyes.

Mr. Smyth has also offered to prove and has presented some evidence which indicates that his life was threatened by guards when he was imprisoned in the Maze. Such a threat was specifically noted in the opinion of Judge Babington, the Diplock judge who convicted Mr. Smyth.

In addition, Mr. Smyth has offered to prove that other men who escaped from the Maze prison with him and have been released from prison have been killed by British military personnel and protestant Loyalists. He has further offered to prove that men from his cellblock who remained behind when he escaped were subjected to inhumane treatment. He has offered to prove that guard dogs were set on them and they were denied medical treatment for their resultant injuries."

Judge Caulfield concluded :

"This case is distinguishable from other recent reported cases in which Irish nationals have fought extradition to the United Kingdom in that Mr. Smyth denies membership in the IRA. And indeed, the government has presented no evidence to indicate that Mr. Smyth has ever been charged with membership of that organization."

The case started to deteriorate when Mr. Smyth's counsel asked for discovery of certain Government documents. It seems quite remarkable that if we seek to extradite people from the United States that we should then ignore American court procedure and traditions in hearing the case. The defence asked for access to several Government reports. I shall quote once again from the judgment handed down by Judge Caulfield after the British Government refused to grant the documents.

Of the Stalker-Sampson reports, the report says :

"The Stalker-Sampson reports arise out of the investigation of officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary ("RUC") for the shooting deaths of six people in 1982 whom they suspected of being members of the IRA. The purpose of the inquiry was to determine whether or not criminal offences (involving, inter alia, the giving of false or misleading evidence and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) had been committed The UK maintains that the reports contain highly sensitive information regarding internal affairs investigations and the procedures and identity of security forces personnel.

The Kelly report : In 1988, Charles Kelly, the Chief Constable of Staffordshire, was appointed to consider whether disciplinary charges should be brought against RUC officers of the rank of chief superintendent and below who had been identified by Stalker and Sampson as having committed criminal offences, including murder. The declarations of Patrick Mayhew, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, filed on June 7, 1993 and June 18, 1993, do not specificially invoke a state secret or national security privilege claim with respect to this report. Instead, Mr. Mayhew states that [t]he public interest here is in the maintenance of an honorable, disciplined, law-abiding and incurrupt police force.' Mr. Mayhew's declarations not only fail to specify that he has read the report, but they also fail to specify that the report contains any state or national secrets.

Next Section

Home Page