A slightly different situation arises here because there are some provisions in this Bill which may be somewhat controversial. We indicated on the Second Stage that we are in agreement with the general principle of providing extradition machinery but there may be some controversial matters to be raised. On the whole. I think the best way to transact our Parliamentary business would be to recognise the fact that there is an election proceeding today, throw our hats at it, and adopt in regard to this Bill the same procedure as we adopted in regard to the other. I am, however, bound to say to the Minister that this, unlike the previous Bill, is one on which there may be a clash of interests in respect of certain sections. I am not inviting the Minister now to adopt this course on the same basis as I invited him to adopt it on the Registration of Title Bill, which I regard as a purely technical measure and one for technical discussion. Here, there might be a different principle in respect of certain sections, but I would recommend to the Minister and the House that we should adopt the same procedure, deal with the ministerial amendments and recommit the others.

There are no Opposition amendments.

Fine. May I suggest we dispose of this expeditiously today and recommit it on Report Stage?

I support the remarks made by Deputy Dillon. There may, perhaps, be a fundamental approach on certain sections of this Bill and the view we take is that it is such a very important measure the same line of approach should be adopted as was adopted on the previous Bill. I should also like to say that I cannot understand why a measure of this importance was introduced today when an Estimate, for instance, could have been brought before the House. The Estimate for Health comes on tomorrow. Why could that not have been brought on today? Perhaps the Government might have done themselves a good day's work if they had the Minister for Health inside this House today during the election instead of outside it.

Is there any technical objection?

No; it is purely a matter for the House.

I thought amendments could not be put down on Report Stage, except on matters discussed on Committee Stage.

They can, if we recommit the Bill. We can recommit the Bill and have a Committee Stage. Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

May I get an explanation on this section? There is a paragraph "‘political offence' does not include the taking or attempted taking of the life of a Head of State." May I speak on that?

I do not mind, but the suggestion is that we go through it automatically and have our discussion later.

I cannot be here and I am interested in this. I want an explanation from the Minister as to what he means by a "Head of State"? Franco is a Head of State and I have no doubt Spain will be one country with which we will have an extradition treaty. Franco is a dictator. He is there by force, certainly not by the free will of the Spanish people. We know how he got there. We know there are people who, if they want power, will use the only means they have to get it. We are told that democracy can change Governments and that is the real justification for democracy.

We are not concerned with how any particular country elects its Head of State.

Nevertheless, if someone makes an attempt on the life of Franco, and that person gets here, the Minister would hand that person back to Spain.

For the purposes of this Bill, all we are concerned with is that the man is the Head of State of the country.

Who is the Head of State in Britain? The Queen, or the Prime Minister?

The Queen.

Take Northern Ireland. Would an attack on the Queen's representative be an attack on the Queen? I am asking the question.

It is not my job to interpret these hypothethical questions. The Bill deals with the assassination of Heads of States.

The Minister should be nice to Deputy Sherwin until nine o'clock anyway.

I am curious. I cannot understand why, if someone elects himself Head of State by bloody force, and someone tries to get back power the same way, we should intervene and hand that person over. That is my point.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 13, lines 4 and 5, to delete "in the manner provided for in section 22".

This is a drafting amendment. Subsection (1) of section 39 provides that transit through the State may be granted by the Minister for Justice, following a request to that effect made in the manner provided for in section 22 by the country to which the surrendered person is being conveyed. The "manner provided for in section 22" which deals with requests for extradition, is a written communication either through the diplomatic channel or by any other means provided in the relevant extradition provisions.

It may happen that the country to which the surrendered person is being conveyed may have no extradition agreement with the State and that, accordingly, a request for permission could be made only through the diplomatic channel. This might be unduly cumbersome in a particular case.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 14, line 49, after "recognizance" to insert "or bail bond".

In Scotland, the word "bail bond" is used instead of "recognizance" and, while "recognizance" could be interpreted as including a bail bond, it is considered better to make the matter absolutely clear.

For the purpose of the record, I want to say I understand our agreement is that this Bill and the amendments will be recommitted on its next Stage.

It is only the Bill. There are no amendments.

But if amendments should turn up in the light of what the Minister has said, the Bill and its amendments, such as they may be, are recommitted on the next Stage?

Yes, that is my understanding, and I should emphasise, of course, that this represents considerable accommodation on my part because I am ready to go ahead with the Bill today.

When the Minister imagines there is any accommodation, I can assure him it is only his juvenile inexperience that persuades him of that. If he imagines I could not keep him here in dealing with 290 sections, he had better think again.