asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government will consider taking the case of a person or persons convicted under the supergrass system in Northern Ireland to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

I agree that this is a matter for legitimate concern and I note that this concern is shared in Northern Ireland across the community divide. I would naturally hope that it will be possible not to have to resort to such sources for evidence, particularly if there is not corroboration from other sources. I would point out, however, that informers concerned have come from within the ranks of both loyalist and republican subversive groups. I would add that, while we share the concern of nationalist and unionists about this system, we must also share the concern that murderers of innocent Catholics and Protestants are pursued and brought to justice.

We have mentioned our concern about aspects of this system on a number of occasions to the British authorities and we shall continue to do so as necessary. We do not propose in these circumstances to raise this matter in Strasbourg.

There is grave concern on the part of many of us, who, as the Minister is well aware, are as much against the crimes of violence committed by these people as he is. The whole concept of the supergrass seems to go against human rights. The import of this question is that if this continues would the Minister consider, with the Government, taking this whole matter to the Court of Human Rights and asking them to make a judgment, if necessary, even on a trial case? It is important that we are seen to be on the side of justice.

I should explain to the Deputy that the term "supergrass" is a slang term for a type of evidence which has been part and parcel of our legal system as long as we have had a criminal legal system. It is what is referred to as the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. That is evidence which is admissible in circumstances where the court must be very circumspect and extremely careful about how it is received. It is admissible evidence under our legal system.