asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the present and prevailing circumstances concerning Ireland's accession to the European Convention on Terrorism.
16.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - European Convention on Terrorism.
13.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether there is a link between changes in the administration of justice and the Diplock Courts in the North and the implementation of the Extradition Act under the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if so, the progress, if any, the Government are making on the matter.
23.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement in relation to the progress or otherwise in securing tangible and perceptible improvements in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
40.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference he raised matters referred to in Article 8 of the Anglo-Irish agreement and Article 7 of the joint communiqué; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
A Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 10, 13, 16, 23 and Priority Question No. 40 together.
I object to my Priority Question being lumped in with these oral questions.
This is not unusual, Deputy.
They all relate to Northern Ireland.
That was not the general idea when we decided to introduce Priority Questions.
In deference to other Deputies, I will allow it on this occasion.
I agree that the practice of taking Priority Questions with oral questions is growing.
As co-chairmen of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I jointly chaired a meeting of the conference on 21 October last at which, among other issues, the matters referred to by the Deputies were discussed. At the conclusion of the conference a joint statement was issued, the relevant passage of which states:
The conference discussed reports from the groups of officials considering measures to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice and policy aspects of extradition. It was agreed that the two sides should remain in close contact on these issues.
Discussions are, therefore, still ongoing and, in accordance with normal practice, it would not be appropriate for me to go into the substance of the issue at this stage.
I want to ask the Minister, more specifically in answer to my first question, if the proposal to have three judges instead of one in the Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland has been formally and finally rejected by the British Government at this stage?
There is no question of rejecting or accepting matters in an ongoing process. When there is not definite agreement between both sides on any issue it becomes part of that process. The thinking behind the establishment of the Anglo-Irish Conference was that it would be such a process and if there was not agreement on particular issues, they would remain open for discussion. There will be further discussion on the Diplock Courts and many other issues concerning the proper administration of justice in Northern Ireland with which we are concerned.
I am asking the Minister if the specific measure of three judge courts has been turned down or if it is still on the table.
Every aspect of administration of justice, including that referred to by the Deputy, is still open to further discussion in the process to which I referred.
I should like to ask the Minister if the Government have put forward alternative proposals for changes in the administration of justice and the Diplock Courts, as suggested by the Northern Secretary, Mr. Tom King recently.
A number of options and aspects concerning the administration of justice were discussed in an open and constructive way between Mr. King and myself and between the respective officials.
Will the Minister agree that under Article 7 of the agreement, and the communique, a whole range of issues are involved here? Under Article 2(b) of the agreement both Governments are obliged in the interest of promoting peace and stability to make determined efforts through the conference to resolve any differences. Will the Minister agree that differences exist and that determination must be applied to have them resolved urgently? Will the Minister consider calling a special meeting of the conference, as is his right?
We have just had a meeting and I should like to assure the House that we are in constant touch on this matter. I am confident that Anglo-Irish relations will continue on an even keel to the mutual benefit of the two communities in Northern Ireland and the communities in Great Britain and here.
I am very sensitive about the time scale involved and I do not wish to create unnecessary difficulties for the Minister or the Government. Will the Minister agree that at the moment there are differences between the two Governments that must be resolved immediately and that that may warrant the calling of a special meeting of the conference, a move I would recommend to the Minister?
I should like to assure the Deputy and the House that all options that can further enhance Anglo-Irish relations, and relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland, will be followed up by me. Consultations, under that overall objective, will continue and I can assure the Deputy of that.
The Minister in the course of his reply said that discussions were ongoing and I should like to know at what level those discussions are taking place. Are they at civil servant or ambassador level? Does the Minister envisage another or a series of ministerial meetings taking place before 1 December? Is there any procedure under which the House could be consulted either by way of statements or debate before 1 December so that we may be able to assist the Government in trying to resolve the serious difficulties that appear to be emerging? Will the Minister say if the Taoiseach has made direct contact with the British Prime Minister in relation to this?
Obviously, I will not go into the detail the Deputy is seeking but I should like to assure him that every avenue is being explored at all levels. I had a meeting in London a few days before the Anglo-Irish Conference. I maintain my contacts and my staff maintain theirs. We are seeking to ensure that above all else the process that has been established will continue and that there will be no diminution in Anglo-Irish relations. At the same time, we want to ensure that what is required in regard to reforms of the administration of justice as far as the Nationalist community are concerned is followed up in a vigorous and meaningful way through the conference and by the British Government.
I should like to ask the Minister to reply to Question No. 16 in my name, one of the questions that is being taken with a number of others. Will the Minister tell the House the attitude of the Government in regard to the coming into force of the Extradition Act, 1987, on 1 December if some of the changes in the administration of justice, and the Diplock courts, which the Government have put forward, have not taken place by then?
We must all agree that in the public mind there is an interrelationship between the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and extradition. Speaking at Bodenstown recently the Taoiseach said it was clear that at present many Irish people are questioning whether Dáil Éireann should agree to submit Irish citizens to a system of justice in which a large section of the community in the North has not as yet been persuaded to place its confidence. That factual position must be acknowledged and, in my view, that answers the point raised by Deputy O'Malley.
The Minister has given a long account about how anxious he is to see smooth running relations between the British and Irish Governments in regard to this. I should like to ask him if he will agree that the activities of the Government Press Secretary last week were not conducive to such smooth running relations?
No, the Deputy is aware——
Was he acting on the instructions of the Taoiseach?
That is not true.
That is not true?
It is not true that the Government Press Secretary——
We are reverting to a matter which I thought was disposed of earlier in Question Time. That is not permitted and is not good enough.
I will not pursue this because the Government Press Secretary obviously misled the media.
There are other ways and means open to Deputies if they are dissatisfied and Deputy Barry has already indicated that he is taking such steps with me.
The communique states that the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister must, with determination and imagination, try to resolve the difficulties that will arise under the agreement and I should like to know if the Minister is satisfied that the Government are doing that.
I am.
Is the Minister satisfied that both Governments are doing that?
All Members have adopted a very responsible approach to this matter. We all accept it is a very difficult juncture but that it is one we can resolve if we adopt a steady attitude towards this matter. I am seeking to do that, as is the Taoiseach, and I respect the fact that the leaders of all the parties who have spoken in the House this afternoon want to do that. I respect the fact that the leaders of the minority constitutional party in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, are of the same view and that the British Government, and the Opposition in Westminster, take the view. We should try to make progress when there is, in my view, a broad area of agreement. The one heartening thing at present is that there is a broad area of agreement. We should seek to work on that and ensure that the process which is now working and marks a very interesting development in Anglo-Irish relations and, above all else, in inter-community relations in Northern Ireland, is allowed to flourish.
With due respect to the Minister I must remark that that is total hypocrisy when one recalls he is the person who deliberately went to Washington two years ago to try to undermine confidence in the Anglo-Irish Agreement among Irish Americans.
That is not a question.
I am surprised at the Deputy. Phraseology of that type does not help at this time.
The Minister's visit to Washington certainly did not help.
I could have gone into that area but I deliberately did not do so.
The Minister was very wise not to do so.
We forgive the Minister; he was on instructions.
One would imagine listening to the Minister that there were no differences whatever between the British and Irish Governments on the issue of the administration of justice. I should like to ask the Minister if it is the case that there are no differences.
At the press conference I said that there would be no reason for an Anglo-Irish Conference if we agreed all the time. Of course there are differences of emphasis and of approach and the whole purpose of having the conference is to ensure that those matters are discussed and a consensus of agreement reached. I would not make any claim of that kind.
I should like to ask the Minister if, in view of the most recent statement by the Northern Secretary, Mr. King, in Oxford on Friday to the effect that there was a commitment to consider fairly any proposals that might help tackle the issue of confidence in the administration of justice, he is happy that this issue will be resolved by 1 December?
I cannot speculate regarding the future and I do not have any way of making an assessment of that kind at this stage. We will try to get agreement on issues as soon as we can and if we do not fully succeed at all times, the process must continue and we will try again. We should realise that the process is not about instant solutions, it is about getting down to the painful business of settling a matter which has bedevilled this island and relations between Britain and Ireland for hundreds of years.
This is very hard to take.
The road to Damascus leads to Belfast.
The Minister quoted from the Taoiseach's speech at Bodenstown, especially from the passage which indicated the Taoiseach's belief that there would be many people hesitent about agreeing to extradition unless various things happened. Will the Minister confirm to the House that the factual situation is that, as a result of a series of Supreme Court decisions, extradition is now a reality and will continue, irrespective of what is done between now and 1 December?
I agree that court interpretations have helped in this area.
We are now moving to Priority Questions.