Vol. 385 No. 6
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the ongoing review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; whether any proposals for consultations with the Unionists have been agreed; and when the Government proposes to consult with Opposition leaders in Dáil Éireann on the review.
49.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the areas for review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Conference are agreed; if they will be brought before Dáil Éireann and when this will happen.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 49 together.
Article 11 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement makes clear that the subject matter for the review is the "working of the conference". As I indicated in my detailed statement in Dáil Éireann on 16 November, the working of the Conference is dealt with in Articles 2-10 inclusive of the Agreement. The operation of these articles, individually and collectively, is therefore included in the scope of the review.
The approach by the two Governments to the conduct of the review is set out in the communiqué issued after the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference on 2 November. Work is now proceeding in accordance with the approach outlined in the communiqué.
As regards the involvement of Unionists, the communiqué of 2 November stated that "each government would take careful account of views expressed to it, both on the past experience of the conference and on any changes which might be desirable in its scope and nature". It is of course open to Unionist leaders, and the Unionist community, to avail of this invitation to submit views, which has been reiterated on several occasions in recent months.
There has already been an opportunity to hear in considerable detail the views of party leaders and other members of Dáil Éireann during the full day discussion on the review on 16 November. The subject is, of course, also dealt with during Question Time, as on 9 November and again today. However, the Taoiseach would be prepared and delighted to have discussions with party leaders on the matter in the New Year.
I hope that the extradition affair between Britain and Ireland will not damage the important work of the review. Will the Minister clarify whether the work of the review is only taking place at official level, whether any joint initiative was agreed between the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, at their recent bilateral meeting in Rhodes and whether the issue of the operation of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act by the British side will be raised at the Anglo-Irish Conference meeting tomorrow in view of the Attorney General's findings in the Ryan affair?
I will answer the last point first. At recent meetings of the Conference we have brought the utilisation of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act to the top of the agenda. I would again propose tomorrow to raise it and to point out the efficacy of it in dealing with many of these cases which otherwise have caused contention and sensationalism——
Hallelujah. After 12 years.
——and have affected relations between these islands by reason of that sensationalism. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act should be operated to a far greater degree that heretofore. It represents a way in which many of these cases can be dealt with. I am not privy to what takes place between the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher at their private meetings. Regarding the first point made by Deputy Kennedy, I am certain that the review process will continue and that the Conference will continue its effective operations, despite certain views that are held in regard to extradition and the proper utilisation of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act.
The Minister in his reply quoted the statement of last month and said he hoped the Unionists would avail of it to submit their views. Is anything being done informally to ascertain their views? Is there any contact by his Department, through the Secretariat, with certain Unionists to try to bring them into the process? The Minister will know that I am not in favour of this long review of the Agreement. Can he assure us that it will be finished by the end of January and will come before this House very early in February? The length of time being taken to carry out this review is damaging.
The end of February or 1 March was the kind of deadline we had in mind — three months, December, January and February.
It is stretched and stretched.
I share the Deputy's concern in regard to the Agreement. We will let past views go by in this respect. The Agreement and the Conference represent the one anchor of hope through which we can talk to the British Government and deal with Northern Ireland affairs, doing so in a quiet committee style manner rather than engaging in any megaphone diplomacy. That has been the main achievement of the Conference and it has enabled us to discuss matters in a reasonably calm atmosphere.
I wish to remind the Minister of the question I asked him earlier. It would be ungracious of me, and I will not indulge in it, not to welcome the change of attitude by the Minister towards the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am very glad of that but I asked him about the Unionists.
At all stages there are many contacts with the Unionists. This is a very delicate matter and I cannot say anything in public about who these contacts are conducted by. So far as the Official Unionist Party position is concerned there has been, until now, no response. An offer has been made to them by the British Government and on several occasions by the Taoiseach to take part in discussions and we await their response. The Unionists know they are welcome to participate during the review process in any discussions concerning improvements in the Anglo-Irish Agreement or Conference or outside that context altogether. They are free to come in on any parallel talks where it might be appropriate and constructive to have such talks, without prejudice in any way to the operations of the Conference.
I am interpreting what the Minister has said to mean there is something going on but I will not probe it any further.
Arising from the Minister's reply to a previous question from me, has there been any agreement with the British authorities to operate the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, prior to today's decision on the Ryan affair, or will it be raised tomorrow for the first time?
As I have said, I have raised this issue on several occasions at recent meetings. It was embodied in the communique of the last few meetings. Both the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have had discussions on the matter and the Attorney General here has had discussions and talks in that regard with his counterpart in Britain. As we are all aware, the Attorney General has referred specifically to it in the context of the Patrick Ryan case as a possible avenue of meeting the problem, in that it is quite clear that some of the offences with which Patrick Ryan is charged could be appropriately dealt with under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act if we got the required co-operation through evidence from British sources. The Attorney General has said that in the second last and last paragraphs of the report which has been presented to the House.
I asked the Minister if he has agreement from the British authorities, prior to today's announcement, that they will operate the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. Was there agreement and co-operation on the operation of that Act prior to today's announcement?
As of yesterday, before the announcement, both parties — the Attorney General's office in London and the Attorney General's office here — were discussing ways and means of ascertaining suitable type cases for operation under the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, in other words, setting what parameters would be decided and what type of case could be decided appropriately within that. Those preliminary talks are under way as a result of instructions from both the last Conference and the previous one. Already preliminary talks have taken place along these lines, prior to the specific case of Patrick Ryan.
Is it not true that the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, has been in operation for eight years, admittedly not as frequently as I would like?
Yes, and very successfully.
What is the Minister talking about then?
It is a statute of this House.
What is the Minister discussing?
Questions are becoming untidy again.
The Minister is saying he is discussing it.
