Vol. 398 No. 5
6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will outline the issues discussed at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on 25 April; the Government's assessment of the prospects of progress towards democratic devolved Government in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the number of occasions on which the Irish Government have raised through the Anglo-Irish Conference the commitment contained in the Anglo-Irish Agreement to work towards devolved Government in Northern Ireland; if they intend to raise the matter at the Anglo-Irish Conference again; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 17 together.
The issues discussed at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on 19 April were outlined in the joint statement published after the conference; they included the current political situation, security and legal matters, confidence in the security forces and system of justice in Northern Ireland and cross-Border economic co-operation.
The question of how political progress can best be achieved is kept under constant and active review by the Irish and British Governments within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference and this will continue to be the case. It is, of course, the Government's hope that early progress can be achieved on a basis that is satisfactory to all involved.
Will the Minister elaborate on the subject in the communiqúe — but not referred to here — of fugitive offenders and extradition? What matters were raised and how were they pursued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the discussions?
I have specifically answered the questions I was asked but if Deputy McCartan wants further information perhaps he will table a separate question?
The Minister said that the matters discussed were carried in the communiqué. This was one of the matters referred to in that communiqué and, as the question is seeking information on the subjects dealt with at the Conference, I am asking the Minister to answer.
There was a discussion on extradition and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made his views known on the issues. The Irish side made their position known which was outlined recently in the Dáil by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice.
I asked the Minister what views were expressed by the Secretary of State at that meeting.
We cannot afford the luxury of repetition at Question Time.
We are looking for the right of reply.
I have afforded the Deputies an opportunity to ask supplementaries and they heard the Minister's reply. The Chair can do no more in such matters.
Repetition would be a luxury.
I was initially told by the Minister that he had answered my question.
This is leading to argument; you may put a brief question.
Will the Minister convey to the House the views of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on extradition conveyed to him at the meeting?
I understand that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a public statement on the issue after the Conference. I do not have a copy of the statement——
The Minister had a meeting with the Secretary of State, what did he say to him?
The Secretary of State made a public statement on the issue afterwards and I am sure there is a copy of that statement in the Library.
Mrs. Thatcher also made a statement.
It has never been the practice to give a detailed account of what happened or what was discussed on any issue.
Did the Secretary of State express any concerns about the effectiveness of the 1987 Extradition Act? Was the Minister able to give him any assurances in relation to the effectiveness of the Act and, if so, what were the nature of those assurances and on what were they based?
As a former Minister for Justice, Deputy Mitchell should know that a question of that kind should be tabled to the Minister for Justice.
Did the Minister give assurances to the Secretary of State about the effectiveness of the 1987 Act in relation to extradition and terrorist offences?
These questions should be put to another Minister.
Did the Minister give assurances to the Secretary of State in relation to the 1987 Act?
These are matters for the Minister for Justice.
The Minister is evading the issue which means that he was unable to give such reassurances.
Before I ask a supplementary in relation to Question No. 17 I should like to know whether the Minister or the Minister for Justice got an assurances that they would ultimately be given a copy of the Stevens report which was referred to and dealt with at the Conference. What indications on behalf of the Government did the Minister give to the meeting regarding our Government's commitment to assist in the process of devolution as a method of resolving the impasse in Northern Ireland?
With regard to the second part of Deputy McCartan's question which deals with the Government's commitment to support devolution, we must be very careful in our references to the Agreement. We must have regard to the text of Articles 4 (a) and (c). The wording of Article 4 (c) is quite explicit. It says:
...devolution can be achieved only with the co-operation of constitutional representatives within Northern Ireland of both traditions there.
That proviso should be at the forefront of our minds in any discussions on devolution.
The Minister will be aware it is my view, which I have expressed on a number of occasions, that the question of political progress in Northern Ireland is so sensitive we ought to be extremely careful what we say about it inside or outside this House. Therefore, I will not press him on this matter.
Does the Minister not agree that the question of political progress in Northern Ireland is not unrelated to the question of extradition? To that extent I am surprised at his failure to respond to questions on this matter. Does he not agree that one of those matters which has determined political opinion, particularly on the unionist side in Northern Ireland, is their perception of extradition? Does he accept that there should be no hiding place anywhere on this island and no loopholes provided in any legislation for any person or persons involved in acts of violence for whatever alleged motive? Does he accept that this question should be looked at at an early stage because it is tied in with the possibility of political progress?
There is a lot of new matter being injected into this question.
I thank Deputy Currie for his recognition of the sensitivities of this issue and how careful we all have to be. I too recognise the value of what Deputy Currie has said. Of course, I recognise that if political progress is to be achieved there are a number of elements which must all come together. No one element on its own can ever give us political progress.
I am glad Deputy Currie has given me this opportunity to state quite categorically that it is the very firm and definite intention of the Government that there will not be, to use Deputy Currie's words, any hiding place for terrorists from any side in this part of the country.
Hear, hear.
That has always been our stand and will continue to be.
Will the Government review the law?
So, the Government are prepared to review the 1987 Act.
Let us hear the Minister's reply, please.
I want to finish my reply to Deputy Currie. I would share Deputy Currie's concern if anybody involved in acts of violence could find loopholes in our legislation through which they might escape what they deserve. If any loopholes appear I will make sure that my views on such matters will be made known.
The Taoiseach's views——
I am calling Question No. 7.
May I ask a final supplementary?
I cannot dwell overlong on any one question. We have made very little progress today on questions. Question No. 7.
The Minister was becoming more forthcoming.
