---

Dr. Godman: What does the hon. and learned Gentleman make of the claim made by the Minister for Justice that no extradition treaty exists between those two member states of the European Union? Are not the Government of Germany as responsible for the situation as the Government of the Irish Republic?

Mr. McCartney: I take that point on board. However, if the purpose of the convention was to ensure that terrorists should find no hiding place in the Community, all the signatories must have realised that their domestic law would have to be modified by agreeing a treaty, or by agreeing that the convention itself provided sufficient legal authority to achieve the convention's intent. Is it not passing strange that the Irish Government, since 1987, after signing the convention and realising its purpose, have failed to make any modification of their internal law or to alter their relations with Germany to effect the purpose of the convention?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As far as I can tell, the amendment is not about extradition arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and Germany.

Mr. McCartney: I am dealing with the broad principle of consultation and the issue of whether it is a good idea to consult someone about whose bona fides one has an element of doubt. However, I take on board entirely your suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may have strayed beyond the bounds of strict relevance.

It is curious that it should be necessary to consult the Republic's Minister for Justice on a decommissioning scheme for arms found in Northern Ireland. Clause 8, which provides for arms in England, Wales and Scotland, does not require a similar consultative process. Is that because--as I said earlier in the debate--Northern Ireland is not considered a bona fide, real and first-class member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, thereby making consultation with the Irish Government necessary? Is consultation necessary on arms in Northern Ireland, but entirely unnecessary on arms in a first-rate member of the United Kingdom, such as England, Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Maginnis: I am anxious not to contravene your reminder to stay close to the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, as we are discussing the role of the Irish Republic's Minister for Justice, I should say that--irrespective of which treaty or arrangement the Irish Republic willingly enters into--primacy rests in that state's constitution.

In 1985, that fact was demonstrated in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was party to a challenge, in their own supreme court, to the Government of the Irish Republic. The senior judge in that court ruled that the status of Northern Ireland--which the Irish Republic stated that it would respect--was not defined, and carefully not defined. When we have to deal with wordsmiths who can concoct language, which is always secondary to the

16 Jan 1997 : Column 507

constitution of the Irish Republic, we have to be aware and wary of what is intended. Before you remind me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall sit down.

Mr. McCartney: I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, on the issue of consultation with the Irish Government, my experience has been that virtually no extradition warrant on which they have been consulted has ever been successful--the papers have been lost or the name or address of the wanted person has been wrong. Inevitably, a technicality has been found to refuse the warrant, which is why I have reservations about the value of consultation.

Sir John Wheeler: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for enabling the House to have such an ingenious and interesting debate. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members who have spoken in the brief debate on the amendments.

The Bill's provisions have been carefully constructed in co-operation and consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland because we realise--as I am sure that the House does--that, to achieve success, decommissioning must take place in both the north and south of the island of Ireland. We also realise that, on 28 November, when the two Governments announced that they had agreed in parallel to establish an international body to facilitate decommissioning--

Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): May I ask the Minister, to satisfy those of us within the Unionist community, to use the term "Northern Ireland" instead of "north and south of Ireland", which contains many incorrect connotations?

Sir John Wheeler: I acknowledge, of course, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; that is beyond dispute. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

As currently drafted, clauses 5, 6 and 7 do no more than provide for a continuing and essential joint approach to the problem of decommissioning. The Bill provides for the two Governments to consult on the timing of commencement of clause 7.

The equivalent provision of the Government of the Republic of Ireland's decommissioning Bill requires consultation with the Secretary of State before it comes into operation. I have a copy of that Bill and I quote from clause 3(1):

"The subsequent provisions of this section shall come into operation on such day as the Minister"--

meaning the Minister for Justice in the Republic--

"after consultation with the Secretary of State, may for the purpose of enabling the agreement to have full effect, by order appoint."

I can further assure the House that in the Republic's Bill

"'Secretary of State' means a Secretary of State in the Government of the United Kingdom".

Several hon. Members rose--

7.30 pm

Mr. Maginnis: That illustrates better than I could have hoped my point about ambivalent language. There is no such thing as "the Secretary of State". There is a Secretary

16 Jan 1997 : Column 508

of State for Defence, a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a Secretary of State for Scotland, but there is no such thing as "the Secretary of State". That is an example of the disingenuous language of Dublin's wordsmiths. I need say no more.

Sir John Wheeler: There is, at least in the lifetime of this Parliament, a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. What there will be in any future Parliament depends on the will of any future Prime Minister and the structure that the House chooses.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The measure refers to the United Kingdom and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the legal term. Our coinage depicts the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Let us get the matter straight. It is an example of the evil skulduggery of Dublin and we are right to raise the issue. Dublin is always after the same thing. The Irish Government would not allow us to describe their country as the Irish Republic. It would be impossible to get that on to a document. It has to be the Republic of Ireland, but it is not; it is the Irish Republic. The Irish Government certainly do not govern all Ireland, but if we described their country as the Irish Republic, they certainly would not put that title in their law, but by hook or by crook they will get their knife into the Union.

Sir John Wheeler: I am not sure how to respond to that intervention. However, as far as I am concerned, we are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I refer to the Republic of Ireland when I refer to that country.

I have explained what is in the measure to be laid before the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, the provision for consultation and what it means. The consultation is just that. It does not give one Government a veto over the affairs of the other or constrain their actions, but joint action is the only sensible approach. Unless we proceed together as two countries, we shall not achieve our aim of establishing a joint strategy basis for decommissioning terrorist arms wherever they may be. That is the purpose of the clause, and I hope that, having heard my remarks, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wilshire: At the start of the debate I assumed automatically that there would be no question but that I would withdraw the amendment. However, the debate has taken on a slightly different complexion.

First, let me address the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) about the value of consultation. In all fairness, having heard the debate, I should put it on record that I was attacking the office of Minister for Justice in the Republic. I have known Nora Owen, the current postholder, for a long time and I should make it clear that I was not casting any slur on her, but was criticising the office of the Minister for Justice in the Republic. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, when people take on that role, something seems to happen to them, and they take strange decisions.

I am not impressed by the argument that, because the Republic's Bill referred to us, it must be right. If the Government of the Republic want to get involved, let them rejoin the Union. That would be one way in which they could talk to the rest of us. I certainly do not buy the notion that somehow two wrongs make a right.

16 Jan 1997 : Column 509

My right hon. Friend the Minister sought to reassure us by reading out those words from the Republic's Bill, but that turned an otherwise pleasant, brief debate into a fundamental issue. The reaction of the House spoke volumes. We did not need to hear what was said; we could see the rightful anger that was generated at that moment.

---