I am indeed honoured and delighted to have the opportunity of contributing to probably one of the most important debates to come before this House for many years. As one who represents a Border constituency like Louth, I am, as it were, as close to the coalface as any in this State can be. Not only has my area suffered because of the artificial imposition of the Border in that farms and households have been literally cut off from each other but also because my hometown, Dundalk, probably had the largest influx of refugees into this State from the North during the 1970 troubles. Because of this it is particularly vital to the people I represent that any effort to stabilise the situation on this island should be supported. It is in that context that we are now discussing the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
As a member of Fianna Fáil, I am committed to the establishment of a united Ireland by peaceful and constitutional means. I am convinced that there will only ever be peace and stability on this island when we have such a situation. Not only do I see that unity as a physical unity but also a unity of minds and purpose. However, this unity cannot be imposed on an unwilling section of the population. The fears of that tradition must be allayed and it is only by dialogue that that can be achieved. The bomb and the bullet have only caused to hinder any chance of fellow Irishmen coming together. Thankfully, the position is by no means irretrievable. That is why constitutional politicians must renew their efforts to continue the progress made in recent years.
The Anglo-Irish process as we know it, originated from the Anglo-Irish summit in December 1980 between the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and Mrs. Thatcher. It progressed through the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council founded in 1981, the New Ireland Forum in 1984, and ultimately the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. It may very well be that the different Governments then — and indeed now — had different expectations arising from that Agreement. Perhaps one party saw it as a means to an end and the other party saw it as the end in itself.
The language used in the Agreement is vague, perhaps purposely vague. I do not think it would stand up to a detailed examination by the highest court in the land, as to what was in the minds of the parties thereto. However, it is this very vagueness which has been one of the best attributes of the Agreement, in that it has allowed both sides scope to manoeuvre.
In my opinion, there is nothing more vague than the declaration in Article 1 (c) of the Agreement, which states:
If in the future a majority of the people in Northern Ireland wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a United Ireland, they (the two Governments) will introduce and support, in their respective parliaments, legislation to give effect to that wish.
Under this, a day could arrive when the Nationalist people in the North become the numerical majority, i.e. 50 per cent plus one. What would happen then to the Unionist people who, at that stage, would not only be a minority on the island, but also a minority in the Six Counties? Would that be the end of our troubles? I think not. It might only allow the transfer of dominance from one community to another. This is not what I see as leading to a peaceful future on this island. It is for this reason that the Unionists should see that the only way forward is through dialogue with all parties on these islands.
Another area which has engendered much debate is the present review. Article 12 allows for the review of "the working of the Conference" in order to see if any changes in the scope and nature of its activities are desireable". This was, in my opinion, specifically restricted to the Conference only, in order to ensure that there be no dilution of the terms and aims of the Agreement.
Recently I had the opportunity of meeting a number of officials from the US who had direct responsibility for the administration, at their end, of the Anglo-Irish Fund, which was set up as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. When asked by them if the agreement had made any difference, I informed them that a large portion of my constituents would say that all that it has done is to allow the British Army to put a "ring of steel" around the area close to the Border; that it has made life a lot more difficult and dangerous for the people who live close to the Border. The springing up of permanent check points all along the Border has been a source of contention with the locals.
If asked, most people in the Republic would find it difficult to point to the benefits of the Agreement. They might justifiably say that it has made little or no difference. Similarly, in the North, the Nationalist people may even say it has made matters worse. However, if you were then to ask these people should it be scrapped, I have no doubt that the majority would be against that. Why? The reason is simple. Because it is generally perceived that the Agreement is an indication that, at long last, the British Government are not going to stand down under pressure from the "No Surrender" cries. Too often in the past they have bent under pressure and I am happy to say there is no sign of that now.
As I have already stated in a previous debate on Anglo-Irish relations, I have had occasion to contact the Secretariat on numerous occasions in order to gain information or movement on individual cases of people who live on the northern side of the Border. I have found the Secretariat mechanisms to be very beneficial and expeditious and indeed, most people involved have been mildly surprised with the responses and results obtained. The fact that the Secretariat allows a permanent presence of officials from the Republic within the North is certainly a shock to the Unionist thinking. The fact that it is up and running well is further proof that the Agreement has in fact helped to change the lot, however slightly, of some of the Nationalists who have requested its help. It has been a reassurance to them that their interests are being protected.
Looking at the impact of the Agreement in general, there is a widespread perception in the Republic, and indeed the North, that the British Government have used it solely as a vehicle for better security but without any movement on other aspects of the Agreement, notably, a proper system of justice in the North and harassment, to name but a few. For instance, the Extradition Act, 1987, was postponed by the Coalition Government in order to see what changes would be brought forward in the meantime in order to boost confidence in the administration of justice in the North. Nothing of any great worth came forward. We are still waiting. What happened to the harmonisation of areas of criminal law? I am glad to see that the British Government are coming round to our Government's view that greater use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1976, is more beneficial than the more cumbersome and sometimes ineffectual extradition procedures.
I would like to make it quite clear that we will not wear the use of this extraterritorial legislation in addition to present extradition procedures. It should be emphatically stated that if a person goes through the extradition procedure and is not finally extradited, he cannot face double jeopardy under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act.
Devolution is referred to in Article 4 (c). Deputy Dukes recently made great play of the fact that neither Government seemed to bring forward proposals for that. Deputy Dukes is showing a naivete in that there is no point, in my opinion, in bringing forward any such proposals until the parties within the North are inclined towards them. At the moment, both seemed to be against such proposals in varying degrees.
In my opinion, nothing will have any chance of working until such time as the Unionists are clear in their own minds, as to where they see their future. If there is any chance of peace and stability on this whole island, it can only be when the Unionists talk on equal terms with their counterparts in the North and also with the rest of us down here. This is why the talks without pre-conditions, as offered by the Taoiseach, are vital to the future. The Unionists must know by now that after three years neither Government will back down on this Agreement. Unless they talk to the rest of us, they will remain "out in the cold". That cannot be good for the Unionist people in the long run. In the Unionist Task Force report An End to Drift, the authors said as much.
The implementation of the three judge courts in place of the present one-judge system in the North may not make any difference in decisions being handed down, but I have no doubt that it would help allay the fears of people in the court system there. A system similar to our Special Criminal Court would be preferable, where there is a judge from each of the District, Circuit and High Courts.
On the question of harassment, I am sorry to say that this is still a major complaint of the people with whom I come into contact. In the Border area the policing role has been reversed, in that the Army are, in my opinion, the primary force. It is quite clear that an Army force is not re-active, like a police force. It tries to take action before situations arise and that is why we have had numerous events in the recent past which ultimately have led to unanswered questions.
I am happy to see that the Government have put a greater emphasis on this and on other issues which directly affect the lives of the people on the ground. It is because of this that the people, particularly in the North will gain confidence in the Agreement.
In the areas of economic, social and cultural matters there has been some progress. For instance, the Anglo-Irish Fund has made a start both in the North and in the Republic. In my own area the following are the major matters which have arisen as a result of the Anglo-Irish Fund: the launch of the Louth County Enterprise Fund which is very welcome; the Investment Company based in Dundalk which deals with investments along the Border and the incubator units in the regional technical college while assistance has been given to the worthwhile efforts of the Dundalk Enterprise Company. Substantial amounts of money have been spent in my constituency to boost tourism and employment.
There have been some misgivings concerning the emphasis placed by the trustees of the fund. It is felt that greater acknowledgement should be given to areas of particular disadvantage, such as the south Armagh north Louth area.
The fair employment White Paper published in May 1988 is to be welcomed and we await the details. I would suggest that the fines mentioned in the White Paper are not enough against defaulting employers. I feel that greater emphasis should be given to the use of State grants and contracts to ensure the implementation of the proposed changes. The situation where unemployment in Catholic areas is two and a half times greater than in non-Catholic areas must change, and change quickly.
The interparliamentary party first proposed at the Anglo-Irish Summit in 1980 is given support in Article 12 of the Agreement. I welcome the recent setting up of the sub committee who are actively examining this and I hope that the interparliamentary party will be in place in the near future. It will help to put Irish affairs higher on the British agenda than they have been up to now. It will also help to demolish some of the myths on both sides.
Finally, I would say that the agreement is a two-way process. It would appear from this side of the Irish Sea that most of the "give" has been on this side. I have said before that the perception, particularly in my area, is that it has been used purely as a means to tighten security without, at least, equal emphasis on the other items mentioned in the pact. This must change if the Agreement and its process is to be advanced.
The insensitivity shown by the British side in certain instances has not helped this side explain to the general public down here what we are trying to do in order to ensure that there is some progress on the political, legal, economic and social sectors within this island. Politically tainted decisions, such as the Thain release and the non-prosecution of RUC men suspected of conspiracy, make it very difficult for people in the Republic and indeed, the Nationalist people in the North, to have confidence in the British stated desire to "develop our unique relationship". Nor do these decisions show that there is greater "close co-operation" between our countries. Similarily, the timing of the decision to announce the ending of the right to silence would lead one to believe that the British Government does not care a jot for the feelings of the Irish people.
I would implore the British Government to be far more aware of the genuine fears and aspirations of the Irish people and to take them into account when they are making future political decisions. If they do not, further progress, particularly on this side of the Irish Sea, will be very difficult to achieve.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is of benefit to this country purely and simply because it is the best we have on offer. The constitutional politicians in the North have to get together and the Unionists have to talk, as Deputy Deasy said earlier, with the consitutional parties down here so that one day we can all sort out our differences.