HC Deb 05 November 1987 vol 121 cc1056-7
Mr. Flannery

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had any discussion with the Justice Minister of the Republic of Ireland regarding extradition.

Mr. Hurd

No, Sir.

Mr. Flannery

Is it not a fact that extradition, among other matters, has exacerbated the whole question of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Should not some decision be taken, because the Republic is expecting something? Would not action on other questionable matters help the Anglo-Irish Agreement? For instance, we could make some kind of agreement about having three judges in the non-jury Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where one judge now makes a decision — a concession for which the Republic is asking us.

Mr. Hurd

That is certainly not a matter for me. However, I take this opportunity to express the hope that one necessary decision will be taken and that the Irish will set in hand the ratification of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.

Mr. Budgen

As my right hon. Friend was one of the fathers of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, does he agree that if a satisfactory system of extradition is not introduced soon by the Republic it will be difficult to see any advantage in the Anglo-Irish Agreement for Northern Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom'?

Mr. Hurd

The paternity of the agreement is a matter for historians. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not now a matter that falls within my responsibility.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the implementation of the treaty for the extradition of terrorists. However, does he agree that criticism of the British courts by the Republic of Ireland, where there have been some questionable pronouncements and judgments, is a case of "as you live your life you judge your neighbour", rather than the pot calling the kettle black?

Mr. Hurd

I can answer only on matters within my responsibility. As the House knows, I have certain responsibilities for deciding to refer to the Court of Appeal cases in which there have been convictions and where there is a new and substantial matter that the court did not consider. I intend to continue to discharge that responsibility in accordance with the principles of the criteria that my predecessors and I have laid down, and not by any others.

Forward to