asked the Taoiseach the measures he proposes to take to consolidate and build on the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the coming year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

5.

asked the Taoiseach if he intends to renegotiate the terms of Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together. It is the practice of Irish Governments to honour and operate international agreements concluded by their predecessors. This Government will follow in that tradition and will fulfil and operate the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The House will notice that the Government have designated the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Lenihan, as Permanent Irish Representative to the Intergovernmental Conference set up under the agreement. We will seek, through this mechanism, to improve the position of all the people living in Northern Ireland and especially the members of the nationalist community.

The Deputy will be aware that my party and I have indicated that we do not accept the constitutional implications of Article 1 but as an integral part of a binding international agreement that Article could be amended only by mutual agreement and there is no likelihood that such agreement would be forthcoming.

Does this mean that the Taoiseach is withdrawing his statement made at Bodenstown last October, that immediately on assuming power he would seek to renegotiate that aspect of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

What I have said in my reply is the position, that the Article could only be amended by mutual agreement and there is no likelihood that such agreement would be forthcoming. That position has emerged since I spoke at Bodenstown.

On the question of how the Taoiseach hopes to build on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, does he agree with the policy pursued by the previous administration, and turned down by Mrs. Thatcher, to have three judges sitting in the non-jury courts in the North?

I would not like to enter into the merits or demerits of that proposal at present. With regard to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, what is proposed and what has been the position of this party from the beginning is that if progress can be achieved through the Inter-governmental Conference, that progress will be followed through.

Does the Taoiseach propose to leave the same officials serving the Anglo-Irish Agreement as have been there since its inception?

That is a matter which I hope the Deputy will forgive me if I do not go into at this stage because there are security considerations involved. Also, there is the question of the burden on particular individuals who carry particularly onerous responsibilities over a reasonably long period. I would ask the Deputy not to pursue that for the moment.

Might I ask the Taoiseach if, since taking office, he has sought any further advice on his stated reservations in relation to the constitutionality of Article 1 and, if so, what has been the content of that advice?

Before replying may I congratulate the Deputy on his elevation to the position of leadership of the Fine Gael Party. May I wish him many long, happy and constructive years in that post. The position in regard to this matter is fairly well known, or rather the respective positions, are fairly well understood. It is our view — a view shared by quite a number of people, lawyers and others — that Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Accord cannot negative Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution in so far as they relate to the national territory. I know that the Deputy's party and the outgoing administration were of the view that there was no conflict between Article 1 of the accord and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. These are the respective positions. They are both held with equal conviction, and there the matter must remain.

I thank the Taoiseach for his good wishes. I concur heartily with his wish that I may have many long, fruitful and constructive years as Leader of the Fine Gael Party. Where exactly that might be situated is another matter, but to come back to the question: is it not the case that the Taoiseach, since taking office, is in a position to have access to perhaps rather more advice on constitutional questions than he might have had when he occupied this position and, that being so, has he not sought such advice, and if he has, what has been the import of it?

The Deputy will know that the advice which was available to me when I occupied that position is still available to me. Nothing further can be said about the respective interpretations of the constitutional position. I am not aware of anything that the law officers may have advised the previous Government in this connection. I have had no access as yet to the particular advice the previous law officer gave to the Government about this matter. In any event, it is something about which constitutional lawyers can have differing opinions.

May I take it——

A final question.

——that this is an aspect of the Agreement to which the Taoiseach will not any longer refer in public?

There is a body of legal opinion which agrees with me, that Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Accord does not accord with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, but I accept that there are other constitutional lawyers who do not see any conflict between Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. I accept that the previous administration have been advised to that effect.

Question No. 6.

May I ask the Taoiseach——

I cannot allow a debate on the subject.

I just want to clarify one point the Taoiseach made.

The Taoiseach will then reply and that will be the end of it.

Did I understand the Taoiseach to say in relation to Article 1 and the renegotiation question asked by Deputy Kennedy that it has since emerged that the renegotiation of Article 1 was not possible? Did the Taoiseach use those words?

What I said in my reply is that it is an integral part of a binding international agreement and as such can only be amended by mutual agreement and the implications are quite clear that such mutual agreement would not be forthcoming.

Will the Taoiseach enlarge on that and tell us when this emerged? Has there been contact with the British Government about this? Have they refused to renegotiate or have any sort of discussion with the Government about this? When did it emerge that there is no possibility of any renegotiation?

The Deputy is as aware as I am that the position of the British Government on the matter has been clearly stated publicly on a number of occasions.

Has it been clearly stated privately or publicly to the Taoiseach since he assumed office?

There have been no discussions on this matter between the Irish Government and the British Government.

This is leading to argument.

Could I ask——

Is the position not precisely the same as it was on 9 March, that the Taoiseach's undertaking to renegotiate Article 1 still stands. Is not that clearly the position if the Taoiseach has not had any contact with the British Government since?

What the Deputy is saying is not clear.

It is not clear that nothing has happened since 10 March to change the position of what is now the Government party and that they still intend to renegotiate the agreement?

I do not agree. My reply to the House today is based on what has happened since then and on the clear indications by the British Government of their position on the matter.

Has this been conveyed privately or publicly——

I have already told you——

I am calling on Deputy Geraldine Kennedy who tabled the question for a final supplementary.

I want to clarify one area. Does this mean that as head of a Fianna Fáil Government the Taoiseach will be happy to leave the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as it is, given all the reservations the Taoiseach expressed about it since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed?

The doubts of this Government about the constitutional position remain. As I said in my reply we accept that it is a binding international agreement and it is the practice of Irish Governments to honour and operate international agreements concluded by their predecessors.