Vol. 616 No. 5
1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on contacts he has had with the UK Government or with the Northern Ireland political parties following the 25 February 2006 riots in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8962/06]
2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his meeting on 1 March 2006 with a delegation from Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9067/06]
3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent contacts with the British Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland on efforts to restart the political process there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9068/06]
4 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his views on whether or not the violent scenes in Dublin on 25 February 2006 when the Love Ulster march had to be abandoned will have any impact on the Government’s relations with parties in Northern Ireland and efforts to restart the political process there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9069/06]
5 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9148/06]
6 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Sinn Féin on 1 March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9150/06]
7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the leadership of the SDLP on 2 March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9151/06]
8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Sinn Féin Party on 1 March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9153/06]
9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the SDLP in early March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9154/06]
10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the UK Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, in early March 2006 in London on the future of the Northern Ireland peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9155/06]
11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on contacts he has had with the UK Government or with the Northern Ireland political parties following the 25 February 2006 riots in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9160/06]
12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, regarding the peace process since 1 March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9198/06]
13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he is due to visit the United States around St. Patrick’s Day; his engagements there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9267/06]
14 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the issues he intends to discuss with the US President Mr. George W. Bush during his visit to the White House on St. Patrick’s weekend 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9373/06]
15 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the parties in Northern Ireland. [9375/06]
16 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet with the British Prime Minister Mr. Tony Blair. [9376/06]
17 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with a delegation from the SDLP on 2 March 2006. [9517/06]
18 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his visit to the United States over the St. Patrick’s Day period. [10193/06]
19 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with political leaders during his visit to the United States over the St. Patrick’s Day period. [10194/06]
20 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his meeting with President Bush during his visit to the United States over the St. Patrick’s Day period. [10195/06]
21 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in London on 8 March 2006; if new initiatives are expected following the meeting in regard to the political situation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10223/06]
22 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the US President Mr. George Bush; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10224/06]
23 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on 8 March 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10567/06]
24 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10790/06]
25 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10791/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 25, inclusive, together.
When the British Prime Minister and I met in Dublin in January, we made clear that 2006 will be a decisive year. Since then, there has been a round of meetings with the political parties in Northern Ireland, jointly chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I met with the Prime Minister again on 8 March in London to discuss the way forward and I will see him again at the European Council in Brussels later this week. I anticipate a further substantive meeting with him in the near future. Both Governments are working very closely together at the moment. We believe that it is important to have an agreed strategy to bring about the restoration of the devolved institutions and to assure the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. We have made it clear that if difficult decisions need to be taken, we will do so.
I met with representatives of Sinn Féin in Dublin on 1 March and with representatives of the SDLP the following day. Both meetings offered a timely opportunity to assess the current situation and how matters might move forward. We discussed the possibilities for moving the process forward and our common objective of securing the earliest possible restoration of the devolved institutions. I also had an opportunity to meet informally with some of the Northern political leaders in Washington last week.
On the occasion of the St. Patrick's Day celebrations, I fulfilled a number of engagements in San José, California and in Washington last week. I focused on three key themes, namely, the progress made in the peace process in the past year and our clear determination to resolve the outstanding issues this year, the plight of the undocumented Irish and the positive story of the success of modern Ireland. I spoke about what we believe is the Irish advantage, a theme which was also articulated by Ministers in many other engagements throughout the world during the St. Patrick's Day period. I addressed the Spirit of Ireland dinner in San José to celebrate 20 years of the sister-city relationship between San José and Dublin. I also attended a number of business-related meetings and engagements with Silicon Valley businesses, including with the CEO of Hewlett Packard at its headquarters in Palo Alto. In Washington, I attended the Speaker's lunch with President Bush and also had a number of meetings on Capitol Hill with key members of the Senate and House of Representatives. I also attended the American-Ireland Fund national gala.
On St. Patrick's Day, I presented President Bush with the traditional bowl of shamrock in the White House and then met with him in the Oval Office for discussions on Northern Ireland, immigration reform and a range of current international issues. I am particularly grateful for the continuing support of the President for the peace process. He made it very clear that the US will support the efforts of the two Governments as we seek to make definitive progress in the peace process this year.
The rioting in Dublin on the day of the Love Ulster parade was in no way representative of the views of the vast majority of the people here. I do not believe it will have any lasting impact on the peace process or on relations generally. The rioting was organised by a small group of agitators and has been rightly condemned on all sides.
I read in the newspapers that the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister are ready to announce a plan within the next month so that we can all move forward. Does the Taoiseach have any intention of seeking as wide a consensus as possible for that move forward? I believe he needs to do so under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Will the consensus include seeking formal soundings from the Opposition parties in this House? Does the Taoiseach recognise that the solemn self-determination of the Irish people, North and South, regarding the Good Friday Agreement requires that one cannot simply move the process on by Government diktat? Does he agree that direct rule vetted by a toothless Assembly does not meet the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and that a ten-member shadow executive appointed by the two Governments and broadly reflecting the parties’ electoral strength might be a better idea? I hope it can be discussed in more detail through those more formal soundings.
Does the Taoiseach accept the Good Friday Agreement belongs to the people, North and South, and that unilateral moves by the two Governments would have very serious constitutional implications? Perhaps he might consider that, bearing in mind that fewer than 50% of voters in this jurisdiction gave the Government that he heads a mandate. Taking the Good Friday Agreement from which all this stems into account, the Taoiseach must consult more widely than at present. Does he intend to do so? From reading the report, it seems that he does not, but perhaps it was not complete.
The Deputy's point is that we do not wish to go outside the Good Friday Agreement, but the two Governments wish to stick to it absolutely. If we are forced from that, we intend to stick to it as closely as possible.
As the Deputy says, there have been alternative proposals from the parties. At this stage, every party has proposals on the way forward. The Assembly cannot meet in shadow fashion, since that is totally opposed by the SDLP and Sinn Féin, and if other parties wish it in that interim form, we must find a bridge between their viewpoints. Governments enforcing a solution and losing the confidence of one side is no use, so we must find a bridge with which they can all live. However, we believe it would be helpful if the Assembly were up and running. Obviously, we would like it to be up and running and to lead very quickly to form an executive. If that were a difficulty in the short-term, we believe the Assembly should operate so the parties, which have not met in over three years, will at least have the opportunity to discuss the way forward based on the Good Friday Agreement. If they have other solutions — the Deputy has referred to one of several — they could discuss those too. If they agreed, as is my hope, and the resolution were outside the Good Friday Agreement, we could all consult on whether it was acceptable. Some of those proposals deserve to be aired by the political parties in the North.
What about the South?
Our position is that we want to see the Good Friday Agreement implemented. People in the South voted for it by 95% to 5%. Unless someone——
What about members of all parties?
Yes, the entire population.
Unless someone produces a proposal, it does not follow that we are moving outside the Agreement. Hitherto, there has been none. Quite frankly, I hope there will be none, other than the review that was successfully carried out but not implemented. The review, which concluded on 7 December 2004, covered the Good Friday Agreement, and represented an entitlement of the parties in the Assembly. There is nothing outside that, but if there were, we would consult. However, we will not consult in advance on something totally hypothetical at this stage. It would be useful if the Assembly discussed those proposals in properly constituted session.
It could discuss other issues too. A great many reforms are being implemented in Northern Ireland in the absence of a political process. It is not a matter of one party in the Assembly being signed up, since none is. Yesterday, there was a large-scale reform of many agencies in the North. They have had issues regarding education, health and everything else without any involvement from elected politicians in Northern Ireland.
I have been urging them all that it is in no one's interest. I know the parties' views, but we should get the Assembly up and running, even if it does not automatically move to the executive, which I believe it should. Even if the executive met tomorrow, not all the parties are ready to move to an executive. It is only stating the obvious and the facts, but at least if we had some dialogue and movement, we could do so. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has been involved in multi-party talks. As the Deputy is aware, they have worked in various formations this year, and there has been very little engagement between the two Governments and all the parties. One might ask whether that is the alternative. It is a helpful process as long as people are talking, but it is not as good as having the Assembly meet.
The British Prime Minister and I will meet on Friday in Brussels, where we hope to work on the matter further. We aim to be able to present our position in early April, and certainly before Easter.
Is the Taoiseach saying he is opposed to the whole idea of a shadow Assembly or simply to one not premised on the basis that the executive would be up and running by a set date? I presume the Taoiseach agrees that, as we approach the eighth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, a great deal of the goodwill created by it is in danger of dissipating. After his meeting with the British Prime Minister in Brussels on Friday, will he be able to state how soon the two Governments might produce proposals?
If the Taoiseach's answer to my first question is that the two Governments might be prepared to consider the notion of an Assembly provided there were a commitment to reviving the executive within a short period, what would the implications be for the North-South bodies?
I would like to ask the Taoiseach about something on the Order Paper yesterday relating to whether he believes the decommissioning announced last year and supervised by the de Chastelain commission was actually completed. I ask because yesterday's regulations made provision for the immunity from prosecution granted to people involved in the process to continue for another year. Why was that decision made, and does the Government have information suggesting that it is necessary to extend the order?
The word "shadow" creates major difficulties for some parties, mainly the SDLP and Sinn Féin. I do not like the concept either, since it is not a full Assembly. I see no need to have it in shadow form. Deputy Rabbitte correctly interpreted me. We would like to drop the word "shadow" and have the Assembly meet for a set period. If the executive had not been formed by that date, we would have to re-examine matters.
That is my thinking at present. We will attempt to set up and operate the Assembly, in which many matters could be dealt with. The words "shadow" and "interim" create difficulties. A fixed period must be set as there would be no point in trying to set up an ineffective shadow Executive that would just go on and on. Agreement to do so would not be reached and neither the British nor the Irish Government wishes to do that.
We must have a meaningful period in which we can ascertain whether it is likely that an Executive can be formed. Obviously, I hope that it is. However, I do not believe that this would happen, as it should, on the first day, whereby one would trigger the D'Hondt mechanism and move on. It will be possible to construct such an arrangement, because many political decisions have been made without recourse to the Assembly and it is important that it is set up. While the Secretary of State, Mr. Hain, has certainly been performing his function, much has taken place without the participation of the political parties. He would also like to see the Assembly in operation. I agree with his comments on Monday that things cannot remain as they are. He wants to see progress, as do I.
As for decommissioning, I was not aware of the regulations referred to by the Deputy, but I will check it. As far as we are concerned, the matter is dealt with unless the regulations are to make provision for other groups to decommission. As far as the issue of the Provisional IRA decommissioning and the de Chastelain report is concerned, our position has not changed.
The Taoiseach might return to this issue as it is an important point.
I will. I will check the Order Paper and if the regulations are not to facilitate other parties, I will certainly return to it. I presume the regulation was under the aegis of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but I will check it.
I want to ask the Taoiseach a different set of questions. In respect of the violence on the streets of Dublin on 25 February, the Taoiseach commented that the word in his constituency on the previous night was that this would happen. What did the Taoiseach mean by that? Did he communicate that fear and concern to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or to any of the Garda authorities, on the basis that there might be an expected increase in the level of potential violence and that they should be ready to deal with it?
With regard to the meeting at the White House, will the Taoiseach confirm whether the Irish Ambassador beat a path to his counterparts in the White House to facilitate the invitation of the president of Sinn Féin to the function? I understand the American authorities were reluctant to do so. Were Irish officials engaged in diplomatic contacts with the White House to facilitate this?
What was the impact of the Taoiseach's discussions with President Bush with regard to the murder of Joseph Rafferty and the facilitation of his family's journey to the United States? Was the question of international terrorism discussed at the Taoiseach's private meeting with President Bush? Last night, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform reaffirmed that the IRA was to sell its expertise in bomb-making to FARC for between €20 million and €30 million. The Minister stated that it would be used for electioneering purposes in the next election. The Government made consular assistance available to the people known as the Colombia Three, sent a representative to their trial and posted bail. Did the President raise with the Taoiseach this apparent contradiction on the part of the Government? In other words, while the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has stated that the IRA was in the business of raising €20 million to €30 million for electioneering purposes in this State, the Government seemed to state implicitly that nothing was wrong. Did President Bush raise this issue at his private meeting with the Taoiseach in respect of international terrorism?
Invitations to the White House are handled solely by the White House. Certainly, no tracks were beaten to its door. However, in so far as discussions took place, I gave my view to the President's representative, Mitchell Reiss, when he visited earlier, namely, that it would be best if all parties were invited. A path was not beaten to the White House door. It was best that all parties were invited. While the DUP did not turn up, it was invited.
On the issues discussed with President Bush, obviously, the President and I were not alone. He was accompanied by several members of his Administration and I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, the Ambassador, and other officials. International terrorism was discussed and the President, as is normal on the occasion of St. Patrick's Day, referred to the current issues. Obviously, he spoke about Iraq, Iran and India. He spoke at some length on Darfur — the Minister for Foreign Affairs will travel there shortly — and he is anxious to make progress. We spoke about United Nations reform and human rights issues, as well as issues I raised concerning extraordinary rendition and CIA flights. While we went through a range of issues, we did not discuss the Colombia Three, nor was the case raised.
Efforts were made for the Colombia Three. I made efforts on a consular basis in that they were Irish people who should receive proper facilities and protection during their trial. We dealt with the issue on that basis. I do not have details of the exact circumstances as to what they were doing in Colombia. I never believed they were on holidays. However, I do not have hard facts in that respect. As the Deputy is aware, the Americans hold strong views on that issue, as do the Colombians. They believe there was a link between FARC and the Provisional IRA representatives.
What is the status of the request for extradition received from Colombia?
We sent a reply to Colombia before Christmas. While issues are still being processed, ultimately, it will be a matter for the courts. As for the legal basis, it is difficult to see progress on it. Given all the circumstances, I cannot envisage any early resolution of an extradition case. Ultimately, however, it is a matter for the courts. We sent our position to the Colombians before Christmas and to the best of my knowledge, they are still pursuing the matter. It is still a live issue.
Let Deputy Kenny note that the so-called Colombia Three are certainly not raising money for Sinn Féin's electoral effort.
Is this a bridge too far or a bridge we can all live with? I noted the Taoiseach's responses earlier. Does he agree that if the Good Friday Agreement is to be implemented, the following steps must be taken — I emphasis, they must be taken now — first, the British Government must lift the suspension of the Assembly; second, the Assembly must reconvene; third, there must be the election of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive in place; and, fourth, all the outstanding bodies, including the All-Ireland Ministerial Council, must be fully restored.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the process I have outlined should be set in train now, with the British Government lifting the suspension of the Assembly? If, in the period between the lifting of the suspension and the date set for the election of the executive, the DUP continues to refuse to share power, does the Taoiseach agree the only option remaining to both Governments at that time would be to close the Assembly? Does he agree that a sham Assembly with no executive and no all-Ireland structures would be nothing more than an unacceptable failure? Is it not the case that the British Government should now proceed to take the relevant and important steps to set the process back on track, to test the democratic commitment of the DUP and to put it to the democratic test? Is that not what is now required to move us out of the current situation? If that cannot succeed, if the DUP will not be a party to that arrangement, is it not time then to write plan B?
On the allied questions about the Taoiseach's recent visit to the United States and his contact with President Bush, I wish to ask about the CIA flights and rendition and the use of Shannon Airport. In his opportunities with President Bush, did the Taoiseach not put it to him that if, as they assert and the Taoiseach appears to accept readily, they are innocent of any of the claims or suggestions made of rendition taking place and Shannon being used to accommodate and facilitate the transfer of persons who have been taken, abducted, imprisoned or whatever description the Taoiseach chooses, there should be no difficulty in having the planes inspected as a matter of course and routine?
All I want to say about plan B is I hope we never get there.
We both agree on that.
If we do, I do not disagree that we must then find a new way forward. We have given that some thought, but not much because we do not want to have to. If we get to a situation where we cannot get a working executive going, then obviously we must look again. It is not something on which I want to speculate or comment, but we could get to that position this year because we will not let this drift.
I replied to Deputy Rabbitte about the shadow Assembly. It is best that the Assembly meets in the form that we understand as the Assembly. It would be useful, because it has not met for more than three years, to have a time zone to try to deal with some issues. It may not prove productive and it may not prove possible, but in our thoughts at least we are looking at that possibility. That time zone will obviously be nothing other than a fixed period where we would try to build confidence.
Significant progress has been made in Northern Ireland to date. We have seen the latest reports on all fronts last week and they are positive, but it is crucial to have the political representatives meeting in a way that they can do their business. That is the challenge now, when some of the other aspects are working effectively.
It is possible to get back to the December 2004 position. I still believe now, even though it is a long time since that period, that the DUP was very close and ready to make a move on that occasion. I really believe that and I think most other people do too. I will not go back over all the events that scared that all off but we came to a position where we had to start developing trust and confidence to build that up again. We have not reached that point yet and I do not know if we can reach it in a relatively short time, but we must try. To abandon the Good Friday Agreement and move on to a plan B without trying to do that would be reckless. I have argued since the beginning of the year — I need not argue too much with most people — is that it is right that we give it a period. To get the Assembly to meet on a Tuesday, move the d'Hondt mechanism on Wednesday and break up on Thursday is not a bright idea. I hope nobody asks me to do that because there would be not much point in doing so. We must find a more useful and productive mechanism of trying to restore the Assembly. Other than that, I think we can do it.
I discussed the issue of rendition and the use of Shannon Airport with the President. We recently received assurances and nothing was said other than a clear position that this country has not been used in that regard. I have not stated, as the Deputy implied, that somewhere else was not used. I never said that. We sought assurances about Ireland and Shannon.
I also raised the issue that we would like to see more transparency associated with the transit of any CIA aircraft through Shannon in the future with a view to alleviating the concerns. We have left it for officials to discuss how that is done. While the President did not seem to be opposed to it, he did not agree either. It is something we should pursue at official level. We did not get to the stage of agreeing or disagreeing on it. I explained to him the problem, the difficulty and the perceptions and he understands that.
What is the view of the two Governments on the alternative SDLP proposals that the commissioner is drawn proportionately from the parties? It might be an alternative to the formula that the Taoiseach seems to be contemplating with Mr. Blair.
I discussed this with the leader of the SDLP, Mark Durkan, and colleagues on a number of occasions. As I stated, I would like to see their proposals and other proposals examined and discussed within the Assembly. If we cannot get things up and running exactly as we would like, all the parties have different proposals and they should get an airing. The reason for that is if they are to be workable, they must get cross-community support between, or at least among enough of, them. For it to work on the basis of the Good Friday Agreement it needs everybody.
There are merits in many proposals. Some of the proposals are not that far away from each other, although unfortunately they are portrayed as being very different to each other. In the normal political thrust of politicians and political parties being able to debate the proposals, they perhaps would see some aspects of them that they could successfully take forward.
Our opening position is that it must be strictly as per the Good Friday Agreement. On their examining proposals, the review did so and came up with many different positions. The SDLP's proposals have been well thought out. I am not sure whether they would carry support from other parties. Whatever chance one would have, they need to be heard in the bigger picture of the Assembly.
