Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the informal EU Summit in Paris on the weekend of 9 June 1995. [10602/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Paris Summit.
Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any proposed meeting with the British Prime Minister on the margins of the informal EU summit in Paris. [10603/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
I attended an informal dinner for Heads of State and Government in Paris on Friday 9 June 1995. The dinner was hosted by President Chirac, the current President of the European Council, and replaced the normal bilateral pre-European Council contacts between the President of the Council and individual Heads of State and Government.
Discussion at the dinner was primarily devoted to an overview of the agenda for the forthcoming European Council in Cannes. Specific items discussed included the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference, the jobs situation in Europe, Economic and Monetary Union and the currency situation generally, financial assistance to the countries of the Third World, of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region, and the grave situation in Bosnia. I raised the importance which Ireland attached to co-ordinated action at European level to deal with the drugs situation, and the need to take concrete action on the jobs issue. I asked that reports on employment from the relevant ministerial councils be expedited in a co-ordinated way. I reiterated Ireland's commitment to the Maastricht criteria on economic and monetary union. Following upon my intervention on the drugs issue, there was a discussion on the obstacles that need to be cleared to allow for the early establishment of Europol.
We also had a short discussion on the EU position for the forthcoming EU/US and G7 Summits.
I had a short meeting with the British Prime Minister on the margins of the informal dinner. I stressed the importance of movement in the whole area of prisoner releases. Peace, in my view, is sufficiently consolidated now to allow the British Government to consider increasing the rate of remission of sentences and re-examining life sentence review arrangements.
I also raised with the Prime Minister the Private Lee Clegg case. I stressed the importance of ensuring that the due process of the law, and executive decision which might subsequently be taken, should be seen to be applied on an impartial basis. Any perception that the treatment of offences might vary according to the identity of the offender would be damaging for the credibility of the processes themselves and, consequently, for the political climate in general. Time did not permit a substantive discussion or exchange of views on these topics, but I will be returning to them at future meetings.
Why did the Taoiseach make publicly known his raising of the Private Lee Clegg issue? Would he accept that this has probably damaged Anglo-Irish relations and seen a return to megaphone diplomacy?
I raised this matter publicly and privately because it is a matter of public concern and has been the subject of public speculation in the media for quite some time. I do not believe good relations between Britain and Ireland are served by pretending that there are not differences between us from time to time. No purpose, in personal relations or otherwise, is served by failing to draw differences to the attention of one's interlocutors in a respectful and honest way. I did that in this context. I believe my doing so will prove to be useful in every respect and it does not in any way diminish my respect and admiration for the courage shown by the British Prime Minister across the whole range of issues in the peace process. Equally, I have a job to do, and if that involves occasionally disagreeing with my British colleague, I will be more than willing to do that as the situation requires.
I accept what the Taoiseach says, but I would have thought it would be more beneficial, in the context of what the Taoiseach wants to achieve, if the matter were raised privately and differences kept private for the moment. Has the Irish Government sought a change in the remission policy from 33 per cent to 50 per cent in regard to prisoners serving long sentences to reverse the change made after Ballygawley?
No purpose would be served by failing to raise matters of public concern in public and on time. If people were to ask questions afterwards about whether I had raised particular issues, and all I could say was I had raised it privately, there would be questions from the Deputy and others seeking to verify that I had done so. Now people know I did so and such questions cannot, therefore, arise.
As to the remission policy, I have said in the House on several occasions that I have raised that issue. I raised it in Moscow with the British Prime Minister. I also raised it in my discussions in Westminster with opposition and government politicians on my return from Moscow. My concern about ensuring that prisoners and their families are seen to benefit from the peace process is well known.
This was the first EU summit meeting where there was no proper bilateral meeting with the Taoiseach. Is the Taoiseach concerned about this? I am aware of the Taoiseach's difficulties, which I understand, in getting the British Prime Minister to give times and dates. President Clinton is also experiencing difficulty in arranging dates. Is the Taoiseach concerned about the commitment of the British Prime Minister or his officials to having meetings with him or President Clinton?
Absolutely not. The British Prime Minister takes a deep interest in the peace process and gives a predominant share of attention to it. There were understandable reasons, which concerned the diary commitments of the British Prime Minister primarily, for us not having other than brief discussions in Paris.
Does the Taoiseach accept that a short meeting in Paris and Moscow is not sufficient and that the meeting to be held in September should have been brought forward in view of the problems which have arisen in the peace process over the last few weeks?
The meeting in Moscow was lengthy and covered all the issues which required to be covered in a discursive and informal way. We achieved a great degree of understanding on a number of issues. The meeting in Paris was necessarily quite brief but I had an opportunity to raise a number of important and substantial questions in the course of that discussion.
What about the meeting in September?
I will meet the British Prime Minister in Cannes. The relationship between Britain and Ireland is such that I can speak to the British Prime Minister whenever I wish and he can do likewise. There is ongoing contact between us. We do not need to be involved in big production meetings with photocalls and so on in order to maintain good and fruitful dialogue or have occasional disagreements which is part of the relationship between any two people, States or entities enjoying good relations.
Did the Taoiseach have an opportunity to raise the matter of M. Chirac's disregard for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the fact that it is to be blown out of the water by a recommencement of nuclear bomb testing in the South Pacific? If not, will he protest about the matter as a postscript to the summit?
The summit took place in Paris before the decision was announced by the French Government.
Is the Taoiseach sure?
The opportunity did not arise. The Tánaiste issued a statement strongly criticising the French Government's decision to resume nuclear testing. The French Ambassador was received in my Department today by officials who, on my instruction, conveyed my strong concern about this matter to the French authorities this morning.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the decision to sign the NPT was wrong particularly in view of the commitment in the programme for Government where it is stated this would be renegotiated on the basis of a five yearly review?
It is time to knock this Fianna Fáil canard on the head. The treaty was unanimously signed by 175 nations.
We slavishly followed.
I have no doubt but that every nation had reservations about some part of the treaty. It was signed unanimously and without a vote.
It is a pity Frank Aiken is not here now.
I hope the Deputy does not suggest that Ireland should have opted out of signing that treaty which extends indefinitely the protection in regard to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The Taoiseach committed himself to a five year review in the programme for Government.
If that is what he suggests, his party and its foreign policy are in greater difficulty than they seem to be.
The Deputy should talk to his buddies.
When Deputies ask questions they should be good enough to listen to replies.
Does the Taoiseach share the concerns expressed by Sinn Féin and the SDLP that the British are dragging their heels on the peace process?
I will not become involved in an attribution of that type of evaluation to the different participants in the peace process. I have long expressed the view and intend to adhere to it unless there is evidence to the contrary, that all the participants, including Sinn Féin and the British Government, are acting expeditiously and in good faith. Obviously we have disagreements and it is the job of all those involved in the peace process to do everything we can to overcome them. The Government is determined to overcome, in a pro-active way, the disagreements between some of the parties involved in the process. The thinking that led to the decision to cease violence, in August 1994, dates back to 1986. One should recognise that a change in the psychology engendered by violence will not occur overnight. There is a healing and trust building process that requires patient and dedicated work. That is being undertaken in a purposeful way. All the signs, even today, are of a gradual approximation of the positions of the different parties towards each other. Although movement is slow it is in the right direction. We will do everything we can to promote a closer co-operation and ultimately a settlement.
The co-ordination of effort in the fight against drugs was mentioned at the summit. Is the likely to be progress at the meeting in Cannes on the provisions of resources for gardaí and customs officers to fight the drug battle in coastal areas? We have raised this matter over a number of years as have other countries.
I do not believe a decision will be made at Cannes regarding the allocation of resources. The question of co-ordinated European naval involvement in protecting the coastline against drug trafficking has treaty implications. I should like to see this area examined at the inter-governmental conference. Whether there will be a conclusion remains to be seen. There is much that the EU could do by way of information exchange and co-operation, for example, information on the passage of large sums of money, which may be associated with the drugs trade, from one jurisdiction to another; what could be done to reduce the demand for drugs in our societies and the provision of alternative cultures for those engaged in agriculture in countries which are heavily engaged in the production of drugs or drug related products.