Dermot Ahern
Question:1 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the progress to date regarding the examination of new information and evidence on the Bloody Sunday incident; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7663/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Discussions on Northern Ireland.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of his recent visit to the United States. [7510/97]
Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with President Clinton in Washington. [7552/97]
Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of any other discussions held by him, apart from those with President Clinton on the peace process, during his visit to the United States. [7553/97]
Bertie Ahern
Question:5 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the response, if any, he gave in the United States to Senator Edward Kennedy's initiative to revive the peace process. [8061/97]
Bertie Ahern
Question:6 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he met any Northern party leaders in the United States. [8062/97]
Bertie Ahern
Question:7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the position he adopted in the United States on a new Bloody Sunday inquiry. [8063/97]
Mary Harney
Question:8 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister. [8143/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
My visit to the United States over the St. Patrick's Day period was very successful in terms of promoting Ireland's economic and political interests. The programme for my visit included meeting US political leaders, people centrally involved in developing the Ireland-US trade relationship and many Americans who are deeply interested in Irish affairs.
My main substantive engagement was a meeting with Vice-President Gore who was deputising for President Clinton. I did have brief discussions with the President. Both leaders remain firmly committed to the aim of political agreement in Northern Ireland and indicated strongly their continuing readiness to assist in advancing matters towards that aim. They emphasised that negotiations on a settlement stand the best chance of success if all elected parties are at the table in conditions free of violence or of the threat of violence. I called for the reconstitution of a really honest peace process in Ireland where there would be no place for the continued targeting of victims, for continued kneecappings, punishment beatings or for veiled threats of any kind.
Referring to the forthcoming marching season, Vice-President Gore, speaking on behalf of the President, urged restraint and tolerance. It is my Government's sincere hope that these words will be heeded. The people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, have suffered too much already. A heavy onus rests on all sides to minimise the prospects for heightened tensions and violent confrontations.
As Deputies will be aware, the leaders of a number of the Northern Ireland parties were also in the United States for St. Patrick's Day. While I did not have formal discussions with them, due in part to each leader having his or her own programme of engagements, I met each of them informally and had useful discussions. I would welcome formal meetings with all the leaders during the talks interval between now and 3 June. The Government has been engaged in frequent and intensive contact with all the participants in the course of the talks in Belfast. In addition, the British Prime Minister and I reviewed the Northern Ireland situation generally on 13 March, though I do not wish to go into the details of ongoing contacts of that kind.
The Government has taken careful note of Senator Kennedy's call on the British Prime Minister and the British Labour Leader to make clear that if the IRA restores its ceasefire unequivocally, immediately and unconditionally, Sinn Féin will be admitted to the talks when they resume on 3 June. The Government fully supports Senator Kennedy's views which are entirely consistent with the position adopted by the Irish Government at the December summit in respect of the Christmas break and since then.
In the course of my visit, Speaker Gingrich announced the re-establishment of the US-Ireland Interparliamentary Group. I very much welcome this development. Not only is the re-establishment of the group a strong indicator of the depth of the Ireland-US bilateral relationship but it will also facilitate a structured process of exchange between Congress and the Houses of the Oireachtas.
On the economic aspects of the Ireland-US relationship, one of my principal engagements was a meeting in Washington with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board, which was attended by the chairs or chief executives of a number of important US companies. Their expertise, experience and contacts provide invaluable assistance to the advancement of Ireland's economic interests. Another key engagement was a meeting with the Deputy Commissioner and other officials from the Food and Drugs Administration of the United States. There is a separate question tabled on this matter which I will answer tomorrow.
I also visited the states of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia where I had a number of meetings with local political and business leaders. Several of these meetings included visits to the headquarters of, and discussions with, potential US investors in Ireland. For obvious commercial reasons, and in accordance with well established precedents, it would not be appropriate to give details of these discussions on this occasion. However, I believe my discussion with the various business interests have the potential to yield considerable business investment and job creation in Ireland.
While in Atlanta, Georgia, I attended and spoke at a lunch for Irish exporters and existing and potential US trade partners, hosted by An Bord Tráchtála. In that city, I also delivered an address to the Southern Centre for International Studies, in the course of which I dealt with the future evolution of the European Union, global environmental issues, Irish economic development and Northern Ireland.
In South Carolina, I met the Mayor of Charleston, Mr. Joseph Riley, whose grandfather was involved in the reception given there for the former President, Mr. Eamon de Valera, in 1920. I also attended a reception hosted by the Hibernian Society of Charlestown, founded in 1799, and thus one of the oldest Irish societies in America. Overall, I am satisfied that my visit to the United States was very successful in terms of promoting Ireland's economic and political interests, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland.
Regarding compilation of the Government's assessment of new evidence on Bloody Sunday, very good progress has been made on this work. While the Tánaiste has primary responsibility for the assessment, our respective Departments are working very closely on this matter and I envisage that the work will be completed in a matter of weeks.
Does the Government intend to call unequivocally for a new inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday? Will the Taoiseach agree the main aspects of the new evidence, as presented in the Sunday Business Post, the Channel 4 programme and other interviews, are the premeditated nature of the murders, the forensic evidence that has been presented, the use of dumdum bullets against international law and, most importantly, data that should have been presented to the Widgery tribunal was suppressed, doctored or ignored?
The Government's first priority, and that of the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday, is that the full truth about what happened in January 1972 should be established once and for all to the satisfaction of all. It appears that was not done in the case of the Widgery inquiry. At this stage we are assembling the evidence. It is probable the evidence will warrant further full inquiry, but if another more expeditious way can be found of establishing the truth to the satisfaction of all, another approach is not ruled out at this stage. In my contacts with the British Prime Minister, I impressed upon him the importance of an open approach by the British Government to the examination of any new evidence it received. I am satisfied, on the basis of what the Prime Minister said to me, there will be an open and unprejudiced approach to the examination of the evidence we are currently assembling.
If the Taoiseach is not yet in a position to state unequivocally that the Government is seeking a tribunal, perhaps he will elaborate on the other methods that might be used to establish the truth about the events of January 1972 in Derry?
One possibility would be a judicial review of the findings of the Widgery tribunal in light of the new evidence. Another possibility is that the British authorities would state unequivocally that they accept the new evidence without further inquiry. If the evidence is sufficiently convincing and proves the case with sufficient strength, there may not be a necessity for going through a process of inquiry, if that evidence is so strong as to be self-vindicating. It is probable that a new inquiry will be necessary but I, the Members of this House and the people are concerned about getting the truth as quickly as possible so that the relatives who have suffered a sense of injustice for so long will have that lifted from them in the most expeditious and comprehensive way possible.
The Taoiseach said it was the Government's view that if there was an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire, Sinn Féin could be at the talks when they resume on 3 June. In the light of his conversation with the British Prime Minister on 13 March, is that the position of the British Government?
If there is an unequivocal, unconditional and immediate IRA ceasefire, there is no reason Sinn Féin should not be at the talks on 3 June. That was my view also when I met the British Prime Minister in December last and urged that if there was a ceasefire at that stage, the British Government should indicate that Sinn Féin could be in the talks when they resumed on 30 January, if the ground rules were complied with in the interim period. As the House is well aware, and as I told the Deputy on that occasion, the British Government did not agree with the precise mention of a date. It wanted to emphasise that the requirements of the ground rules had to be complied with and, once they were complied with and on whatever date that process was gone through, Sinn Féin could be in the talks, whereas the Irish Government preferred to work back from the date, so to speak, and comply with the requirements within that time frame rather than put the emphasis on what has to be done in the time frame without having a precise date. There is a difference of position between the Irish and British Governments which is publicly acknowledged and well documented.
What we all want in relation to Bloody Sunday is the truth. The two issues raised by the Taoiseach are, first, the question of a judicial review and, second, acceptance by the British Government of the new evidence that has so far been uncovered. That might not necessarily get to the truth of Bloody Sunday because we would be taking up only a small amount of what is in the public domain. The only real way to deal with the matter is by a full judicial inquiry. Otherwise issues that are still matters of speculation, such as whether dumdum bullets were fired, will not be dealt with. Such actions are in violation of international law and the Geneva Convention. Forensic experts in the US who have no contact whatsoever with this country believe, based on the evidence, that these matters should be fully investigated. The only way to prevent such things ever happening again in any country is for the Government to be unequivocal and clear in pressing for a full judicial tribunal.
The Deputy may be right. I would prefer, however, before making a formal final statement on this matter, to see all the evidence assembled, to show that the assembly of the evidence is not being done with a preordained conclusion in mind. It is important that when the Irish Government presents evidence to the British Government it is not open to the British Government to say that we had already made up our minds as to what course of action should be taken and that the evidence is simply being assembled to bolster a decision we have already made. My anxiety not to be as unequivocal as the Deputy would wish is simply in order that that argument cannot be advanced to sweep aside the evidence we will be presenting, and to show that we are presenting the evidence in the same unprejudiced and open way on our side as we want it examined by the other side. If we expect the British Government not to have made up its mind in advance of receiving the evidence as to what the conclusion will be, we cannot be in the situation of having made up our minds before we have finalised our examination of the evidence. That is the only reason for my reticence in the matter. The Deputy may be right in saying that a judicial inquiry is the only way of resolving the matter and obtaining the truth, which is mine and the Irish people's overall objective in this matter.
The Taoiseach mentioned a number of alternatives to a tribunal. Have all the alternatives, including the setting up of a tribunal, been actively discussed in the recent past between the Irish and British Governments? Have there been any formal or informal contacts with Sir Patrick Mayhew who recently closed his mind to the idea of an apology in relation to this issue? I want to know whether the Irish Government is speaking to itself and the general public as to its preferences. Are those preferences being actively discussed between the two Governments in considering how best to proceed on this issue?
We are proceeding in a sequence. First, we want to assemble the evidence. We are not discussing with the British Government what is to be done with the evidence until it has been assembled. It would be premature to discuss options for dealing with new evidence before it has been assembled. We have not, therefore, engaged in a discussion of the options open to the British Government to vindicate the rights of those who have been wronged. We have not gone into that sort of detail because we think it is proper to go through a process of first assembling the evidence and presenting it, and then discussing the steps that are necessary to vindicate the matter.
Is it a fact that the Irish Government alone is endeavouring to put together the evidence in this regard, or is it getting active co-operation from the British Government, including Sir Patrick Mayhew?
I am sorry I did not respond to Deputy Ahern in regard to Sir Patrick Mayhew. However, I did respond in the House the day after the Secretary of State made his remarks when I indicated my surprise at the remarks he had expressed on the matter. There would be no great advantage in going over that ground again. It is important to make the point that subsequent to that I had a discussion with the British Ambassador, and subsequent to that a detailed statement was issued clarifying the British Government's attitude to this matter which deals with any misunderstanding which might have arisen from Sir Patrick Mayhew's original remarks. All of that is already on the record of the House and has been dealt with by me in response to questions from Deputies, including Deputy Ahern.
As to whether the only assembly of evidence in this matter is the one being conducted by the Irish Government, the answer is no. The British Government is carrying out its own assessment of the evidence, and there is co-operation between the Irish and British Governments in regard to this matter in an ongoing operational way.
Have any outside views been sought in relation to this evidence or is all the assessment being done by the Government and its officials?
At this stage all the assessment is being done by the Government and its officials on the basis of information that is available, some of which originated from outside sources, for example, public records, inquiries and studies that have been done on the matter. When we come to look at the legal implications and the evidential requirements that might apply in regard to particular matters, and at aspects of international law as referred to by Deputy Ahern, the possibility of using external expertise is not excluded and may well be the appropriate thing to do. At this stage we are doing an internal study of the matter which I expect to be complete in a matter of weeks.
In a letter to John Hume the British Prime Minister indicated that the victims of Bloody Sunday should be treated as having been innocent. Surely an apology from the British Government would not correct the record and cover-up of Widgery. The only way the memory of those who were murdered on that day in January 1972 can be vindicated and that their families can be at peace is by having a public international tribunal. Would the Taoiseach accept that an apology would be far too convenient for the British Government and that what is required is a public airing of the circumstances of the horrible murder of those people on that day?
I know from my discussions with the relatives of the victims of Blood Sunday that they do not regard an apology as the primary issue, nor is retribution a primary focus of their concern. They simply want the truth to come out and the reputation of their deceased loved ones vindicated beyond all doubt and in the most public way possible so that they, as relatives of the victims, will be able to move on in their own lives without the gnawing sense that they and their loved ones have a continuing question mark over their reputations when they were entirely innocent victims of an appalling series of acts. However, we should bear in mind that there are many people in all parties on both sides of the Irish Sea who are anxious to see the truth come out. We should not present the issue in an antagonistic way that might make it more difficult for people whom we want to influence in ensuring there is maximum openness and truth-telling in this matter. That is the only quibble I have with the phraseology chosen by the Deputy. It could conceivably be counterproductive to its purpose.
The Taoiseach has accepted that an apology would not meet the wishes of the families, that they want a public airing of this matter. Will he accept that a judicial review would be similar to an apology and a proper public inquiry with an international dimension is the way forward to finally clear the good names of those who were murdered? Surely, with the evidence already available and being assembled, the good-will of people on the other side of the water is not needed. The names of those people should be cleared so that their families can get on with the rest of their lives. Since the British Prime Minister accepted that the people were innocent, surely the next logical step is to hold a judicial inquiry with an international dimension.
We are having much repetition.
I do not accept that a judicial review of the matter and an apology are the same thing. A judicial review is a public inquiry, and I am surprised the Deputy should suggest an equivalence between the two. An apology is simply a form of words whereas a judicial review is an examination in an open way.
Without an international dimension.
If we are asking others to wait for the evidence and examine it in an open and unprejudiced way before deciding the case, we probably should adopt the same approach and should not decide on the appropriate action before we have looked at all the evidence. I have indicated publicly on a number of occasions that I regard some of the new evidence that has come to public knowledge as very serious and persuasive. It is important that we wait until all the evidence is presented to draw the appropriate conclusions. That is the best way of approaching the matter from the point of view of getting the outcome we want.
I did not intend to intervene on this matter, but the Taoiseach is adopting a softly softly approach in that he does not want to disturb the British at any cost, despite the discord that has existed for many years. An inquiry is demanded by the people along the Border to clear the names of the people involved. Further lily-livered apologies will not be acceptable to the people of Derry and along the Border. The Taoiseach should insist on an inquiry and put an end to the softly softly approach to a problem that is obviously of the making of another Government.
I want a result and I want the truth. I want the victims to be vindicated and I propose to follow the course I believe is the best one to obtain a result in this matter. I have listened to what the Deputy has to say, but do not believe that deciding on the evidence before examining it is the best approach. The Government should assemble the evidence first and, having examined it, decide on the next step. If I were to take the Deputy's advice there is a risk I would be accused of being as prejudiced as we wish others not to be.
Did the Taoiseach meet the Northern party leaders in Washington or elsewhere during his St. Patrick's Day visit? There are a number of differences between Senator Kennedy's statements and the Government position of last December. Is the Taoiseach saying those differences are not significant and that he generally supports, as I do, what Senator Kennedy stated? Does he agree with what former Senator Mitchell said, that what is needed is good faith in negotiations? Will the Taoiseach agree with those in the North who say that when the talks resume on 3 June two new Governments are badly needed at that stage to move the position forward?
I am sorry the Deputy was inattentive when I replied to his question about the leaders of Northern parties. I had informal meetings with all the leaders of the Northern parties who were in Washington. Very useful discussions took place and I expressed the hope that I would have further meetings with them.
Who was involved in the meetings?
Mr. Trimble, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ervine and Lord Alderdice. In regard to Sinn Féin's involvement in the talks, the Government has set out its position on that matter. There is no great divergence between what Senator Kennedy said and the pre-stated Irish position on the matter. Our policy is set out in our own statements, not in statements by anyone else. The issue of good faith in negotiations is very important — I agree with what Senator Mitchell said in that regard. On the last part of the Deputy's question as it applies to this country, that certainly will not occur, and in regard to the other jurisdiction, I am surprised the Deputy is seeking to interfere in the political decision made on another island by offering advice to the British electorate. I have no intention of following that unwise route.
Unfortunately the Taoiseach was not listening because, regardless of who is involved, new Governments are formed after general elections, but the Taoiseach's mind cannot think other than on his survival. On the basis that the talks will resume on 3 June, will the Taoiseach agree it would be undesirable if at that stage we were engaged in a general election campaign or in the interregnum between a general election and the forming of a new Government? That question is being raised by everyone.
The Government has been in office for a little more than two years and is doing an extremely good job. The Dáil has another eight months to run and there is a large programme of legislation. There has not been a more cohesive and coherent Government in office for 25 years or more.
Santa Claus wears a white beard.
The prospects of the parties opposite are not great, particularly in view of the dissonance that exists both within and between those parties.
Wishful thinking.
The Taoiseach said he referred to the future development of Europe. He will be aware of the suggested new treaty being prepared by the Dutch Presidency, which indicates unity on a common defence policy. As the Government White Paper indicates this is not Government policy, as distinct from the Taoiseach's policy, will the Taoiseach speak with one voice on the question of a common defence policy and maintenance of Ireland's traditional military neutrality?
I did not deal with that matter in my speech to the Southern Centre for International Studies in Atlanta. I will furnish a copy of that speech to the Deputy which, because of its extensive treatment of the Rio Summit conclusions and other important EU matters, I am sure he will find particularly interesting. I will also place a copy in the Dáil Library.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question.
It is a separate question.
May I take it from what the Taoiseach said in reply to Deputy Ahern that because there are no differences between his party and the other two parties in Government he is afraid to go to the country before the summer?
One should not change a winning formula.
Did the Taoiseach read what the Tánaiste said at the weekend? Fine Gael is the junior partner in Government.
In his discussions with Mr. Trimble in Washington, did the Taoiseach refer to the obvious difficulties between Mr. Trimble and the Tánaiste and, if so, did he reach a conclusion on the matter?
The discussions I had with Mr. David Trimble were comparatively brief and friendly. We did not have a substantive discussion on the matter to which the Deputy referred. I note the parties opposite promote zero tolerance. The principal evidence of zero tolerance is tolerance of one another.
How long did it take the Taoiseach to think up that one? The main question is whether he will be able to remember it.
In his discussions with Mr. Trimble, did the Taoiseach refer to the forthcoming parades?
The discussions with Mr. Trimble were comparatively brief. However, in my public speech in the White House I dealt in considerable detail with the need to build confidence and remove sectarian barriers between the communities. The question of parades causes considerable sectarian tension and is not conducive to a good political atmosphere. I also urged all parties to the talks to make a serious effort to compromise with one another on substantive agenda items within the three stranded approach when the talks resume on 3 June. I made the point that none of the parties had anything to fear from compromise because any settlement reached in the talks must be approved by referenda North and South of the Border to guarantee democratic acceptability in both parts of this island and by both communities. It is important that all parties, particularly the unionists, in Northern Ireland reflect on that matter.
The questions to the Taoiseach will not conclude until 3.23 p.m. due to the late start.
That penalty might ensure that we have a quorum on the Government side at the start of business in future.
In the course of the Taoiseach's discussions with Mr. Ervine in Washington, did he raise the recent sectarian murder, the punishment beatings and general increase in loyalist activities and, if so, what was Mr. Ervine's response?
My discussions with Mr. Ervine were also of a comparatively brief and informal nature. We discussed the maintenance of the loyalist ceasefire and the concerns in that regard. I deplore the recent killing of Mr. Slane and the punishment beatings meted out by both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. They represent a form of shameful barbarism for all who live on this island. It is appalling and uncivilised that people should have recourse to such methods.
We had the most subdued St. Patrick's Day discussions for decades. Has the US Administration's patience run out with the policies of this Government? The President did not even bother to come downstairs for the meeting.
The US Administration's patience is running out with the IRA because it has not called a ceasefire. Despite the fact that this Government has obtained all-party talks — something no previous Government could obtain — Sinn Féin has been unable to take part in the talks because of the IRA's continued campaign of violence. The US Government and all democratic politicians are losing patience with the IRA. I am surprised the Deputy framed his question in that manner.
What officials accompanied the Taoiseach to America to deal with the part of his itinerary that covered industrial promotion? On what parts of the country did the Taoiseach concentrate? Did he place a great deal of emphasis on his own patch?
I did not put any emphasis on my patch in my discussions on industrial investment.
That is not what we were told.
The Deputy was misinformed. I did not mention my patch in any contacts I had with the companies concerned. I was accompanied by officials from the relevant development authorities, Forbairt and IDA Ireland. I was accompanied on another occasion by representatives from An Bord Tráchtála. The professionalism of the Irish Development Agency in North America is extremely high and the people concerned work for all parts of the island without discrimination.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that in reply to questions on the 10 per cent manufacturing tax he informed industrialists in the United States that the date of 2010 would be extended?
I did not indicate a final decision by the Government on this matter, but I said it would reach a decision shortly on the question of the long-term corporate tax regime post 2010.
Did the Taoiseach lead the senior industrialists involved to believe this Government's term will not end until after 2010?
Is the Deputy asking me if I told them I expect to be still in office in 2010? I am pleased he is thinking along those lines.
Even the Taoiseach does not believe that.
He should answer the question he was asked.
I did not advert to that matter either. However, I said we would take an early decision on long-term corporate tax policy.