Proinsias De Rossa
Question:2 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to hold another meeting of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19276/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
In line with indications I gave in the House on September 30 that meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation would take place on an occasional basis, I said in the House last week that I hoped a meeting of the forum could be held early next month. As the Deputy will be aware, it is envisaged that the forum will meet on 5 December next.
While our primary focus must and will be on the multi-party talks and on generating the necessary momentum in them, the forum meeting can make a useful contribution in that endeavour and I very much look forward to participating in it.
I welcome the fact that there will be a meeting of the forum on December 5. What does the Taoiseach expect will be its agenda? What is his response to the reported remarks of Mr. Francie Molloy on Sunday where there was a clear threat that if the negotiations in Belfast did not proceed the way the IRA wanted them to, it would return to what he referred to euphemistically as "what we know best"?
I hope that we will be able to keep the focus on making a useful contribution to the multi-party talks and sound out the parties on their views. The chairperson will be doing likewise and we can help by keeping ourselves focused on what is going on, the contributions of the parties and where they are at. Bilateral and multilateral talks will be held this week and next so the forum should meet at the plenary stage.
I received a report on what Francie Molloy stated at the weekend and noted the comments he made yesterday in his clarification. He stressed that Sinn Féin is involved in a peace process, in a strategy to bring about a lasting peace through negotiations leading to agreement and if the negotiations collapsed they would return to dialogue and negotiations. I am glad of the clarification because falling back into armed conflict is no alternative and one that I totally reject as I have stated on a number of occasions.
My purpose in pursuing this is to ensure there is full clarity in regard to the intentions of Sinn Féin who we are led to believe are surrogates for the IRA at the peace talks. Otherwise the rationale for them is undermined. Can we take it that Francie Molloy, in clarifying the Sinn Féin position, was also clarifying that of the IRA?
I do not know. I was concerned when I heard his reported remarks. I cannot say whether they were taken out of context but I saw the extended reports he gave yesterday. I assume they are in line with what Sinn Féin said when it put forward its position on the Mitchell principles some time ago. That is the crucial issue. I hope those who support or have an involvement with Sinn Féin take a similar view.
Will the Taoiseach agree that one of the problems of the last ceasefire was that Sinn Féin said one thing to its grassroots and another to the politicians with whom it had meetings in the formal arena? Will he also agree that Mr. Molloy's remarks about a struggle, a fist and going back "to what we know best", delivered at a meeting where he did not think the press were present, may have represented his true opinion? Will he further agree it is very important that the republican movement in all its manifestations explains to its grassroots that compromises are required on all sides and it is not possible to maintain militaristic rhetoric at private party functions while talking peace on formal public occasions.
I hope that is what Sinn Féin people will do. They have signed up to the Mitchell principles and said they will abide by them. That is their position as a political party. There have been two or three occasions since September when that has not been the case and each time the matter has been raised in the House and we have sent a clear message. I felt obliged to report what Mr. Molloy said yesterday when he was asked to clarify these issues.
Will the Taoiseach confirm the arrangements for the operation of the forum which will resume on 5 December will be the same as before? In other words, it will have the same chairperson and the same composition in terms of representatives of the various political parties. If, as I presume, his answer is "yes", will he outline how the agenda will unfold? His reply to the question posed by Deputy De Rossa was not very clear and focused on a report of the talks as they are ongoing. Given that the Government will be the leading contributor, to be followed by the SDLP — there are other parties represented in the speaking sequence which are not participants in the talks — will the Taoiseach reconsider his reply and clarify it?
Some parties, including the Deputy's party, have asked for the forum to be reconvened and for an opportunity to be provided to debate our position in the talks. After the chairperson makes her remarks — I do not seek to influence these — it might be useful if the parties involved in the process, including the Government, were to outline their view of the present position and to move on from there. It would also be useful if those people not present at the talks — I am represented at them on a daily basis but other members of the Government are not — were allowed to ask questions of those involved in the forum. These people would like an opportunity outside the talks process to put forward their views and concerns and to deal with aspects they would like to see developed. If this is in order it could be a useful day's work. I am not ruling out any other issue.
Who has been invited to attend the forum and has the Taoiseach gone beyond the list of those who attended on the last occasion? In terms of peace and reconciliation, will the Taoiseach agree the twin objectives we need to achieve are reconciliation of the principle of self-determination north and south of the Border and consent north of the Border?
The usual parties have been invited to attend. During the summer I agreed with the SDLP and Sinn Féin to meet the leaders of the Northern parties every few months. That meeting will take place on Friday week. We have asked all the political parties in the North to attend and a number have stated their intention to do so, although I am sure everybody will not attend on that occasion. All the work of the forum, the preliminary report and the final report, was based on the principle of consent.
On my question about Mr. Francie Molloy, the Irish Independent quotes Mr. Molloy, who has not denied the statement, as saying that we have to try to face the enemy and outwit it in every way possible, by every means possible, and negotiation is simply another phase in that struggle. Will the Taoiseach seek assurance from the Sinn Féin leadership, of which Mr. Molloy is a senior member, that that does not represent the position of Sinn Féin generally, that it is fully committed to the Mitchell principles which it has signed and which oblige it to use only political means in pursuit of its aims? Will he request that an early statement be made to that effect in view of the necessity for the current talks to move into a substantive phase where real progress can be made in finding a settlement to the conflicting allegiances in Northern Ireland?
I raised that issue yesterday morning but I did not receive a reply. I have asked my colleagues to raise the issue in the bilateral talks.
Does the Taoiseach attach significance to the fact that he did not get a reply when he raised the matter of the serious speech by Mr. Molloy, an experienced Sinn Féin public representative, who was quoted in the papers as referring to the struggle and the IRA, Sinn Féin and prisoners as part of one unit facing the enemy? Is the Taoiseach concerned at the rhetoric being used at the republican grassroots and does he believe that is the best preparation of the republican grassroots for the compromise that is necessary? Has he information on the recent punishment shooting in Poleglass? What is the significance of that and has he expressed a view on it? Will the Taoiseach agree that at this stage it is urgent that there are private negotiations between the parties in Belfast with a view to reaching agreement within the three strands? Will he agree there are risks in having public discussions where one side reports back to its own constituency in a public way, and that the meeting called for 5 December could be seen as reporting back to one side of the argument in a public way at the mid-point of discussion, resulting in a hardening or at least fundamentalising of positions when what is needed on all sides, Unionist as well as Nationalist, is a softening and compromising of positions to reach agreement?
Other than the security reports on the issue, I have no information on the incident at Poleglass. Needless to say, I utterly condemn all violence of whatever kind and I make that point at every opportunity when meeting people who are in any way associated with it. In regard to Mr. Molloy, we utterly condemn any reference to a continuation of the armed struggle and I take every opportunity to make that point. The clarifications made yesterday were useful. We need to hold all types of meetings. Bilateral meetings, multilateral talks, the ongoing talks process and private meetings — of which there are many — are important. Deputy Bruton appears to be concerned that my meeting on Friday week might not be balanced. The Women's Coalition, the Labour Party and all other parties have been asked to attend. It is up to them whether they attend. By the time that meeting is over I will have met all party leaders, except Dr. Paisley, who I am ready to meet whenever he is ready to meet me. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, is holding talks with Unionists today. There are talks with all the parties concerned almost every week.
On behalf of the Green Party, I welcome the re-establishment of the forum. Does the Taoiseach agree a special effort will be necessary during the lifetime of this forum to involve parties other than the usual ones? Could the agenda be organised to allow time for the bilateral contacts to which he referred? In the public's view, the last forum relied to a great extent on plenary sessions which involved set pieces and some useful questioning, but the most useful work was done at a bilateral level
I agree with the Deputy in that regard. The bilateral discussions that took place during the lifetime of the last forum were useful and I know all parties from Northern Ireland supported them. I will try to facilitate such talks on this occasion.
Is the forum simply being reconvened and the reference to the "last forum" misleading? Will the operational procedures of the forum simply be reactivated? Although we have facilitated and financed the forum, it is not a creature of this House. Will the Taoiseach ensure the participants of the forum which last met are properly notified of the meeting on Friday week — I am not aware a subsequent meeting is envisaged — and that the co-ordinating committee that agrees the agenda has sufficient time to meet in advance to ensure issues are raised in a productive manner? Unless such preparatory work is done, the forum will not be as productive as we would like.
I thank the Deputies for welcoming the re-establishment of the forum. The same process that applied previously, but which was not always satisfactory, will apply. I often found out what happened at those committee meetings approximately an hour before the forum met. As the leader of the largest parliamentary party in the House, I found that very unsatisfactory. I will try to avoid meetings of the small administrative committee on the morning the forum meets.
That was my point.
It might be useful if there had been more consultation before this decision was announced. There was not substantive consultation with me about the matter. While I will support any initiative taken by the Taoiseach to facilitate the process, I am not sure this initiative has been properly thought out. Consultations should take place between us, Deputy Quinn, Deputy De Rossa and others in the next few days so that we get something worthwhile. Perhaps the Taoiseach will keep an open mind on whether this is the best date to have the meeting.
I have no problem with working out the arrangements. We have been trying to get a suitable date for six weeks. Neither I nor the Government picked the date; it was chosen by others and I facilitated it. It does not suit me but I went along with the Northern parties and the chairperson. I will try to make the arrangements Deputy Quinn suggests, but it is not totally in our hands. The other parties are deeply engaged in another process, unlike the way they operated previously.
It is too soon after the plenary in Belfast. We will not have time to digest what happened at the plenary before they are back in Dublin.
They were anxious to arrange that date. I can tell them it is not suitable.
That will not be necessary. I am just not sure it is the right date.
Four or five parties thought it was a good date and I did not take the opposite view.