Vol. 484 No. 3
2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for further meetings with the party leaders of the delegations to the Northern talks; if so, the individuals with whom he will meet and the dates of these meetings. [22043/97]
3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the current progress on Strand III of the Northern talks. [22045/97]
4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will publish the report on Bloody Sunday furnished by the previous Administration to the British Government; if so, when he will publish the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22048/97]
5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views and those of the Government on the outcome of the plenary session of the Belfast talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22049/97]
6 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach the grants, if any, he has recommended for payment from the receipts from the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust in 1997; when his Department will approve funding to make the £1.2 million from the British Government on the winding up of the trust; and the plans, if any, he has for expedition of this funding. [22054/97]
7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has identified a specific date in 1998 when he intends to publish the results of the Irish Government's review of the evidence surrounding events on Bloody Sunday in Derry on 30 January 1972; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22055/97]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Belfast on 8 December 1997 to attend the Northern Ireland talks. [22056/97]
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Dublin on 5 December 1997. [22057/97]
10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the decision of party leaders at the Northern Ireland talks on 2 December 1997 to convene new fast track talks between party leaders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22058/97]
11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the circumstances in which he will publish the report on Bloody Sunday prepared by the previous Government in relation to his speech in the Burlington Hotel on 27 November 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22061/97]
12 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to the Northern talks at Stormont Castle. [22064/97]
13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the Department that has the responsibility for the Soldiers and Sailors Trust; the amount of money which remains in the fund; the individuals, if any, who are its trustees; the formal plans, if any, there are for the final winding up of this trust fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22321/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 13, inclusive, together.
Why is Question No. 6 being taken with the rest given that it is an entirely different matter?
I have answered Question No. 6 here in the past two weeks, and it was the source of discussion last week also during the debate on the Estimates. I will take supplementaries on Question No. 6.
Is the Taoiseach taking No. 6 as well?
Yes, but I will take supplementaries on Question No. 6 if the Deputies want to spend some time on them.
Questions Nos. 2 to 13 together.
I intend to publish the assessment of the new material relating to the events of Bloody Sunday in the early months of 1998. It is important that the truth is told about those events and I believe the best way to achieve that is through an independent inquiry.
I visited Belfast yesterday. During my visit, I met Mr. Alban Maginness, Lord Mayor of Belfast, at City Hall. While there, I met the chairman and members of the Belfast Partnership board, drawn from the various political parties, the social partners and the voluntary and community sector; visited the location of the proposed Springvale campus where I met Professor Trevor Smyth, Vice Chancellor of the University of Ulster, Dr. Paddy Murphy of the Belfast Institute of Higher Education and Dr. Wallace Ewart, the director of the project, together with local elected and community representatives, including Mr. Gerry Adams, MP, Dr. Joe Hend-ron, Ms Una Gillespie and Mr. George Beavis; and visited the nearby Synergy Training Centre. I also visited Cultúrlann Ó Fiaich-Mac Ádhaimh, the Irish language cultural centre on the Falls Road and, within it, Meánscoil Feirste. While there, I had a meeting with Mr. Gerry Adams, MP, and representatives of a number of organisations including the United Campaign against Plastic Bullets, Cearta, Saoirse, the Anti-Extradition Campaign, Relatives for Justice and Gaeloiliúint. I also met relatives of Robert Hamill who died in May 1997 after being attacked by loyalists in Portadown. I visited the Andersonstown Leisure Centre where I met a wide cross-section of the community in West Belfast of all traditions and religions. At Belfast City Airport, I met Mr. Eamon McMahon, Secretary of the County Antrim Board of the GAA; I discussed and sympathised with him on the recent murder of Mr. Gerry Devlin from St. Enda's GAA Club, Glengormley, a cowardly and brutal slaying I had previously condemned utterly.
The focus of my visit was the talks. I met Dr.
Mo Mowlam, Secretary of State. I met Mr. Paul Murphy, Minister for Political Development, Mr. Harri Holkeri and General John de Chastelain at Castle Buildings. I had bilateral meetings with the party leaders and delegations representing the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, Labour, the UDP and the PUP.
I had a useful and positive round of discussions which I hope will assist in moving the process forward. I have not arranged further meetings at this point with the party leaders and delegations other than a meeting with the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. The recent decision of the talks participants to form a restricted sub-group of the plenary, charged with preparing by 15 December an agreed statement of the key issues to be resolved and the formats and processes for consideration of those issues, is I believe a sensible move. My own experience of negotiations — stretching over many years — has taught me that small, clearly focused groups are more conducive to producing proposals and agreements. Senator Mitchell, in introducing this proposal, and the participants by accepting it, would appear to have come to the same conclusion. I share the Chairman's hope for a productive period before the Christmas break. While it will be necessary to make progress across all strands, I do not believe it would be appropriate now to expand further on the negotiations. I would, however, refer Deputies to my speech to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation on Friday last, which I will circulate to the Deputies.
Last Friday the forum reconvened in Dublin Castle and I am pleased that, in addition to the previous participants, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and Labour accepted the invitation to participate. So too did Senator Maurice Hayes who took the place previously filled with distinction by the late Senator Gordon Wilson. The participating delegations made statements on the theme "Northern Ireland : Political Situation and Developments." While the primary focus of all our efforts is the multi-party negotiations, it was widely accepted last Friday that occasional meetings of the forum, with the involvement of the parties not participating in the talks, will help the development of the public debate that is necessary as we move towards being able to validate an agreement through referendums.
The Sailors and Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust is currently being wound up and a motion will be taken in the House tomorrow to facilitate expediting the matter. When wound up, on foot of an agreement with the British Government reached some years ago, the Irish Government's share will be approximately £1.2 million. Of this, commitments have already been given for expenditure of £150,000, which I recently announced towards the cost of the War Memorial in Messines. I have also endorsed expenditure of £180,000 over five years to the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool to fund a lectureship in modern Irish language and literature. When the money has been received advertisements will be placed in the newspapers and criteria and guidelines will be issued for the assistance of applicants. The trust, which is chaired by Sir Philip Woodfield, is a British trust and the Irish representative on it is Lord Killanin. Under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988, decisions on funding are made by the Taoiseach with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
I take this opportunity to say how shocking it is that there has been another sectarian murder in the North since we last spoke in this House. It cautions us to do everything we can to keep in contact with the reality of what is happening there and not to overstate the position or be overly optimistic or pessimistic.
While noting the value of bilateral talks and hoping they will continue, what measures has the Taoiseach taken to allay the concerns of those who counsel against allowing the centre of gravity in the process to move away from the talks in Stormont as might be indicated through media reports? In speaking with the Unionist parties, in particular, did the Taoiseach get any sense that they understood that the remit and authority of any North-South body would relate to the degree of proportionality in terms of the access to power within Northern Ireland agreed in the talks and the degree of institutional expression of the Irish identity also agreed in the talks?
Regarding the comments made by the Deputy about the murder of Gerry Devlin, unfortunately for him he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He had no intention of visiting the GAA club that evening but called back to collect members of his family. Quite a number of the members of the officer board of that club are of the Protestant religion and are very active in the club. The late Gerry Devlin was married and his wife, Hazel, is a Protestant. He was involved in a number of activities of a cross-community nature, as he would have been the following morning in a soccer match with his son. He only called to the club to collect members of his family and that is how he was assassinated. For the record of the House, when I met a number of people from that community yesterday I learned that club has been attacked 23 times in recent years.
Regarding the Deputy's question about the benefit of the talks, in all my discussions yesterday I stated that I felt the focus and emphasis should be on trying to work towards agreement between the parties and that the centre of focus should be the talks, particularly the sub-groups. As the Deputy knows, what has been happening for many months is there have been 85 or 86 people in the room and it has been something like other meetings of which we have experience. The day can pass with the making of fixed statements and there can be very little dialogue. We only do that occasionally but when it becomes an everyday occurrence it does not create the best method of negotiation. Small sub-groups are now moving between the parties in working groups and in liaison groups and are therefore more clearly focused.
The papers have come from strands one, two and three but there remains some considerable difficulty in getting the process to a stage where draft papers will serve as working documents. If that happened, it might be far easier to make progress. However many fears, concerns and mistrusts exist about doing things in that order. I got the impression yesterday that most of the delegations believe they have been operating too slowly. A certain amount of confidence has been built between most of them at this stage and that might allow progress to be made more quickly.
My meetings with the Unionists centred on most of the key issues; there is no doubt but that the constitutional issue and the strand two issues will be the more difficult ones. However, they are not the only ones and much work could be done in preparing agreement to a stage where one could deal with some of the real difficulties. As I stated yesterday, it is not a good idea to hold back all the time from dealing with the few central issues. People are moving around them but are not having any meaningful dialogue about them. There are many other issues, particularly in relation to strand one, which could be fundamentally drafted, not with unanimity at this stage, but with a fair amount of substantive agreement.
In terms of the Unionists' willingness to engage in direct dialogue, my answer to that would be in the affirmative following yesterday's meeting.
Will the Taoiseach elaborate on Questions Nos. 4 and 7 and indicate to us what is the Government's position on the report on Bloody Sunday?
I have directly raised the question of the British Government's decision on the Bloody Sunday issue at a number of meetings over the past few months. When the former Taoiseach completed the report it was stated that some time should be given to the British Government to examine it in a confidential way and make its assessment of it. I fully supported that. The British Government has been doing that since September and I hope it is relatively close to completing its report. I understand that will happen sometime in the new year. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, fully understands we wish to publish the report. Many of the groups which co-operated with the Government and which have argued for this have asked us not to hold back publication of the report indefinitely. On the other hand, I do not want to exert undue pressure in this regard. I will publish the report in the early months of 1998.
The Taoiseach and other Members of the House will have heard representatives of Sinn Féin articulate their concern on this issue last Friday in Dublin Castle. Am I to understand from the Taoiseach's reply that he has received explicit assurances from British Government authorities that they intend to publish a response to this report in the near future and the Taoiseach is accordingly deferring personal or Government action until such time as that happens? If he has received such an explicit undertaking from representatives of the British Government, could he give some indication of what the timetable would be? Has he a reserve position whereby, notwithstanding what might happen on the other side of the Irish Sea, the report will be published by the Irish authorities by a certain date?
My understanding with the British Government is that it will not delay unduly. The next anniversary date would be considered an undue delay, so January was always the focus of the discussions. In fairness, the British Government has had a great deal of difficulty with some aspects of the report, in terms of following through with the individuals involved, so there was no delay on its part. It was reasonable to give the British that amount of time. Those contacts have now been made although I am not sure about the legalities involved. I will raise the matter again with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, when I meet him on Saturday at the European Summit.
I prefer to defer publication of the report until the British Government has made its position clear, provided it does not delay unduly.
What is the British Government doing with the report? Is it preparing a parallel report or is it simply preparing an announcement? What indication has the Taoiseach received as to the nature of that announcement?
I am expecting a detailed reply to the assessments given to the British Government by the Irish Government. I expect its response to take account of all aspects of the case and to outline what it intends to do. The British are aware that we believe the Widgery report is fundamentally flawed and that a new inquiry should be conducted, and it is a matter of whether they will answer in the positive or negative to that proposition.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the killing of Gerry Devlin, a member of the GAA, at Glengormley has caused great trauma to that part of north Belfast and created a sense that the community is surrounded by people with violent intent? Does the Taoiseach further agree that that community should be reassured as to its safety in that part of Belfast?
Will the Taoiseach offer his views on progress in strand one of the talks, particularly the equality agenda which relates to flags and emblems, policing and the status of the Irish language? While the Irish Government is not directly involved in strand one, has it put forward any proposals to be considered by the parties under the equality of treatment rubric within strand one of the talks? Does the Taoiseach agree it is essential that the North's institutions should be workable and not susceptible to being blocked by, for example, one member of a three person panel, for whom unanimity will be required for every decision? If institutions in the North do not work, their contribution to the north-south body will not work either.
With regard to the first question, I agree with the Deputy. In our discussions with the Northern Secretary, Dr. Mowlam, last night, the Minister for Foreign Affairs raised the issue of the security of that area, and he intends to follow through on the matter. He also told the members of the club and of the GAA that he would raise it at intergovernmental council level.
We are not directly or indirectly involved in strand one talks, although we have presented papers on the extended equality agenda. There has not been much movement on those issues for some time, even though there is a feeling that everybody is happy enough that the position reached in 1991-2 is something on which one can move forward. Why parties will not do so is a matter for them. They have not undertaken as much work as they could have done. I do not want to get involved in that issue because strand one talks concern the parties in Northern Ireland. The human rights and policing issue, especially as presented by Séamas Mallon in the most comprehensive document on policing, is one in which we have taken much interest. The SDLP stressed to me yesterday that the policing issue is of fundamental importance and it is anxious it should be kept centre stage. While there are many other important issues it believes that in terms of building trust and confidence in the future, policing is the number one issue.
Like every other Deputy, I condemn the murder of Gerry Devlin. Has the Taoiseach contacted the authorities or the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the progress, if any, in apprehending whoever is guilty of that appalling murder?
Does the Taoiseach agree — and I suspect he does from what he said — that the Bloody Sunday report which we handed over to the British Government should be published by agreement, from the point of view of maintaining good relations between Ireland and Britain? I would like the British Government to announce its intention to hold a serious inquiry into the events of that day, chaired by someone with an international reputation.
In his meetings with Gerry Adams, has the Taoiseach stressed the need for the IRA to inform the families of the disappeared where the bodies of their loved ones are buried? This would contribute enormously to building confidence in Northern Ireland that the 27 years of appalling violence which is unfortunately continuing in certain quarters, is coming to an end as far as the IRA is concerned.
Has the Taoiseach raised with Gerry Adams the problem which, judging from reports, appears to be prevalent in the talks — that Sinn Féin is not engaging on issues which indicate it is prepared to accept the need for compromise to reach agreement? Judging the contribution made by Martin McGuinness at the forum last Friday, what we seem to hear from Sinn Féin in public arenas is tired anti-British, anti-partition rhetoric which is not reflected in the language of any other party in this House.
I would prefer to publish the report on Bloody Sunday at an agreed time. I do not want the publication of the report to result in building tension and pressure. I would rather the British Government be allowed to finish its assessment, give its full judgment on all the material and state its position. There has been much talk about new findings which cannot be allowed to go on indefinitely. As the Deputy knows from his involvement in the previous report, this report is comprehensive and worthy of examination to try to undo the findings of the Widgery report, which is not considered a good report by Nationalists and others.
Deputy Currie asked me on many occasions, to raise the matter of victims of IRA violence, which I have done and will continue to do. I met many groups and families in Belfast and all the issues of the years of violence, are still to the forefront, whether it is deaths from plastic bullets, mobs, paramilitaries, bombings, burnings, attacks or those who believe the security forces are singling them out. It is difficult for this House to understand the extent to which these issues drive the everyday agenda, whereas we believe people should discuss the issues of the future at the talks. We must understand it is a huge challenge to move away from these issues before one can discuss the daily agenda. Perhaps this will take years, but their importance is illustrated in practically everyone's language. I can say it, understand it and then try to deal with it.
Practically everyone is engaging in the talks but the participation of Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party is still not satisfactory on certain issues. However, the chairman is making substantial progress and there is more engagement than there was a fortnight ago.
What response did the Taoiseach get from Gerry Adams on the disappeared?
I raised the issue with Sinn Féin delegations a number of times. Someone some-where must have a considerable amount of information.
Some of the bodies are within this jurisdiction.
This information should be referred to those who can deal with it. I have not received a direct response but I have asked about a number of cases which have been mentioned by Deputy Currie. There are a number of cases in the public domain where it is believed that certain individuals know precisely or roughly where the victims are buried. I will continue to pursue this issue to try to achieve some success.
During the Taoiseach's visit to Belfast, was the question of access to Britain for Irish beef, North and South of the Border, raised with him or did he raise it? Does he intend to raise the matter with Prime Minister Blair at the weekend when he meets him to discuss matters of mutual interest?
On Question No. 6 and the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, I note what the Taoiseach said about the worthy causes identified for assistance to date and his intention to advertise. Will he consider advertising this year, the 75th anniversary of the foundation of the State, for applications for assistance from this fund which is being wound up, from any sailors or soldiers, or their families, who served since the foundation of the State, in the First or Second World War or in the UN and who may be suffering hardship?
On the issue of the beef blockades
Strictly speaking, that matter is not appropriate to these questions, which concern Northern Ireland. If the Taoiseach wishes to reply ——
It relates to the Taoiseach's visit to Belfast.
I will raise the matter later in the talks. It was mentioned in passing a number of times yesterday, but no one had particular responsibility for it.
I will look at the matter of advertising for the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust. The matter was raised by Deputy Quinn last week who said that the money should be used for its original purpose as envisaged in 1922. Some ideas were previously put forward by Deputy John Bruton. As soon as we get the remainder of the fund I will look carefully at the criteria.
On that last point I want to raise a matter I raised in the course of an Estimates debate. Notwithstanding what Deputy Gay Mitchell has said, as a former Minister for Finance the Taoiseach will surely agree that when the identifiable beneficiaries for whom the trust was first established have all but disappeared, the proper and correct accountancy procedure would be for the residue of that money to be put into central funds to be distributed in the normal way. I calculate that of the £1.2 million left, the Taoiseach has allocated approximately £330,000 and now has at his disposal, accountable only to this House, a sum of £870,000. Can I take it from what he said this will be used to fund projects that may from time to time catch the attention and enthusiasm of the Taoiseach of the day? Surely it would be more correct for the balance of that money to be assigned to central funds or, alternatively, used specifically for Irish soldiers suffering from disabilities of one kind or another. Would the Taoiseach agree it is hard to justify using these funds for investment in the Irish School of Ecumenics and other such projects, no matter how worthy such causes may be, and that it is a long way from the purposes for which the trust was established in the first instance?
I agree with the Deputy on accountancy practice in regard to this trust. There are two commitments. It was agreed with Sir Philip Woodfield that certain criteria would be set down and we would try to ensure the money went into areas related to the original purpose of the trust. The amount of money in question would not make an extraordinary difference to the Exchequer, but I wanted to check if it was the view of the trust that it should be used for appropriate projects. The trust is anxious the money should not be used for just any project and is keen that proper procedures are followed.
Would the Taoiseach agree this trust arose out of a European civil war that we, as Europeans, have the arrogance to describe as the First World War, in which British and Irish soldiers fought on the same side against other Europeans? Would he agree that if the benefits of this trust are to be put to the purposes for which it was established, we should consider mechanisms for reconciliation between the peoples of these islands and other parts of Europe, particularly an enlarged Europe? The idea that this money would be put into a British-Irish studies trust——
The Deputy is entering into debate on the matter. He should just ask a brief supplementary question.
Ten very disparate questions have been taken together. Would the Taoiseach not accept that the moneys from this trust, in being allocated to British-Irish studies, are not being used as they should having regard to the manner in which this trust was established in the first instance? It was set up in connection with a European civil war in which British and Irish soldiers fought against other Europeans.
The recent allocation of the trust was fairly close to what the fund was set up for. It is my intention to stick as closely as possible to whatever criteria are set down. In regard to the other donation, it was believed this could be a useful project. Otherwise the donation would not have been made.
Earlier the Taoiseach spoke accurately and quite movingly about his experience in the talks yesterday, and the fact that many people are concerned about the aftermath of the violence that has occurred over 25 years and have difficulty in engaging in the talks process because they feel so deeply about things that happened over that period and which, unfortunately, in the case of the late Gerry Devlin, are happening to this day. In that context has the Taoiseach considered the possibility of having a fourth strand in the talks, namely, a truth and reconciliation strand involving an investigation of the truth about all atrocities on all sides, military and paramilitary, so that truth will be seen to be in the service of reconciliation and to be comprehensively laid bare rather than simply laid bare in regard to one or other section of the community?
I accept this involves all communities. Yesterday I heard from people from the majority community who had to leave their farms. It is not just one community that has suffered. Most of the groups to which I spoke yesterday at different locations would be represented. That issue was looked at in earlier sessions of the forum and a document was prepared on it. The South African model has been examined to see what similarities there are with it. I agree with the Deputy to the extent that in principle we have to find some way of dealing with this aspect. No matter what I or the British Government say, if people cannot move beyond that period, if they all the time remember the terrible, horrific and barbaric cases over 30 years, it will be very difficult for them ever to do business together. We have to find a mechanism for dealing with that. Otherwise people will be continually drawn back into conflict, and as soon as they are into the heart of the conflict, it is impossible for them to move forward. I understand why, but we have to find a mechanism to overcome it.
On strand three of the talks, has any thought been given to the policies envisaged for an east-west body, or to the naming of such a body? I noted with interest the naming of the islands of the north Atlantic under the acronym IONA which the Green Party felt was extremely appropriate. Is it anticipated that security will be discussed in strand three? How would the body relate to the EU in an overall way?
Thought was given to all of those issues at a very useful meeting after the forum on Friday evening on east-west relationships, and we have moved a long way on all of the issues. Security issues will not be discussed in that strand.
Useful work has been done by both Governments on strand two. The position papers relating to that work are still between the Governments. Strand three is well advanced. All the issues, including education, industry and training, have been well fleshed out at this stage.
Will the Taoiseach give consideration to my proposal? I agree with his approach to advertising and trying to find useful and proper projects to assist. However, in allocating the balance of the fund will he specifically seek to help those soldiers, sailors, former soldiers and former sailors and their families who have fallen on hard times? Much more could be achieved by doing this than by putting the money back into the central fund.
I will consider the matter.
The acronym IONA is a useful way of addressing the coming together of these two islands. However, the island of Iona is probably a green heaven in that nobody lives on it and therefore it cannot be polluted in any way.
It is also in ruins.
On the working groups which operated prior to the suspension of the earlier work of the forum, are there any plans to publish the work carried out by them, particularly by the working group on human rights whose work was almost complete and ready for publication? The working groups carried out much good work in teasing through many issues and it would be a pity if it were lost. It would also clarify many issues and the views of the various parties involved in the forum. Will the Taoiseach consider publishing the work of the groups? Has consideration been given to reconvening the groups so that they can complete their work?
I am not sure if all the groups completed their work. If not, consideration can be given to reconvening them so that they can complete it. I will ascertain the precise stage the work is at. In the Supplementary Estimate introduced last week we provided money so that the reports could be completed. If all the reports are not completed the working groups can be reconvened.
On the sub-groups generally, they will meet on an irregular basis. It was decided last week that we should reflect on what way we do this. Contact will be made on the matter shortly.
