John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversations with the British Prime Minister. [1168/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has had any further contact with the President of the United States of America since his visit to the USA in December 1997. [1169/98]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the current state of the Northern Ireland multi-party talks. [1171/98]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the US Senator, Mr. Edward Kennedy. [1207/98]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the conversations he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the all-party talks in Northern Ireland. [1354/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:12 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his assessment of the current state of the peace process and the interparty talks in Northern Ireland. [1579/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:13 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland since 19 December 1997, particularly in relation to the terms of the joint documents published by the British and Irish Governments on 12 January 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1581/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:14 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with the British Prime Minister since 19 December 1997; and the plans, if any, he has for a meeting with the British Prime Minister. [1582/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to attend the sessions of the Northern Ireland talks due to be held in London; if he will outline the plans for the sessions of the talks to be held in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1584/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:16 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach his views on further meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation; and if he has discussed the question of further meetings with the forum chairperson. [1587/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:17 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister regarding possible measures to encourage those parties which have left the Northern Ireland talks to re-enter the process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1588/98]
John Bruton
Question:18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversations with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. [1597/98]
John Bruton
Question:19 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with US Senator, Connie Mack. [1598/98]
John Bruton
Question:20 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the current state of the all-party talks in Belfast; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1599/98]
John Bruton
Question:21 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach whether he will have bilateral meetings with Northern Ireland party leaders when the all-party talks move to Dublin in February 1998. [1600/98]
John Bruton
Question:22 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams. [1701/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:23 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will give an account of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on 12 December 1997; if he will further outline details on the communiqué issued on conclusion of this meeting, particularly the sections which dealt with areas of co-operation between the Irish and British Governments and in the area of defence. [1802/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:24 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has for a bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister in the next six weeks [1922/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:25 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when he received a request to have a meeting with Mr. Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin on 16 January 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1923/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:26 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that all parties currently participating in the all-party talks in Northern Ireland are now prepared to seriously engage in substantive discussions on the basis of the Propositions on Heads of Agreement document issued by the Irish and British Governments [1924/98]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:27 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of negotiations at Stormont since 18 December 1997. [1930/98]
John Bruton
Question:28 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the status of the Ulster Democratic Party's participation in the all-party talks in Northern Ireland. [2364/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:29 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the outcome of the talks at Lancaster Gate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2571/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:30 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the way in which the UDP can be readmitted to the all-party talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2572/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 30, inclusive together.
I take this opportunity to condemn all acts of violence and express my sympathy, and that of the House, to all the families and friends of victims of the recent appalling violence. I already indicated this in my recent speech in Belfast to the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I commend the Newsletter and the Irish News on their initiative in launching their pledge for peace campaign. I also mention the STOP campaign, whose members are also involved here in organising a campaign for peace. It is important that we all make clear our rejection of violence in all its forms and that we will not be deflected by such violence from the search for a fair and balanced settlement that would bring an end to the conflict which remains at the root of recent violence. These killings are a grim reminder to us all why these talks must succeed.
Discussion on the most inclusive basis possible, consistent with compliance with the Mitchell principles, is the way forward. As the House will know, the UFF issued a statement on 23 January admitting it had broken its ceasefire for a period but that it had now been restored. The Chief Constable of the RUC has indicated that during the suspension of its ceasefire, the UFF was involved in the sectarian murder of at least three civilians. The claim by the UFF that its actions represented a measured military response is outrageous, unsustainable and deeply offensive to the families and friends of its innocent victims.
Against that background, there was a heavy responsibility on the two Governments to ensure that when the negotiation participants met in London last Monday the Mitchell principles and the integrity of the talks process were upheld. The issue of the UFF statement and its implications was accordingly raised at the commencement of the proceedings by the two Governments and a plenary session was convened at which the UDP made a statement. All the participants gave their views and the UDP responded to these. The two Governments then, under Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure, considered the question of appropriate action in light of all the material available to them and having due regard to the views of the participants.
In view of the importance of the issue, I consider it appropriate that I read into the record of the House the conclusions section of the determination made by the two Governments and issued on Monday last. It states:
11. The Governments regard the UFF involvement in sectarian murders, which has been well attested by information in the security forces' possession, to be admitted in their statement. The statement itself asserts that these murders were a "measured military response" to "Republican aggression". If this was the motivation of the perpetrators it is all the clearer that the murders constitute a manifest breach of the first Mitchell principle of democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues. We find the UFF's use in this context of terms like "military response" outrageous, unsustainable and deeply offensive to the families and friends of their innocent victims.
12. The Governments accept that the Ulster Democratic Party may have sought to use its influence to oppose the violence of the UFF, and take full account of the acknowledgement by other participants of the UDP's efforts.
13. But there is also no doubt in the Governments' mind that there are close links between the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the UDP, and that the question whether the party has demonstrably dishonoured its commitment to the Mitchell principles has to be considered in the light of that.
14. The Governments are obliged to conclude that by reason of the UFF murders, there has been the clearest breach of the UDP's commitment to the Mitchell principles. The UDP is therefore no longer entitled to participate in the negotiations. The UDP has now withdrawn from the talks, which in view of the course of events seems to the Governments an appropriate gesture.
15. The UFF statement indicates that its involvement in killings has for the present come to an end, in that what it terms its military response is now concluded. The statement leaves room for doubt, however, as to how unequivocal the restored ceasefire is. The ambiguity here must be resolved.
16. If over a period of weeks a complete, unequivocal and unqualified UFF ceasefire were demonstrated, and established through word and deed to have been fully and continuously observed, the Governments would consider the possibility of the UDP rejoining the negotiations. The Governments would welcome the prospect in such circumstances. With that possibility in mind, they, with their advisers, will keep the situation under the most careful review. The Governments will, of course, do nothing incompatible with the integrity of the process, which depends on the total and absolute commitment of all participants to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues required by the Mitchell principles.
The events on which I have reported raised difficult issues, given the attachment of the Government to the most inclusive participation possible, consistent with compliance with the Mitchell principles. However, I have no doubt but that the decision taken was the correct one. It was absolutely essential that we upheld the integrity of the process. At the same time, we have it made clear that if over a period of weeks there is a complete and unqualified ceasefire established by word and deed, the Governments would consider the possibility of the UDP rejoining the negotiations. The Government would welcome the prospect in such circumstances and, in that connection, I welcome the fact that the UDP indicated that the outcome on last Monday week does not mean the UDP is withdrawing from the political process.
Following intensive discussions after the adjournment of the talks before Christmas, the two Governments presented a paper to other participants at the talks which set out propositions on heads of agreement. It was and is imperative to ensure that the talks remain the sole focus. For the first time in this difficult process we have identified a way to proceed to real negotiations on issues of substance. These are not detailed proposals or a draft agreement but they are a good basis on which all the participating parties, whose responsibility and prerogative it is to do so, can work towards a widely acceptable agreement.
While the propositions were presented in the name of the two Governments, they were developed as an aid to discussion from the views expressed by all parties during the discussions in recent months. The best judgment of the two Governments as to the form of an acceptable and balanced settlement remains as set out in the Joint Framework Document, published in February 1995. The firm commitment of the two Governments to the position set out in that document as being their best assessment of where agreement might be found in the negotiations, and to the positions in the Joint Declaration, was restated in the joint paper tabled last week by the two Governments to facilitate discussion in strand two. The three day talks session at Lancaster House in London ended on a positive note with an agreement by delegations to pursue detailed negotiations on the basis of the papers tabled by the two Governments in strands two and three.
The issues are now on the table and the participants are beginning to engage in discussion on the detail. We know that there will be difficult issues to be resolved for everyone before real agreement can be achieved and both Governments are determined to press ahead to find a settlement which will give a firm foundation for peace. I believe that all parties currently participating in the talks are prepared to seriously engage in substantive discussions. I will continue to avail of every opportunity, including while the talks are in Dublin, to meet with the talks participants both on a bilateral basis and a multilateral basis and to inject momentum into the talks to ensure that they continue to move forward. Planning for the talks session in Dublin is being undertaken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With regard to those parties who have taken the decision not to participate in the talks, I continue to hope that they will reconsider their position. They know the talks are constituted on an all-inclusive basis in respect of parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means and the door is always open to such parties.
Before the heads of agreement were tabled at the talks, all of my contacts with the British Government, Northern Ireland parties and US representatives were designed to help us prepare a paper that would provide a map leading towards a future settlement. I have had intensive contacts with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and the leaders of the Northern parties, including Sinn Féin, and I do not believe it is helpful or constructive to report on these contacts in detail on a regular basis. I have already reported extensively on my meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in Luxembourg in December and the communiqué and report which we issued on east-west co-operation, when I made a statement in the House on 17 December last.
I have not been in direct personal contact with President Clinton since 19 December. While close contacts at diplomatic and official level have continued, as reflected in a number of supportive statements issued from the White House, I have had some helpful and informative meetings with a number of US representatives, including Senator Connie Mack on 15 January, Senator Edward Kennedy on 10 January, and Congressman Patrick Kennedy on 20 January. At these meetings, they continued to offer their support and assistance for the peace process and I was glad to have the opportunity to inform them of current developments. I also used the opportunity to express our appreciation of their efforts on behalf of Ireland, and the input of all in the USA who have taken such a great interest in Ireland.
In relation to meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, it was agreed at the last meeting in December that contacts would be made with all the parties to explore their views in this regard. I understand that this is now being done.
Let me express my support for the stance taken by the two Governments in applying the Mitchell principles with vigour and rigour on the recent occasion. Would the Taoiseach agree that it might be useful to establish a unit reporting directly to the talks participants on the ongoing day to day respect for the Mitchell principles in practice so that there would be objective information available other than from the security forces alone on compliance with the Mitchell principles, particularly with regard to punishment beatings and shootings as well as with regard to more serious acts?
Will the Taoiseach give me his view as to whether it will be possible for the talks participants to have in place by May an agreement that is sufficiently detailed to be capable of being put to referendum? If it is possible or likely that this will not happen, what arrangements might the Taoiseach have in mind for allowing further work to be done and a referendum to take place at a slightly later date when all that detailed work would have been completed?
Will the Taoiseach comment on how he proposes to comply with the commitment given in the joint statement he made with Prime Minister Blair to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into the domestic legislation of this jurisdiction? Will this involve overriding the existing provisions of our Constitution or will it be subject to the existing provisions? How is this matter to be proceeded with?
I am still hopeful that we can reach a position where we will have made substantive progress in the talks by Easter. However, it is difficult to move people on at the pace I would like in order to make progress. There is a great desire by the parties to ask the Governments to present papers and positions, but there are great difficulties when the Governments do that. It is still my view that we should continue to do this.
In recent weeks I have been working on the overall paper from our point of view and encouraging the British Government to do likewise. I formed the view before Christmas that it would not be possible to meet the Easter guideline if we continued to take each section in isolation and tried to get agreement on it. We should put all the propositions on the table and link them to the Downing Street Declaration and the Joint Framework Document. I equally believe that the sooner everything is on the table the better. I am certain that this agreement cannot be put to the people if there is the slightest hint of fudge in it. It cannot propose an absolute union on one side or be a step to a united Ireland on the other. It must be as clear as it can possibly be. In this context, we know the outlines, strands and the confidence building measures required. There are also other issues such as the equality agenda, the important prisoner issues, the role of education and other matters. It behoves us to try to document these and to reach a substantive agreement.
I hope the House will understand if I tell Deputy Bruton in a few weeks that we have not achieved agreement on all of this. However, I would like to be able to put as much of the agreement together as possible so that we would have an inclusive and conclusive argument about what can be agreed. This is the way we will make progress. If we drag out the matter indefinitely we will lose too many of the players. There are also difficulties with international issues which mean the British Government does not have the same involvement. I am conscious that Prime Minister Blair and the President of the United States have other responsibilities. The previous Government and this Government called on them to devote much time to Northern Ireland issues. We need to concentrate our minds on dealing with the issue in a shorter timeframe. I cannot tell Deputy Bruton that I have agreement on this but I am endeavouring to convince people that this is the right way to proceed.
I welcome the revelation by the Taoiseach that there is an overall paper in being on which work is being done. It is very important that this exists and that people know of its existence.
Will the Taoiseach agree that at this stage in the talks a cross-strand mechanism is needed whereby it will be possible to simultaneously discuss the North-South institutions and the internal mechanisms in Northern Ireland? One cannot really discuss how one will work without discussing how the other will work. At this juncture in the talks there effectively needs to be one conversation rather than three conversations in parallel. Does he have any procedural change in mind which would allow this to happen?
Will the Taoiseach agree with me, Deputy De Rossa and others that it is important at this stage for Sinn Féin to be willing to address strand one issues, internal issues, as part of a three strand approach and that it cannot simply take notes at the talks without participating in them? Equally it is important that the Ulster Unionists should be willing to have a bilateral meeting with Sinn Féin at this stage, notwithstanding that the main business will be done during the plenary session.
The three points made by the Deputy are correct. We need to get more movement and dialogue across the strands. The propositions are merely the heads for discussion. We have the document on strand one put forward by the British Government yesterday and we have the joint papers put forward by the two Governments on strands two and three. There are other issues such as the wider equality agenda, but these documents are the basis for the discussion and we must work on them. Obviously, we will have to look at the three interlocking strands.
The only way it would ever be possible for Sinn Féin to agree to an assembly or body is in the context of an overall agreement. This cannot be done in isolation as it is prohibited by its rules. It would be helpful if it engaged in the strand one discussions. It would also be very helpful if Sinn Féin and the UUP could engage at this stage.
Will the Taoiseach indicate his support for the Stop campaign which is organising a two minute stoppage next week? Will he indicate that the Government and Opposition parties support this event and encourage the media, including RTÉ, to take it up and participate in it? I understand that RTÉ has been reluctant to give coverage to this initiative up to now.
Will the Taoiseach seek to have the documentation which was almost completed by the forum subgroups completed and published? This may be a more worthwhile job for the forum than to simply meet in plenary session where various spokespersons tend to let off steam. There is productive work which could be done by the subgroups.
On the participation of parties not currently involved in the talks, my question specifically related to the DUP and the UK Unionists. Since I tabled my question the UDP has withdrawn from the talks. I support the stance taken by the British and Irish Governments in defending the Mitchell principles and the necessity to defend the integrity of the negotiations by insisting that they be applied. Are any efforts being made to bring back in the DUP and the UK Unionists? The more parties representing the broad community in Northern Ireland involved at the conclusion of the talks the more likely it is that the outcome will be accepted across the board, North and South.
I support the Stop campaign for a two minute silence next week. It initially referred to a march but instead opted for this form of dignified protest against the killing of innocent civilians since the Christmas period.
On the work of the sub groups of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, I have asked them to see if they could complete their work. I believe there is some outstanding work and I agree it should be possible to clear it.
I would dearly like if the DUP and the UK Unionists rejoined the talks. I have continually stated that the talks are being conducted on an inclusive basis and these parties have every right to attend. They withdrew primarily because they believed Sinn Féin was only entering the talks on 24 September as a tactic and would only stay for a short period before leaving. However, it is now clear that this was not a correct assessment. They had other reasons for withdrawing but that was the main one. The more parties there are at the talks the better. If we want to get an ultimate agreement which can be sold to the people North and South on the same day by means of a referendum the more people signed up to it the better.
As it is now 3.20 p.m. I am obliged to conclude questions to the Taoiseach. However, it was agreed last week that supplementary questions on this group of questions would continue tomorrow.
I was given an assurance by the Ceann Comhairle I would be allowed contribute because I acceded to his request not to ask a question at an earlier stage.
The order of the House is that Taoiseach's questions conclude at 3.20 p.m. There is an opportunity to continue supplementaries tomorrow.
I hope it will be remembered tomorrow that on two occasions today, in deference to the Chair, I did not ask questions.
I will try to ensure the Deputy will be first to ask a supplementary tomorrow.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle give a similar assurance to me?
The Deputy was not here for the first question.
I was here.
I can give the assurance only to the Member in possession, but if I am in the Chair I will certainly try to facilitate the Deputy.