John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of the reply, if any, he has sent to the letter he received recently from Mr. David Trimble, MP. [3001/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his involvement, if any, in the all-party talks when they move to Dublin in February 1998; the receptions, if any, he proposes to host for the participants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3060/98]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the comments on Northern Ireland made by the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister following their recent meeting in Washington. [3061/98]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Australian Foreign Minister when he visited Dublin. [3130/98]
John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the Government's overall paper on the Northern talks will be completed. [3132/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 5 February 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3353/98]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 5 February 1998 in Dublin with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mo Mowlam. [3356/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the report, if any, he has received from the British or US Governments on the talks between the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and President Clinton in so far as they related to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3427/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:12 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mo Mowlam, on 5 February 1998. [3430/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if it is the intention of the Irish and British Governments to arrange to have the proposed referendum or plebiscite, which would be required when the talks process is satisfactorily completed, held on the same day throughout Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3747/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the implications, if any, for this State and its institutions of any potential North-South ministerial council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3893/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the state of the peace process in view of developments in the past week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3895/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the programme for his visit to the United States in March 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4130/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 16, inclusive, together.
As the House will be aware, the multi-party negotiations have been proceeding in Dublin Castle yesterday and today. It had been intended that the session in Dublin would focus on strands two and three. Most delegations had tabled written responses to the questions set out in the paper on strand two jointly presented by the two Governments in Lancaster House on 27 January and one delegation had responded to the joint paper on strand three matters tabled by the two Governments the same day. It had been envisaged that the independent chairmen would bring forward a paper based on the responses by delegations, as a basis for the discussions foreseen for Dublin.
In the event, the proceedings in Dublin have been dominated by discussion of the implications, if any, for Sinn Féin's participation in the negotiations arising from killings that took place in Belfast last week. These murders were condemned at the time both by me and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the Government, and I reiterate now our abhorrence of these and of all the murders that have taken place since some time before Christmas. There is an established procedure for dealing with issues of this kind when they are raised. This procedure is currently in train and, as the Irish Government, together with the British one, will be called upon to rule on the issue arising, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on these matters today.
While extremely conscious of the gravity of the matters just mentioned, it is a source of intense frustration to me and the Government that the session in Dublin has so far been overshadowed in this way. I would not wish to understate the breadth of the differences between the positions publicly enunciated by the various participants, for example, in the papers recently submitted to the chairmen. In spite of the public positions, ongoing dialogue with the parties suggested that there was a reasonable prospect of common ground being found as the negotiations approached their final stages. The Government will continue to use every endeavour to make such a prospect a reality and to find an accommodation that can provide the basis for a fair and durable settlement.
I hosted a reception for the participants in Dublin Castle on Monday evening to which appropriate representatives of opposition parties were invited.
As I have previously stated, the Government is carrying forward work on elaborating its views on the details of a settlement. Deputies will be aware that the general practice in the negotiations has been for the two Governments to act jointly, including in the presentation of any papers. Whether and when to present the results of the work under way will be determined by the Governments in the light of progress in the three strands.
As Deputies will be aware, the Government firmly believes that if it is to secure the necessary support, the settlement must include a North-South ministerial council and North-South bodies with executive decision and implementation powers. This will obviously have significant implications for the way we do our business in this State, in view of the need for agreement between the two sides of the council on the action to be taken in the areas for which it and the associated all-island implementation bodies will have responsibility. However, it would be premature and not particularly helpful at this stage in the negotiations to enter into detailed debate on this matter.
The question as to how the settlement is to be put to referendum is currently under consideration. There are a number of complex issues to be addressed. I do not propose to comment further pending the completion of our consideration of this matter.
I met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Marjorie Mowlam MP, on 5 February. We had a useful discussion which focused on developments in the multi-party talks and we discussed how we might accelerate progress in the talks. Both Governments remain committed to the achievement, as speedily as possible, of a balanced settlement, based on agreement, to be put to the people in referendums, North and South, by May. I also met Dr. Mowlam last evening and we discussed current developments.
I replied to Mr. Trimble's letter on 10 February. I do not propose to discuss my response other than to make the point that I do not accept the parallel he has drawn between the events in question and the new inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday.
I have been in recent contact with both President Clinton and the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and I welcome their recent affirmation at their meeting of their continuing commitment to peace in Northern Ireland. I join them in condemning the recent sectarian killings and urging all of the parties to show their vision, forbearance and determination to succeed. The programme for my visit to North America is being finalised. I am, however, planning to visit Toronto and Washington DC during my trip where I will meet President Clinton.
I met Mr. Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister, on 4 February. We had a very positive meeting covering a number of issues. I was pleased to be able to inform him of the progress in the multi-party talks and to thank him for Australia's continued contribution to the International Fund for Ireland, in particular, the contribution of $1.5 million for 1998.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is right that the two Governments should act jointly on all matters in the talks? In that context, in what way and through what channels has the Irish Government examined the forensic evidence which, it is suggested, links the IRA to recent killings?
It is my view and experience to date that the two Governments should act together. With regard to the recent killings, the Garda Síochána and the RUC communicate and meet regularly. That has also happened with regard to current issues.
Does the Taoiseach agree that in a matter of this importance it is critical that not only the right decision is made but that the Government is seen to take that decision in the most thorough fashion, so that no suggestion that the Governments have not taken the words and evidence seriously can be adduced? Has the Government considered my suggestion that perhaps an Anglo-Irish inter-governmental conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement might be useful in so far as it would allow the Irish Government to put questions to the Chief Constable of the RUC on the forensic evidence? The Irish Government could be seen, therefore, to satisfy itself in a formal way about the evidence, rather than simply relying on information conveyed to it secondhand.
I thank the Deputy for his helpful suggestions and I accept the spirit in which they are made. Since the middle of last week the Governments have been in contact at every level — Taoiseach to Prime Minister, Secretary of State to Minister for Foreign Affairs, the RUC to the Garda Síochána and officials at all levels — where these matters have been followed through.
I have been briefed about all the data on which I wished to be satisfied directly by the British Prime Minister. I have asked him the obvious questions and all the questions which were put to me. I have not been in touch with the RUC. With regard to the inter-governmental conference, it is necessary for the Garda Síochána to meet the RUC and put the relevant technical questions. There was such a meeting recently and those matters were discussed. Arising from that, the Garda Síochána is of the belief there is a case to answer.
I do not wish to pursue the questions put to the Taoiseach by the Fine Gael Party. However, will the Taoiseach confirm that the Garda Síochána is satisfied that there is a case to answer?
Yes.
Question No. 13 refers to the proposed referendum or plebiscite. It is the intention of the two Governments to have an agreed document completed by 1 May. It is then intended to put the contents of that document to a referendum or plebiscite in both parts of this island. Is it the intention of the two Governments to hold the referendum on the same day in both parts of the island?
Yes. There is a group examining the operation of such a plebiscite. There were useful exchanges on the subject in the House last week and I have forwarded these to the group so its members may be made aware of the views of the House.
Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House the readmission procedures for a party suspended from the negotiation process? The UDP was suspended and there are rumours they may be readmitted in the not too distant future. The current indictment of Sinn Féin may result in its suspension. Given the need to have the widest possible participation in these talks — a matter I raised last week in relation to the DUP — will the Taoiseach indicate the mechanisms for the readmission of parties who re-establish their commitment to the Mitchell principles?
The determination process is clearly set out and is based on what is written in that determination and the attitude of the Governments to it. What happened some weeks ago has changed what is on the agenda now. The Governments are anxious these talks stay comprehensive and inclusive, particularly as we move towards the final weeks or months of negotiating an agreement. I told the British Prime Minister that is still my view.
It is unfortunate and regrettable, but not our fault, that these matters arose. The Governments did not kill anybody and they want these matters dealt with in a way in which everyone can be allowed state their views on behalf of the people they represent. We will endeavour to deal with this but the Government cannot set aside the basis of the Mitchell principles. The basis of the ground rules document is that we are against the killing of any person for any reason in any circumstances. The fact that we are against violence is the fundamental basis of what we are trying to achieve. I acknowledge that representatives at the talks are of like mind. However, we must follow what was agreed and that to which people have committed. I argued that people should be included in these talks on an inclusive basis, in circumstances where they adhere to the Mitchell principles.
Suspension will be determined, as in the last case and possibly, as due process must take place, in any subsequent case, by what is agreed in determination between both Governments, based on evidence and statements put before them.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the "no claim, no blame" tactic could undermine the Mitchell principles unless the Governments are willing to make a clear decision on the evidence available as to whether they have been demonstrably dishonoured? Will the Governments have to make that difficult but necessary decision if the Mitchell principles are to be sustained?
Yes. Due process must take place but the Governments must make that decision.
I wish to elaborate on the Taoiseach's reply on the information given to the Garda. The Taoiseach may have heard his predecessor, Deputy Albert Reynolds, this morning cast doubt on the veracity of reports from the RUC, giving sustenance to those who discredit any opinion of the Chief Constable that the people charged with the murder are activists in IRA-Sinn Féin. Is the Taoiseach stating that, before the Irish Government makes a decision in concert with the British Government, the Garda will be satisfied about the scientific objectivity of any forensic evidence and the Irish Government will take action on foot of clear professional advice based on scientific evidence evaluated by the Garda and not rely exclusively on the word of the RUC?
I did not say anything about scientific analysis.
What about forensic evidence?
If the Garda give me a report on their judgment I will accept it, but I cannot say what precisely they do to arrive at that judgment.
I went to great lengths on a number of occasions in recent days to ask the British Prime Minister every conceivable question that was put to me from all sources and they were received with great patience. I have had a lot of dealings with the British Prime Minister and I take him at his word regarding what he has been told. He understands what we might say and the questions that might be asked. He said this in some sense publicly and in other discussions and I believe that is the position.
I thank the Taoiseach for his earlier reply to my supplementary, but he did not address the specific point regarding readmission to the talks of parties suspended or that may be suspended. If we are to achieve the inclusiveness that we would all like — although circumstances may dictate otherwise — in what way will the parties who seek readmission be dealt with? Will the procedure that applies for the indictment of parties apply in those circumstances? Will the decision be made by both Governments and will parties involved in the negotiations have an opportunity to express their views on the matter?
The due process is outlined in the ground rules documents and that mechanism must be followed. As was said previously, this may arise several times, but I hope it does not. The Governments can also indicate their position based on what might be said. If they put forward precise details, they would have to be reflected on.
The Taoiseach referred to "a case to answer". There is a case to answer, but by whom? There was also reference to objectivity. There is very little objectivity, scientific or otherwise, in this matter. I assure the Taoiseach and Members that as an elected Sinn Féin Member I am here to represent the people of Cavan and Monaghan, with the support of 11,531 votes, a mandate equalled by only a handful of other Members. I intend to stand here for peace and justice in solidarity with my elected colleagues who today are fighting a fraudulent indictment that has been laid against us at Dublin Castle. Will the Taoiseach disassociate himself from this charade and stand up for the rights of those Irish citizens for whom he is responsible and who are today being put beyond the pale? Will he agree to a special debate today on the crisis in the peace process? I urge agreement from all sides on this matter.
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is the IRA. In regard to the second part, a process is taking place elsewhere to which all parties in this House — including I think the Deputy's party — subscribed. I am pleased to hear him express what a number of his negotiators have said to me in recent days, that they are prepared to see the process worked through. Part of the process is that certain rules have to be worked through and I hope all that will happen in the next few months.
When the Taoiseach talks about working within specific rules will he recognise that one of the fundamental rules is the basis of evidence in relation to any charge against any constituent participant group within the talks process? Is it the case that no such evidence has been produced against Sinn Féin, an independent political party with a mandate throughout the length and breadth of the island and which has played a constructive and courageous role in the formation and work of this process to date?
I have not seen any evidence brought against Sinn Féin but the Deputy will understand how the rules and the system operates. Due process must take place. I hope his representatives will have an opportunity today to state their case and their views before any decision is made.
Will the Taoiseach agree that everyone in this House would want all the people and all the organisations around the table to continue to be around the table for as long as possible? Since Deputy Ó Caoláin has made a certain suggestion as to how his political associates north of the Border might be able to remain around the table could we ask him if he——
Questions cannot be directed——
Will the Taoiseach agree that it would be helpful if the Deputy in this House, on behalf of the Republican movement, disassociated himself entirely from those who were responsible for the two murders in Belfast, which have caused this problem, and condemned those responsible for the murders?
This is Question Time to the Taoiseach.
(Dublin West): The expulsion of Sinn Féin could give rise to an extremely dangerous situation, leave a dangerous vacuum and play into the hands of extreme sectarians responsible for the horrific murders of the past two months. Where the leaders of political parties associated with paramilitary organisations publicly call for the ceasefires to continue, and given that the majority of people who vote for those political parties do not condone the murders but condemn them, is it counterproductive to move towards exclusion? Is it the case that any freelance member of the IRA or the UDA who wants to scupper the process of reconciliation need only commit another murder to scupper the talks? This matter could be advanced by an explosion of the monumental hypocrisy on all sides. Some of those who are vehemently calling for extremes have, in the past, given comfort to paramilitaries. Also the British Government is now prepared to drop fearsome weapons which will murder thousands of innocent Iraqis at the behest of President Clinton.
The Deputy is making a statement. The Deputy knows his remarks must be confined to a supplementary question.
(Dublin West): Can we explode the hypocrisies and get on with the real business of trying to find a solution that will bring hope to the two suffering communities, particularly the working class people, in the North?
I wish these matters were otherwise. I worked hard all last week to prepare for the talks at Dublin Castle this week and remain committed to inclusive talks with practically all parties to explore their positions under strand two. Unfortunately, there have been further deaths. As happened when the parties met in Lancaster House two weeks ago, this has made it difficult to move forward. Parties must abide by the rules that govern the process which is a political rather than a legal one. We are trying to resolve the difficulties and structure a new arrangement which would follow the framework I have outlined in the House on several occasions, including Question Time. We must abide by what we have signed up to and be consistent and fair and try to deal with crises as they arise. When the process was initiated many years ago everybody knew that it would not be easy. At times, it is very difficult but we must be fair to everybody and follow due process where people can express their concerns and reservations. The two Governments must be consistent at all times so that everybody knows the ground rules. That must happen in this case also.
Is the Taoiseach aware that in the case of one of the victims of the recent killings it was the second attempt on his life, that on the previous occasion he was wearing a bullet proof vest and survived the attack and that on the second occasion his assassins were successful? Will the Taoiseach agree that this is evidence that there are systematic attempts by paramilitary organisations, through punishment beatings and shootings and threats, to maintain control and exercise a form of mob rule in certain areas and that this is contrary to the Mitchell principles? Will the Taoiseach further agree that there is a need for an ongoing mechanism to monitor low level punishment beatings as well as the extreme step of considering expulsion from the talks for high level actions such as murder?
While I agree with the Deputy his remarks apply to all murders committed during the past ten weeks when there have been horrific acts and loyalists and republicans and Unionists and Nationalists have been shot at. During the Christmas period many Nationalists who were not known to have been involved and who were law abiding and family people were gunned down. People in communities which have suffered so much have been trying very hard, as has Sinn Féin, to find mechanisms to move their communities away from punishment beatings. That would be a welcome development. The two Governments must continue to monitor the position. We cannot agree to anything that is anti-democratic or pro-violence. We must at all times speak out against this; otherwise, there will be no law and no rules. We must continue to do everything we can to uphold proper standards.
I know the Taoiseach agrees with me that there is no acceptable level of punishment beatings.
Precisely.
While we all desire the widest possible inclusiveness in the talks, will the Taoiseach confirm that, whether Sinn Féin is suspended as a result of the indictment, the talks will continue and that the constitutional parties which remain will continue to negotiate and proceed with the two Governments to seek a negotiated settlement? Will he confirm the current procedures in relation to Sinn Féin are precisely the same procedures that were applied to the UDP and that Sinn Féin was one of the parties in the talks which most vociferously called for the suspension of the UDP because it considered it had breached the Mitchell principles?
As I said, we want to be consistent and at all opportunities we want to have an inclusive arrangement in moving forward. We will do our utmost to make sure that both those standards are followed.