Ruairí Quinn
Question:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions or meetings, if any, he has had in the past week in relation to the decommissioning impasse; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19391/98]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, taken by his Department's Northern Ireland division to co-ordinate implementation of constitutional and certain institutional aspects of the British-Irish Agreement as set out in his Department's strategy statement. [20122/98]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. [21036/98]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his telephone conversations, if any, with the President of the United States. [21037/98]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Scotland. [21040/98]
John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, the Government has to honour the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. John Hume and Mr. David Trimble. [21046/98]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. Trimble. [21047/98]
Joe Higgins
Question:10 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his talks with the British Prime Minister. [21092/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to report on any progress made recently in resolving the impasse over decommissioning; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21120/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to report on any contacts he has had with the British Prime Minister recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21121/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to report on any contacts he has had with political leaders in Northern Ireland recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21122/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:14 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach his views of the implications of the failure to establish North-South bodies by the date envisaged in the British-Irish Agreement; the plans, if any, he has for initiatives to overcome current obstacles to full implementation of the Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21608/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed at his meeting with the British Prime Minister in the margins of the EU summit in Austria; the plans, if any, he has for further meetings with the Prime Minister particularly in regard to obstacles to the full implementation of the British-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21609/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Scottish Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21716/98]
Austin Currie
Question:17 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach if he has raised, in his discussions with representatives of the republican movement, the possibility of the destruction of arms and explosives by those in possession of them under the supervision of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in accordance with the Decommissioning Act, 1997 (Decommissioning) Regulations, 1998; if so, the response he received; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21915/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 17, inclusive, together.
I have continued to meet and engage intensively in recent weeks with the parties and others on Northern Ireland, including a number of meetings in the past ten days. I will continue to do so as appropriate in the days and weeks ahead.
As I forecast last week, the deadline of 31 October has not been met. It would have been desirable to have been able to respect this target date. However, a great deal of work has been done. Extensive preparatory work has been done by the Government. Discussions have taken place between the Northern parties, including at last Thursday's round table meeting. Valuable technical work has also been done by Departments in Northern Ireland and, in addition, there have been exploratory contacts between officials on both sides.
As I said recently in my address to the IBEC-CBI Joint Business Council, what we all need to do now is to build on the substantial work that has been done and to discharge the substance provided for in the Agreement. The informal round table discussions which are now under way will facilitate progress.
I welcomed the opportunity on Monday, accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, to meet most of the Northern Ireland parties in round table format and later in bilaterals to advance the implementation of the Agreement's provisions on North South co-operation. Our discussions were constructive in tone and involved a real engagement in the detail of this key area. I look forward to continued and early progress in our discussions. The horrific murder of Mr. Brian Service on Saturday is a chilling reminder of the alternative to continued progress in turning the promise of the Agreement into a reality.
I do not propose to report in detail on each meeting or telephone conversation which I have had. However, recent meetings have focused on progressing the implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects.
As regards the issue of decommissioning, I have continued to emphasise that decommissioning is part of the Agreement and that all parties have affirmed their commitment to the total disarmament of paramilitary organisations. All those involved in the process must work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission and use any influence they may have to achieve decommissioning of paramilitary arms within two years. I am aware that useful contact is continuing between the Independent Commission and the parties on the practical dimensions of decommissioning but, as the House will be aware, this issue will be resolved in a political context and it is therefore important that we make progress in implementing the Agreement.
As regards Nobel Peace Prize winners, Mr. John Hume and Mr. David Trimble, as I mentioned in response to previous questions, I welcome this award which will constitute a strong encouragement to ensure that the promise of the Agreement is fulfilled. I have written to both to congratulate them. I do not propose to take any further action in advance of the official award ceremony which I understand will take place in Oslo in early December.
I had two main purposes for visiting Scotland on Thursday, 29 October. The first was to deliver the Lothian European lecture at the invitation of the Scottish Secretary of State and the second was to mark the inauguration of the Consulate General of Ireland in Scotland. The Secretary of State and I had a useful exchange of views on future relations between Ireland and Scotland within the ambit of the new British-Irish Council.
The Lothian European lectures were launched in 1992 as part of the national programme of events celebrating the UK's presidency of the European Union. My speech, which I have laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, dealt with the cultural heritage shared by Scotland and Ireland and also the implications of the establishment of the British-Irish Council arising from the Agreement. I indicated that I looked forward greatly to the intensification of relations between the Irish Government and the devolved Scottish Government.
My Department was heavily involved in the process of negotiation leading to the Agreement. The Department was also responsible for the preparation of the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998, which was required to give effect to the Agreement. In addition, my Department has been playing a major role in the extensive programme of work being undertaken under the aegis of the interdepartmental steering group, which is co-ordinating implementation of all aspects of the Agreement and which is chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The Taoiseach has chosen to reply to 15 questions together. Without interfering with your prerogative, a Cheann Comhairle, perhaps you will allow some latitude in asking supplementaries.
Provided Members are brief.
I will not ask an omnibus supplementary now if I have the right to ask more later.
We learned from newspaper reports that the Sinn Féin leadership has informed the Taoiseach it is unable to convince the IRA leadership to proceed with any further developments as regards decommissioning in any shape, size or form. Can the Taoiseach confirm if these reports are accurate? If they are, has he confronted the leadership with the observation he has repeatedly made here, namely, that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin? Are they in effect telling the Taoiseach they cannot convince themselves to initiate a process of decommissioning?
Deputy Quinn is right that I have repeatedly conveyed my observations to the Sinn Féin leadership and it is well aware of my views. It was requested at the beginning of September when it was not included in the Agreement, that a senior Sinn Féin official be included in the liaison group of the International Commission on Decommissioning to work constructively and productively with General de Chastelain. Sinn Féin announced that its chief negotiator, Martin McGuinness, would be its representative. My information from Sinn Féin and the international commission is that constructive involvement is going ahead and several meetings have taken place.
In terms of what must happen, a well publicised statement was made last week by Martin McGuinness saying Sinn Féin was co-operating and he reiterated its commitment to comply with the British-Irish Agreement. He also said Sinn Féin would do all it could within the period of the Agreement to deal with the issue of decommissioning.
Is the Taoiseach confirming the accuracy of the newspaper reports that Sinn Féin told him it cannot convince the army council of the IRA to initiate any process of decommissioning?
I can only repeat what Sinn Féin has said to me, which I have just done. It is clear to any observer, as everyone in this House is, that we are unlikely to see any move on decommissioning in the immediate future. That is not to say Sinn Féin is not complying with the terms of the Agreement and what it promised at the beginning of September.
What are the Taoiseach's views on the resumption of punishment shootings by paramilitaries and the implications this has for the decommissioning of the weapons being used?
Before I deal with punishment beatings, I must mention that which was more than a punishment, the assassination of Mr. Service last Saturday night.
Surely the Taoiseach means murder.
Yes, murder by assassination. I condemn that brutal and callous murder and any punishment beatings conducted by any quarter in any community. Punishment beatings have declined dramatically as the year has moved on. As soon as there is any delay in the political process punishment beatings tend to occur. This has been the experience for many years and we must avoid it, as I emphasised to all the political parties this week and last week. Political leadership is required to move matters on so as not to stagnate, which is when difficulties occur.
Does the Taoiseach agree punishment beatings and shootings are intended to maintain a form of political intimidation in certain areas to the benefit of certain organisations? If those organisations also have stockpiles of arms the practice of punishment beatings creates an added focus on the threat posed by the arms. If the punishment beatings and shootings were to stop completely the arms issue would become less difficult.
Arms are a major problem in Northern Ireland and everywhere and if they were not there it would be a help. However, as the Deputy knows, punishment beatings have little to do with arms, other than the murder of Mr. Service.
What effect does the Taoiseach think failure to establish the shadow executive by last Saturday had on the Agreement? Is it intended that the shadow executive and the North-South bodies will come into effect at the same time in advance of the end of February? Will the Taoiseach indicate the reasons conveyed to the Irish Government by Sinn Féin, on behalf of the IRA, for not decommissioning?
It is unhelpful if any provision in the Agreement is not strictly adhered to. It is unhelpful when people want pre-conditions. It is unhelpful when people try to justify pre-conditions which do not exist. As I said a number of weeks ago when I predicted 31 October would come and go, there are certain realities and people can do only what they believe is politically viable.
There is not a great deal to be gained, other than people stating their positions which they have done fairly well. People on one side will say we should have moved on while others will say there were no pre-conditions. The fact is there were no pre-conditions and the shadow executive and the North-South ministerial body should have been established some time ago as part of the Agreement.
This has had a destabilising effect on the Nationalist community which has been conveyed to me by all Nationalist leaders. Faced with that I, and those involved in the talks last week, whatever they can say inside or outside of them, believe the round table process is not a bad alternative. The establishment of the shadow executive and the North-South ministerial body was intended to achieve two aims, to agree ministerial portfolios, numbers and titles and to make the necessary arrangements with the Northern Ireland Office to establish the new structures. That can be dealt with adequately in the round table talks and through the work of Mr. Trimble, Mr. Mallon and others. I hope it will happen although I cannot be certain.
The shadow executive and the North-South ministerial body are meant to agree the implementation bodies and the North-South bodies. In the bilateral discussions we narrowed the differences. That is more difficult but I hope we can deal with it in the next few weeks. The importance of doing both those things is that we will have done all the analytical, legislative and other preparatory work which is required before February, when the Agreement goes "live"— that is the word people in Northern Ireland like to use — and all the institutional arrangements are in place. While it is unhelpful that this block occurred, there is an alternative way and we can keep things moving without losing too much time if we get agreement on those two matters — first, the Executive, the titles and the ministerial positions under the d'Hondt system, and second, the North-South bodies. I think both of those are possible.
There was another aspect to the question which the Taoiseach did not address — that is, the reasons conveyed by Sinn Féin on behalf of the IRA for making neither a gesture nor a statement of willingness to decommission, given that to a significant extent most of the demands the republican movement has made about policing, prisoners, equality and all the other issues on its agenda are being implemented.
As Deputy De Rossa knows I have made all those points myself, so rather than give my views I will say what Sinn Féin has said, which is what the Deputy asked. Sinn Féin considers it has moved even further than the Agreement requires it to do — it was not asked under the Agreement to have its chief negotiator deal with General de Chastelain. It believes it has honoured the commitment to work with the International Commission on Decommissioning under the Agreement to ensure decommissioning happens well within the two year period. That is the party's position and I hope it is correct.
There are two statements from the IRA which clearly state there will be no decommissioning. I am trying to discover whether Sinn Féin is conveying a different message on behalf of the IRA to the British and Irish Governments, and whether it still speaks authoritatively on this matter as it did, or at least as it claimed to do, when it was involved in the negotiations in the first instance, when it said decommissioning would happen.
Under the Agreement Sinn Féin is committed to doing all in its power to ensure that all paramilitary weapons over which it has influence will be put out of circulation by the end of the two year period of the Agreement. I hope they will be able successfully to use that influence but unfortunately I do not know when, where or how. I take some satisfaction from the fact that a senior member of Sinn Féin, Mr. Martin McGuinness, MP, the party's trusted chief negotiator, is the person dealing with General de Chastelain. I would have been delighted if there had been decommissioning a long time ago, and in that regard I am talking not only about Sinn Féin but the PUP, which takes the same position on these matters.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that the appalling sectarian murder or Mr. Service shows that there still are mindless sectarian killers on the fringes of political life in the North, outside the parties in the process, who are a threat not only to lives but to the peace? Does he also agree that the squabbling among established politicians, based in different sections of the divide, does not assist in overcoming a climate of tension? Against that background, will he urge the coming together of Protestant and Catholic working class communities, at trade union and community level, in an active effort to solve their common problems to overcome political and sectarian divisiveness?
With regard to my Question No. 10, in the Taoiseach's discussions with the British Prime Minister did he raise the detention of the former Chilean dictator, General Pinochet?
I pointed out to the Deputy that is a separate matter and he should have put down another parliamentary question. There is a question on tomorrow's Order Paper on that matter. To the Chair's best knowledge there is no connection between General Pinochet and Northern Ireland. How can the Deputy relate the two?
That is not fair.
We have enough complications.
(Dublin West): I do not want to get involved in a wrangle with you, a Cheann Comhairle, but my question relates to talks with the British Prime Minister.
Why does the Deputy not put down a specific question? There is a question on tomorrow's Order Paper and we should not anticipate it.
Deputy Higgins' question should not have been grouped with the others.
(Dublin West): Today's questions are to the Taoiseach, who discussed many issues other than Northern Ireland. It is within that context that I believe I am entirely in order to raise other matters which he discussed. The Taoiseach does not seem to have any difficulty with it. General Pinochet has been in detention in Britain——
The Deputy has asked a question and if the Taoiseach wishes to answer it, that is fine, but it changes the topic we have been discussing.
There is a certain commonality in the questions — they concern anti-democratic violence against citizens, whether in Northern Ireland or in Chile.
I have ruled on this matter before and it was open to the Deputy, in the two weeks which elapsed since then, to put down a specific question, but he has failed to do that.
(Dublin West): I put down a specific question, in such a way as to encompass all the matters the Taoiseach would have discussed with the British Prime Minister. I do not want to be argumentative, but on behalf of the people the Taoiseach has discussed many issues with Mr. Blair. Did he commend the arrest and urge that the butcher of the Chilean people should be put on trial or extradited to Spain, and did he say he thought that would be the view of the majority of the Irish people, given the terrible crimes committed by that dictator?
Working class people across the divide have been well represented by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. During all the years of murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland, ICTU was the one organisations which represented all individuals, regardless of what district they came from or where they worked. Politicians, trade union leaders and business leaders are all trying to bring about agreement. The Deputy is right to say that there still are terrible people at work, such as those who organised the Omagh carnage, those who killed Mr. Service, who were probably also involved in other attacks last week. It is hard to know precisely who they are but they have broken away from paramilitary groups who were previously involved in these atrocities. As long as those people are there, we have a difficulty, and the only way to overcome that is to move on politically, implement the Agreement and ensure it is worked through. It is not possible for the Agreement to cover every aspect of every issue but it has broad parameters. Where there is an element of vagueness, democratically elected people, as they all are now, should be able to sit down together and find ways to move these matters on. They can successfully do that if they concentrate on the issues.
Regarding the issues I discussed in my numerous meetings with Prime Minister Blair, I did not discuss Mr. Pinochet with him directly, as an agenda item, although references were made during the informal meetings at Pörtschach in Austria two weeks ago.
Will the Taoiseach answer the specific question I tabled, namely, whether he raised in his discussions with representatives of the Republican movement the possibility of the destruction of arms and explosives by those in possession of them under the supervision of the independent International Commission on Decommissioning in accordance with the Decommissioning Act, 1997 and the Decommissioning Regulations, 1998 and, if so, the response he received? It is obvious from the regulations that there is no question of any surrender being demanded — it is a matter of the paramilitary organisations destroying the weapons. Did the Taoiseach make that point in particular to representatives of Sinn Féin and, if so, what response did he get? Did he make the point to them that as there is no question of surrender, surely it is possible for Sinn Féin to convince the army council of the IRA, four of the seven members of which are leading members of Sinn Féin, of that point?
I have, but I will repeat it here again when we have a wider audience. The point Deputy Currie correctly makes is that under the supervision of the independent International Commission on Decommissioning, which is linked directly to the British-Irish Agreement, it is asked to co-operate with the chairman, General John de Chastelain. In doing so, it would be honouring the Agreement and decommissioning arms to an international body under an international agreement. Nobody could say that was a surrender. I know the Republican movement will not surrender arms to the RUC, the British Army or the British Administration, but it is not being asked to do that under these arrangements. We are asking it to co-operate fully, in a way that is worked out by the chief negotiator for Sinn Féin in these discussions, and to use his influence under the Agreement to find a way of doing that. That would not be seen as a surrender and I hope it will happen under the arrangements and timescale laid down.
What was the response of the Sinn Féin representatives to the argument that it would not be looked on as a surrender? Did they say they could not convince the IRA of this? How can that be said in circumstances where four of the seven members of the army council are leading members of Sinn Féin? What excuse do they have for saying "no" to this reasonable request?
They cannot convince themselves.
The Deputy misunderstands the position. The PUP and Sinn Féin are not saying "no". They are saying they are committed to doing certain things under the Agreement and that they are adhering to that commitment. They emphasise they are going further than that and they have appointed representatives to work with the International Commission on Decommissioning. That is their answer to the question and it is in compliance with the terms. Deputy Currie and myself would like that to happen yesterday, but I can only give him the reply I have been given, which is in conformity with the Agreement. If we could make further progress it would be useful because what Deputy De Rossa said earlier is true; we are trying to move on all aspects of the Agreement and this is one of them. It should not be incremental for one group and not for the other. All these points have been made endlessly by me.
We are almost out of time. I ask the remaining Deputies to be brief.
In regard to moving on all aspects of the Agreement, what aspects over which we have total control and responsibility can the Taoiseach accelerate, such as the point I raised on the Order of Business today, namely, the legislation required to be implemented by this House? Can that be accelerated beyond the timetable the Taoiseach has already indicated which suggests it may not see the light of day until the end of February? Can that not now be prioritised?
In relation to cross-Border bodies, will the Government indicate its willingness to merge the IDA with the IDB and to locate its headquarters in Belfast so as to provide the necessary confidence building measures which, in reference to the article written by Martin McGuinness in The Irish Times some days ago, would end the Sinn Féin-IRA impasse and in turn enable the Unionist community to have confidence in the composition of the shadow Executive? Does the Taoiseach accept he has a unique responsibility to move forward unilaterally from this position to break the impasse, notwithstanding the difficulties that exist among the other parties.
The Government has long since moved on. We are the only party, and that includes the British Government and the NIO, which has moved comprehensively on North-South bodies, Strand Two and east-west arrangements. We have brought the North-South implementation bodies and the other areas of co-operation under the Agreement to near finality. We have engaged in direct discussions with the NIO. We have talked to the parties and worked out a common position with Sinn Féin and, more particularly, with the SDLP. We have given our working papers to other parties. We have communicated directly with Mr. Trimble on these matters. We have explained our position endlessly to the British Government. We have advanced the human rights and equality legislation and consulted widely not only with political parties but also with the relevant organisations. We continue to move forward on the prisoners issue. At every opportunity we are keeping apace with all the issues. There have been delays because we could not get people to engage in the discussions but I hope, since Monday, that has moved on.
All of us in this House are experienced enough to know the degree of ambiguity that is necessary in an agreement of this kind to make it work. As Séamus Mallon said, everybody must give everybody else sufficient elbow room to move and operate within their own constituencies. Will the Taoiseach agree the difficulty for the First Minister, Mr. Trimble, is that there will be no leverage left to him in a situation where Sinn Féin representatives become members of the Executive? If decommissioning does not occur within the two years, and in order for the Sinn Féin members to be removed as a result, there will be a requirement on the SDLP to support such a removal. This would place the SDLP and Séamus Mallon in an intolerable position. It is essential, therefore, that this issue is resolved, not in the sense of total decommissioning this side of the two-year deadline but in terms of a genuine commitment to decommissioning in advance of Sinn Féin members taking up positions in an Executive. The reality is that David Trimble will otherwise be left in an intolerable position. Sinn Féin must be persuaded to make a move on this issue and it must encourage its colleagues in the Republican movement to follow suit.
I hope that action taken, North and South, in respect of prisoners, repatriation proposals, civil and human rights legislation, recognition of the languages of Irish and Ulster Scots and the movement of soldiers out of or into certain barracks will convince people that the process is real. People in Northern Ireland continue to find reasons — whether from a military, policing or administrative point of view — to criticise what is happening. For example, if soldiers are moved from out of a barracks people see it as rationalisation. There are those who will argue that there are probably more soldiers on Northern Ireland's streets than there were before they were sent back to barracks. I do not know how these things happen but we are obliged to relay them back from information we receive from the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the community, the churches and others. However, if we can with confidence see that these things work, we hope people will see the sense of the point we are trying to make.
The Deputy also inquired if I could foresee an Executive operating in Northern Ireland under the d'Hondt system without a gesture or movement by the international bodies. The answer is that I cannot foresee such an eventuality.
Lest there be a sense of singular focus in terms of the questions about the Chamber at present, I put it to the Taoiseach that party colleagues of mine — members of the Assembly and Belfast City Council — visited this House yesterday and expressed the growing concern within the Nationalist and republican community in the North of Ireland — a concern which I believe is shared by the vast body of opinion in this State — at the passing of the 31 October deadline set out in the British-Irish Agreement. Does the Taoiseach recognise people's deep concern at the real prospect of further slippage on the implementation of the Agreement and at the creation of a political vacuum into which may step the sectarian assassins who shot dead Brian Service in Belfast at the weekend?
In defaulting on his undertakings, First Minister David Trimble is exercising — as I and many others see it — a veto on the will of the vast majority of the people of this island who voted in favour of the British-Irish Agreement. Will the Taoiseach, in conjunction with the British Prime Minister, press for the full implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects and, centrally and crucially, the immediate establishment of the shadow executive?
I have already dealt with the points raised by the Deputy. I will continue to work with the British Prime Minister to achieve what is desired but, equally, the various parties must also play their part. As stated in reply to Deputy De Rossa's earlier question, that will require help and assistance from Sinn Féin when all of the institutional matters go live in February.
Decommissioning weapons that are no longer necessary does not represent surrender. Has Sinn Féin expressed a view to the Taoiseach regarding whether it regards the decommissioning of weapons provided for under the Agreement as surrender?
Sinn Féin's representatives have never used those words in conversation with me but they were used in the two articles to which reference was made earlier and which appeared in May and September. That is a mistaken view. I believe that the people who wrote those articles, presumably on behalf of the Provisional IRA and the PUP which hold precisely the same position on this issue, were wrong in their assertions. Decommissioning does not represent surrender. The other argument they put forward for not decommissioning is that with so many weapons available to other organisations they should hold on to theirs. I do not agree with that view because it is unhelpful.