Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Feb 1999

Vol. 500 No. 4

Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.

John Bruton

Question:

1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume. [3219/99]

John Bruton

Question:

2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 3 February 1999 with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mowlam. [3220/99]

John Bruton

Question:

3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Northern Ireland on 5 February 1999. [3221/99]

John Bruton

Question:

4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 5 February 1999 with the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Mallon. [3222/99]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3401/99]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3402/99]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagements in the Border counties last week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3403/99]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting last week with the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Seamus Mallon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3404/99]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will request the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Economic and Social Council to undertake work with a view to assisting in the establishment of the civic forum proposed under the British-Irish Agreement. [3463/99]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

10 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3472/99]

Trevor Sargent

Question:

11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he had with the leader of the Sinn Féin party during the negotiations of the multi-party agreement in relation to the position of those convicted of the killing of Garda Jerry McCabe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4268/99]

Joe Higgins

Question:

12 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he intends to visit the United States to mark the St. Patrick's Day festivities; and, if so, the proposed itinerary for this visit. [4435/99]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 12, inclusive, together.

I had a successful visit to Armagh and Newry last Friday week. During my visit to Armagh I met Archbishop Brady and we visited the soon to be opened Cardinal Ó Fiaich Memorial Library. I then went to the Queen's University campus at Armagh, where I met Dr. Richard Jay, Acting Academic Director and staff and students of the university. I also participated in a video link with Professor George Bain, Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast and I visited the Robinson Library, which houses the national archive of the Church of Ireland and also has close associations with Jonathan Swift.

Also while in Armagh, I attended a lunch hosted by the Mayor of Armagh, Councillor Robert Turner of the UUP. This event was attended by the local MP and Deputy First Minister, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Church leaders and representatives of the Partnership Board, including political representatives from the various parties and representatives of local businesses, trades unions, and the community sector.

In the afternoon, accompanied by Deputy First Minister, Mr. Mallon, I visited Newry. My visit there included a site visit to see the progress being made on the new Roches Stores outlet being built there and other examples of refurbishment – a further example of the opportunities for investment and employment that can be reaped in an island economy operating in conditions of peace. A "walkabout" in Newry gave me an opportunity to meet the people and see the impressive revitalisation taking place there, much of it with the assistance of the International Fund for Ireland. I also attended a special meeting of the Newry and Mourne District Council. At this meeting I commended the council for its proactive approach to cross-Border initiatives including its involvement in the East Border Region Committee, its links with Dundalk Urban District Council and its involvement with organisations such as the IBEC-CBI Joint Business Council.

Following my meeting with the council I met the Newry and Mourne District Partnership Board which briefed me on its activities in the area. I also attended a civic reception hosted by the district council at which I met a wide range of individuals and representatives from across the spectrum including local community groups. During my visit to Armagh and Newry I also had very useful private meetings with Seamus Mallon and the UUP Assembly member, Danny Kennedy.

I do not propose to discuss or report in detail on all my recent meetings relating to Northern Ireland other than to say that I met the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam on 3 February, the SDLP leader, Mr. John Hume on 2 February and on Friday last. Our discussions focused in the main on how best to ensure the successful implementation of the provisions of the British-Irish Agreement, in particular the issues surrounding the formation of the Executive. It is clear that we have to continue our efforts to achieve progress and that this is what we are doing.

During the negotiation of the British-Irish Agreement I was asked by Sinn Féin representatives if those convicted in the Garda Jerry McCabe case would be included in the arrangements for the release of prisoners. At that time, and at all times since then, both I and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made it transparently clear that those convicted in this case would not come within the terms of the Agreement. There was not, at that time or at any time since, any ambiguity on my part or on the part of the Government in this regard.

With regard to the consultative forum envisaged under strand two of the British-Irish Agreement, our efforts to date have, in the main, been focused on the implementation of the North-South aspects of the Agreement. The consultative forum is a matter to be considered between the administrations North and South and in due course, when the Northern administration is in place, I could see a role for the National Economic and Social Forum and the National Economic and Social Council in advising on this matter.

I will visit the United States again this year where I will undertake a number of engagements in San José, San Francisco and Washington. The full itinerary for the visit is still in preparation.

We, on this side of the House, wish the Taoiseach and all those involved in the finalisation of the arrangements for the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement well. We accept that for the Agreement to work we must have Executive participation by both the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin and that that is the objective toward which all must work.

Does the Taoiseach acknowledge that we accept that everything he said in the article in The Sunday Times as published in full on that newspaper's Internet website, is consistent with everything he has said in the House if stated a little more explicitly? Why, then, did the Taoiseach feel it necessary to issue a clarification of the article in The Sunday Times, given that the article had already been published in full and was not open to misinterpretation? The clarification said the Taoiseach did not believe Sinn Féin should not be allowed to participate in the Executive if the IRA had not started decommissioning. That statement could be interpreted as meaning the converse, namely that the Taoiseach believed they should be allowed to participate even if there had not been a start to decommissioning. The clarification came close to being potentially a contradiction of what the Taoiseach had said earlier in the article in The Sunday Times.

I thank Deputy Bruton for his remarks about the ongoing work to implement the British-Irish Agreement. I do not detract from what I said in the article in The Sunday Times. It is all available on the Internet. However, a difficulty arose on Sunday morning. Essentially, the heading was given on all the news bulletins throughout Northern Ireland from 6 a.m. on Sunday. The headline writer implied that Sinn Féin should be barred from the executive unless the IRA had first decommissioned. I never said that and I never used the word “barred”. The journalist admitted that on RTE yesterday. That distorted the position. It is clear now that nobody was talking about barring or otherwise preventing the Northern Ireland executive from being set up. The full text of the interview made available in The Sunday Times shows that clearly.

The position is that decommissioning is an indispensable part of the Agreement. Nobody argues that. Like all parts of the Agreement it must be implemented in full and nobody disagrees with that. All parties are committed to that objective, given that they signed section 24 of the Agreement which says there must be full decommissioning. The Agreement does not contain a precondition that there must be a start to decommissioning before Sinn Féin can take its place on the executive. I must have put that on the record of the House about 100 times during the past 12 months. Such a precondition does not exist. Under the terms of the Agreement, Sinn Féin has a full entitlement to its place on the executive. Both the Irish and British Governments have accepted that. It is the only realistic way forward.

The political reality which I have spelt out since October, certainly since November, is that the UUP interpret the Agreement in a different way. Its understanding is that for participation by Sinn Féin on the executive there must be a start on decommissioning. The Agreement provides a mechanism to resolve the decommissioning issue. For months we have been endeavouring to find a method within the mechanism set out in the British-Irish Agreement – the international body on decommissioning headed by General John de Chastelain – to resolve this matter.

I accept what Deputy Bruton has said that I have been stepping up this matter and the article was a means of doing that. I have had at least five meetings in recent weeks with Sinn Féin. I wish to repeat the gist of those meetings. I note Martin McGuinness said yesterday that I never used the word "barred". He made that clear.

It was reported in the Irish News this morning.

He is correct in saying I never used the word "barred".

That is not what he said.

I have always said decommissioning must happen and that there can be no place for weapons in a democratic and peaceful Ireland. That is the principle I was reflecting and I stand by that principle. The issue is one of timing and interpretation, how we get from the present to a point where all the guns have been removed. That has to happen as we proceed along the route. What I have consistently stated in interviews in stepping up the pressure in recent times is that all parties, including Sinn Féin, have to clear their minds on how they will proceed to implement their responsibility under the Agreement to bring about decommissioning. In this context it is neither reasonable nor politically realistic to argue that the executive on the North-South Council be established without an understanding of how the implementation of the decommissioning part of the Agreement will be moved forward.

To assist in the achievement of clarity on this matter, will the Taoiseach agree that if Sinn Féin is to go to the IRA to ask it to do anything it is important that it be clear what it is being asked to do and that there be no confusion in its mind? Will the Taoiseach agree, regardless of what the Agreement says, the practical politics are that there can be no executive without a start on decommissioning?

The important reality is that there is no precondition in the Agreement. The political reality is that the UUP has stated it inter prets the Agreement in such a way that it will not set up the executive until this matter is satisfactorily resolved. Mr. Trimble's position now is that that should be done within the de Chastelain route. I strongly welcome that helpful move on his part. The SDLP's position is that it will oppose any attempt by the UUP, led by Mr. Trimble, to set up the Executive without Sinn Féin. The political reality is that we cannot have an Executive until this matter is dealt with.

The second political reality relates to inclusivity as Seamus Mallon has said many times and repeated this morning. We can only set up an Executive, which we desperately need – the situation gets more desperate every day – by agreement between the parties. We will not get anywhere if we do not find a compromise under the de Chastelain route. I have said a number of times recently, to Sinn Féin and others, that they must clear their minds on how we will proceed if we are to implement this aspect of the Agreement and make the decommissioning part of the Agreement happen.

Has the Taoiseach considered putting the Irish Government's position in writing to Sinn Féin, in recognition of the existing political realities? That would mean they would have an absolutely clear written statement of what the Irish Government is asking of them at this historic time.

We have not put it in the terms of a memorandum but it has certainly been put at meetings, including two meetings last week. In terms of what we can set out, our position is fairly clear to Sinn Féin; there is no difficulty with giving it to them in writing but they know very well what our position is. The other parties who signed up to the British-Irish Agreement are also aware of our position.

It is necessary now, as I made clear in the interview, that under the Agreement we give the key to General John de Chastelain and the international commission to how to resolve the issue. We need greater effort and greater momentum if we are to work closely to achieve this. People must focus on the issues. We have been saying the same thing for some months, but people are not focusing on making the decisions that need to be made. I accept that requires some hard decisions and pain, but the only way we can resolve this issue and move forward is if people accept the position.

In the various recent meetings between the Taoiseach and the leadership of Sinn Féin, specifically the president of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams, has it been conveyed to the Taoiseach, as it has been to other political parties in this House, that it is Mr. Adams' opinion that the IRA will never decommission? If so, as Taoiseach with responsibility for ensuring that the British-Irish Agreement is implemented, what was his response to Mr. Adams?

I do not think it was put in such terms, although emphasis was put on the difficulties of making progress in this regard. However, one way or the other, regardless of how it is put, I have continually restated what the Agreement states on decommissioning. I say it again as it is as least six months since I did so.

I am trying to be helpful – as the Taoiseach knows, both Opposition parties are supportive of his work on this difficult task. However, we would like to know what he said in private to Mr. Adams when he conveyed his opinion, as he did to us, that—

I continually quote the Agreement which Sinn Féin and everybody else signed. It states that all participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, that they also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence that they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years, following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement. I continually quote that and the fact that this is what everyone signed up to. That simply means that decommissioning must occur in the life of the Agreement.

Deputy Quinn will be able to ascertain from previous comments I have made and those I made in the article published at the weekend that I believe all of these matters should move along together as all parts of the Agreement are implemented.

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. If I can refer to a phrase used in the quotation he read out, he stated the parties should use any influence they might have in respect of paramilitaries in order to encourage them to decommission. Is Mr. Adams saying to the Taoiseach in private that the parties in question do not have any influence with the IRA? Has he indicated to the Taoiseach that the IRA is prepared to decommission at some stage? If so, will that occur prior to 10 March?

I believe Mr. Adams and the other leaders are committed to a real process of partnership. I also believe that Sinn Féin, under the leadership of Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness, has made a critical contribution to the search for peace and is committed to the full implementation of the terms of the Agreement, including the decommissioning aspects. We must endeavour to help both sides in this regard. Although Mr. Trimble has difficulties on the one hand, the leadership of Sinn Féin also has difficulties. I am sure that from the briefing Deputies received they will have gained some knowledge of what those difficulties are. I would rather not go into all of the details of those. There are people within and outside of the republican family who do not believe too much in this process and we must be conscious of that. That is why – perhaps annoyingly and painfully to some people – I must at times seek to achieve a balance.

I believe it is fair for me some months on to step up the pressure in an attempt to get more movement, particularly as we move towards 10 March. I am acutely conscious that when we missed the October deadline, huge pressure was experienced in the attempt to reach agreement by Christmas. That is not a healthy way to do business. If we miss the 10 March deadline and run into the Easter period and the beginning of the marches, that will be even less healthy. I am trying to encourage people to ask the difficult questions. Somebody has to do that and we have been trying to.

Does the Taoiseach agree that an Executive cannot be formed without Sinn Féin and that an Executive will not be formed in the absence of the commencement of decommissioning? If the Taoiseach accepts that as a reasonably accurate political summation of the current position, could he elaborate on what he meant by his reference to General de Chastelain finding some kind of formula with regard to making progress on a mechanism to signal that some form of decommissioning had commenced? Presumably, both Governments and their advisers are looking at ways around this impasse. Will the Taoiseach outline what role he envisages General de Chastelain having? How much can he put on the record of the House in that regard within the confines of diplomacy?

Since the beginning of September and particularly since Martin McGuinness, Sinn Féin's chief negotiator, took up the position on the decommissioning body, considerable progress has been made. General de Chastelain stated that when I met him some months ago. He has also met some of my departmental officials quite recently. However, sufficient progress has not been made to allow General de Chastelain state in any credible way that we have reached a situation from which we could move on to the formation of an Executive, which is a very important aspect of the implementation of the Agreement. Over that time, and particularly since Christmas, we have considered many ways in which the issue could be dealt with. I remind the House of what we did on 28 June when we set up the decommissioning process and the regulations governing how these things could be done. We explored most of them in one way or another and have gone through them extensively. The Government put forward proposals which we believe might be helpful, but we have not yet reached a stage where any of them are acceptable to the parties. We are trying to feed in our proposals as best we can to assist General John de Chastelain. Prime Minister Blair has also been trying to do that, but at this stage I cannot put my hand on my heart and tell the House we have a mechanism through which this issue can be resolved. We are still endeavouring to work on this.

I call Deputy Ó Caoláin.

I wish to ask another question.

The Deputy must be brief because a number of other Deputies are offering.

Five of the questions on this issue are in my name.

The time allocated for these questions is only 45 minutes.

Is it the Government's view that since 2 February some progress has been made by the IRA paramilitary group on the cessation of punishment beatings? Have Government sources an assessment as to whether this is an indication of some kind of progress? As much encouragement as possible should be given where progress has been made. While the punishment and mutilation beatings should never have occurred, will the Taoiseach agree that if they have stopped, and that continues to be the case, it is a positive indication of progress?

I would, but they have not stopped totally. There are still some incidents. January was an appalling month in terms of punishment beatings. Last year there were approximately 220 such beatings and there were some every night in January. Calls for a cessation of punishment beatings by the political leadership of parties, including Sinn Féin, Members of this House, Sinn Féin members of the assembly and some of the loyalist leaders were helpful. That has improved the position. Without going into detail, and I do not want to mislead the House, overall the security situation is still tense. We must be conscious of that and of those leaders who are endeavouring to maintain and win support and to avoid those, who would like to wreck the Agreement, getting involved in activities again.

Does the Taoiseach agree Sinn Féin is fulfilling its obligations in regard to all aspects of the British-Irish Agreement and that the party continues, in the words of the agreement, which the Taoiseach quoted, to work constructively and in good faith with the independent commission and to use any influence it may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years, following endorsement in referendums, North and South, of the Agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement? Does the Taoiseach agree this is the position? If so, does it not follow that the plain truth, which must be stated clearly at all times by the Irish Government, is that there is absolutely no obstacle in the Agreement to the immediate establishment of the executive with Sinn Féin participation? Will the Taoiseach note that I have been concerned at responses affirming that question in the past that seemed to have the additional baggage of the "ah, but" because the "ah, but" has created great difficulties within the equilibrium of the Agreement and its ongoing passage and the raising of such obstacles runs contrary to the Agreement endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the people on this island? I would appreciate the Taoiseach's response to these matters.

I stated that I believe the Sinn Féin leadership, particularly Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness who were involved in all the negotiations, have made and are making a critical contribution and are endeavouring to do their utmost in this regard, including the implementation of the terms of the Agreement on decommissioning. Unfortunately, I cannot be as positive about the "ah, but" as I did not insert it. The political reality is that, as much as I would like to move on with the executive and all parts of the Agreement, we cannot get over this position. I think everybody else recognises this as a political reality and have accepted that it is not a pre-condition. The British and Irish Governments have stated it is not a pre-condition, as have all the key players. However, we must find a way forward under the Agreement. I do not have to remind the Deputy as he is familiar with it, but the Agreement states:

Participants recall their agreement in the Procedural Motion adopted on 24 September 1997 "that the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation", and also recall the provisions of paragraph 25 of Strand 1.

and

They note the progress made by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the Governments in developing schemes which can represent a workable basis for achieving the decommissioning of illegally-held arms in the possession of paramilitary groups.

This is what the Agreement states, and all we are doing is trying to find a method, system or combination of words which will remove or allow us overcome the impasse. I would love to say the impasse will go away, but I have spent hours upon hours discussing it and have had 27 meetings on decommissioning since the start of the year, and talking does not change it.

The reality is that the impasse exists and I say to Deputy Ó Caoláin that we must be clear in our minds how we are going to get around it. This is the difficulty. By saying the impasse does not exist will not change the situation. Under the de Chastelain route we must find some method of removing the impasse and that is what we are trying to do. I am prepared to try to do this with Sinn Féin and everybody else, but it will not go away until we find such a method.

I wish to confirm what the Taoiseach has said as that is what must be done and what my party is doing. More and more there is a growing exasperation that the implementation or usage of the "ah, but", which now has a currency in the Chamber, is giving comfort to the obstructionists whose very purpose is to thwart the Agreement. Does the Taoiseach recognise this?

I hope it does not give such comfort, but I am sure the Deputy appreciates that many times in the process there are obstacles which affect his party and that we must find ways of dealing with them. Sometimes there are issues which are part of the Agreement and which we must try to bring forward to assist his party. Other parties have similar difficulties. As an honest broker, which is what I am in this, we must be fair to everybody and this means trying to find resolutions. I genuinely agree with Seamus Mallon that inclusivity is the only way we will move forward, but that means we must carry everybody with us. We cannot carry everybody some days and other days carry everybody minus one as that approach will not work.

We will not achieve the setting up of the executive until the reality is faced. We must clear our minds and face the reality. Otherwise we will not achieve the big prize which at this stage is setting up the executive and moving apace with a number of other things. The Irish or British Governments on their own or collectively cannot do that, they need the support of the participants.

Will the Taoiseach elaborate somewhat on his conversation on Sunday with Mr. Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin? What prompted this call and what passed between the Taoiseach and Sinn Féin? Was the only aspect of his full interview with The Sunday Times, to which Mr. McGuinness objected, the use of the term “banned” in the headline, or did he indicate that he disagreed with the Taoiseach when he said that practical politics are that there can be no executive without a start to decommissioning? Did Mr. McGuinness indicate to the Taoiseach that he did not accept this sentiment of his? What did Mr. McGuinness indicate that he believed was practical politics in this matter? Did Mr. McGuinness vouchsafe any resolution of his own to this dilemma or did he leave the matter entirely to the Taoiseach to solve without any help?

There are three aspects to that. I am sure Mr. Martin McGuinness would not agree with many of the things I said in the interview, but he would be aware of them as being my views. There was nothing new. If issues were controversial, I prefaced them by saying I was on record in recent weeks and months in relation to them. They were all things I have said for a long time.

Not quite as clearly.

I accept that, and that I have been pushing the process forward because of recent deadlines.

I do not know that the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, would agree because he disagreed with me when I said exactly what the Taoiseach said.

Mr. Martin McGuinness spoke to an official, he had not seen the paper, but the headlines had been running that I was effectively putting down a precondition to a new Northern Ireland Government that unless the IRA started to decommission Sinn Féin should be barred from the new Northern Ireland executive. That was the first paragraph of the article, the only headline and Mr. McGuinness's only information. He inquired whether I said that because it would have been a change from the position stated at a meeting on Friday and at one last week, and I clarified that. He was not arguing or debating other points of the Agreement.

In the many meetings and visits referred to in the questions, did the Taoiseach raise the frequency of punishment beatings of which, according to Families Against Intimidation and Terror, there were more in January 1999 than in any month in the past ten years? Will he give us his opinion on the reasons behind these beatings? Apart from condemning these barbaric acts, what is being done to stop the beatings, alongside all the other work?

At what stage are we in setting up the civic forum to provide for that section of the Agreement which relates to other than the parties? Given that so many NGOs, groups and organisations are interested in being part of such a forum, has there been any agreement on a selection procedure to decide which of them will be represented or has that been dealt with? Will the Taoiseach give us an idea when it will be dealt with and if there is a set up date in mind?

If we could conclude this part of the discussion, we would move very quickly to the civic forum. Work is being done by the Irish and British Governments, and the Women's Coalition, in particular, has been very active in this regard. Other parties have done papers on this matter but it will be somewhat on the back burner until this issue is resolved. There is broad support on what we could do and I genuinely believe we could make rapid progress. I do not believe there are huge or insurmountable difficulties. It is an enormously important part of the Agreement. For a long time to come, we will have difficulty trying to get things moving and building trust and confidence. The civic forum would do much in this regard and could break away from the political parties and the political agenda towards civic society and inter-community life. While it will not be an easy task to set it up as long as mistrust continues, a civic forum will, for some years, be important but I hope not for too many years. There is also a need to decommission mistrust. That would help to move many other matters forward. The Civic Forum will help to do this.

I asked about the frequency of punishment beatings which appear to have reached their height.

I am not sure what the figures are but the January figure was high. As Deputy Quinn said, the figure to date in February is relatively low. It is important that this is maintained. The efforts being made by the policing commission and by others in the community, including Sinn Féin and the loyalist parties, to find legal alternatives to community policing will help but it will not happen in the short-term.

I do not know why the Taoiseach has taken Question No. 12 in my name, which relates to his forthcoming visit to the United States, with Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, which relate to Northern Ireland. Does he intend to attend Fianna Fáil fundraising events while in the United States for the St. Patrick's Day celebrations? According to an article filed by the Washington bureau of Post Dispatch on 27 December, last year the Taoiseach was lobbied heavily on behalf of Monsanto by Mr. Sandy Berger, director of the US National Security Council, to support the introduction of genetically engineered corn crops to the European Union.

That is a separate question.

One can see the Tánaiste breathe a sigh of relief.

The question relates to the Taoiseach's forthcoming visit to the United States.

It is not in order.

Genetically modified shamrock.

While in the United States does the Taoiseach expect to have further meetings with representatives or supporters of Monsanto?

That matter does not arise.

It relates to Question No. 12.

The Chair has ruled that it is a separate issue. It is not in order to ask the Taoiseach about every subject under the sun.

He would have to resign if he were to do that.

A Cheann Comhairle—

The Deputy should resume his seat if he does not have a relevant question to put. He is attempting to introduce new matter.

I wish to ask a supplementary about the proposed itinerary for the Taoiseach's forthcoming visit to the United States.

That does not give the Deputy freedom to ask every question under the sun.

I have only asked one question. Does the Taoiseach expect to have further meetings with supporters of Monsanto in the US Administration?

The question is where does the Taoiseach stand on genetic engineering.

Will the Taoiseach tell them to keep their genetically engineered corn crops in the United States as they are not wanted in Europe?

I will have meetings with a number of firms in San Francisco organised by the IDA and the Tánaiste's office at which I will promote inward investment to Ireland. I did not meet anyone from Monsanto last year. Issues raised were referred in the normal way. It is normal practice for issues to be raised by Presidents, Prime Ministers or officials.

What about fundraising?

I do not know.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach two questions. As regards Deputy Ó Caoláin's selective quoting from the Agreement, paragraph 4 of the section on decommissioning on page 24 states, "The Independent Commission will monitor, review and verify progress on decommissioning of illegal arms, and will report to both Governments at regular intervals."

Will the Taoiseach clarify his understanding of that paragraph against the background of a belief by some that decommissioning can commence on the eve of the second anniversary of the Agree ment? If so, that would seem to render paragraph 4 redundant.

The confusion following the Taoiseach's article in The Sunday Times has arisen not so much from the article but from its consequences, particularly the Taoiseach's actions since the publication of the article, including a telephone conversation with Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin. Did the Taoiseach tell Mr. McGuinness that the content of the article was “completely inaccurate”?

Mr. McGuinness had not seen the article so he would not have been talking to me about it.

That was not my question.

He would not have been talking to me about the contents of the article. He was querying the headline he had heard on Northern Ireland radio.

I thought Sinn Féin was very hi-tech with its Internet sites.

The independent commission has been monitoring and verifying extensively over a prolonged period.

The Taoiseach was talking to Mr. McGuinness about an article he had not read.

From the intelligence available to it, the international commission would have a fairly good idea of what arms and armaments are in the possession of paramilitaries and others in Northern Ireland. Its assessments are often challenged but I have no reason to disbelieve its work to date.

I wish to return to the Taoiseach's conversation with Martin McGuinness on Sunday morning. The Taoiseach stated earlier that Mr. McGuinness spoke to an official but I understand the Taoiseach also spoke to him directly.

I presume the Taoiseach clarified the position in the full article which Mr. McGuinness had not read. I also presume he expressed his analysis of the political reality to the effect that while there was no precondition about Sinn Féin's participation, the reality was that the Executive would not be formed unless some movement was made on decommissioning. At that stage, did the Taoiseach ask Mr. McGuinness for, or did Mr. McGuinness offer, an indication of what Sinn Féin would see as breaking the political impasse?

I did not have a lengthy conversation with Mr. McGuinness on Friday but we have had a number of recent meetings. There were two meetings last week between officials and Sinn Féin. I attended a number of meetings in the past few weeks with Martin McGuinness, his colleagues and officials. I also met him directly. Martin McGuinness has been genuinely trying to find a resolution to this matter for some time but he is experiencing difficulties. It is not an easy position.

Has he offered or outlined a possible solution from his perspective?

Without breaking confidence, some of the solutions we have proposed are being closely examined by Sinn Féin. I could not say that any has yet achieved agreement.

Has he offered any formula?

There is no formula at this stage.

So he has not offered a formula?

Formulas we proposed are being examined.

Was the conversation between the Taoiseach and Mr. McGuinness requested by the Taoiseach or Mr. McGuinness? If it was at Mr. McGuinness's request to discuss the contents of The Sunday Times article which was available on the newspaper's website, was the Taoiseach surprised that Mr. McGuinness was speaking to him without having read the article in full?

Has the Taoiseach read Mr. McGuinness's version of the article in today's Irish News?

Mr. McGuinness left a message on my answering machine and I rang him back. He also spoke to an official who told me he was looking for me and I rang him back. However, it has been my practice since I became Taoiseach to ring the Northern party leaders, with the exception of Dr. Paisley, on a regular basis, particularly at weekends.

The time for questions to the Taoiseach has expired. We must proceed to questions nominated for priority to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.

Top
Share