John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Mr. Denis Hastert; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9572/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Belfast on 29 and 30 March 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9573/99]
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions in Belfast on 29 and 30 March 1999 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9574/99]
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversation with the President of the United States of America, Mr. Bill Clinton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9575/99]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to London on 15 April 1999; the official engagements he undertook; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9577/99]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the issues he discussed, other than Northern Ireland, when he recently met the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9582/99]
Joe Higgins
Question:7 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with the Northern parties and Mr. Tony Blair during Easter Week. [9870/99]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the considerations, if any, he has given to the option of using preferenda in dislodging impasses, such as decommissioning, which occur where several options exist in a problem solving situation. [9919/99]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the current position with regard to the establishment of the Northern Ireland Executive. [10080/99]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10081/99]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Germany with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10082/99]
John Bruton
Question:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with the leaders of Northern Ireland's political parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10090/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the discussions with political parties in Northern Ireland leading to the declaration made at Hillsborough on 1 April 1999. [10091/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the contacts or discussions he has had with the British Prime Minister and the political parties in Northern Ireland since the Hillsborough Declaration on 1 April 1999. [10092/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with Sinn Féin regarding the proposal in the Hillsborough Declaration to have some arms put beyond use on a voluntary basis; his assessment of the IRA acting on this proposal in view of his discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10093/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the proposals for the collective act of reconciliation provided for in the Hillsborough Declaration; if there will be an event or events in this jurisdiction to mark the day; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10094/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:17 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in implementing the sections of the Good Friday Agreement for which the Government has responsibility; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10095/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:18 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that the 12 month deadline will be met under which the Government may make a declaration that amendments should be made to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in view of his discussions with the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Hillsborough Declaration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10097/99]
Trevor Sargent
Question:19 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions at the European Heads of State meeting in Brussels last week with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [10106/99]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:20 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions in Brussels on 14 April 1999 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10215/99]
John Bruton
Question:21 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the official engagements he undertook on his recent visit to London; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10218/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:22 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 14 April 1999 with Prime Minister Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10275/99]
Trevor Sargent
Question:23 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions in London last week with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; if he discussed the alleged NATO bombing of a civilian convoy in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10312/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 23, inclusive, together.
I had a series of meetings during Holy Week, most of them jointly with the British Prime Minister, with the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Women's Coalition, the Alliance Party, the PUP and the UDP. These meetings culminated with the working proposal for a declar ation which the Prime Minister and I published at Hillsborough on 1 April. During and following the discussions, I had telephone conversations with President Clinton, as did others, in which the President sought to assist in overcoming the last obstacles to full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Prime Minister and I had hoped the working draft would provide a basis for agreement on the difficult issues which had been the subject of the discussions. On my return to Dublin I reviewed these discussions and the draft declaration with Speaker Hastert and the delegation from the US Congress that he led on a visit to Ireland as part of his first visit abroad as Speaker.
The talks adjourned until Tuesday, 12 April, and from the discussions in the resumed talks it became clear that the draft declaration, in the form put forward at Hillsborough. would not serve as a basis for resolving the impasse. The working draft was an attempt to bridge the gap between the parties and to find a way forward to the formation of the institutions within a short time. It sought to address the concerns of the parties involved and to approach the issues in a fresh way, while fully consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. We were fully aware the approach suggested in the working draft would depend for its success on the full and active co-operation of all those concerned.
Given the absence of consensus and the rejection of, or reservations expressed about, aspects of the draft declaration by some parties, the Prime Minister and I, after our meetings on 14 and 15 April where Northern Ireland was the only item on the agenda, decided to jointly enter into a series of meetings with the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. These meetings took place in London on Monday and were followed by conference calls with other parties in Belfast. The discussions which were intensive and valuable reviewed all the relevant elements.
It was clear the parties remain anxious to see early implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and remain committed to the Agreement which is also the bedrock for the two Governments. The difficulties remain to be overcome and further work must be done by all involved, including further discussions to take place next week. The two Governments will continue to shoulder their responsibility to lead the process and we will not flag in our efforts, but it also remains essential that all the parties involved take their responsibilities and work constructively to overcome the difficulties. Any follow-up in regard to the proposed day of reconciliation would be contingent on further developments and consensus around an agreed approach.
The question of the Government making a declaration that will trigger the amendments to Articles 2 and 3 would arise in the context of the entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement and would depend on the success of the continuing discussions. Any necessary actions arising from the discussions, whether it is the making of the declaration or, if the situation arises, the introduction of legislation to extend the deadline, will be taken.
After my meeting with the Prime Minister on 15 April, I visited the Irish Studies Centre of the University of North London where I contributed to its public lecture series. The title of my address, a copy of which has been placed in the Dáil Library was " Ireland and Britain: A New Relationship For A New Millennium".
The question of using preferenda to resolve the current impasse has not been considered. However, if Deputy Sargent has any specific suggestion to make as to how the issues we currently face could be resolved in this way, I would be happy to have it considered.
An interdepartmental steering group, chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and including representatives of my Department, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General's office, is responsible for the co-ordination of the implementation of the relevant aspects of the Good Friday Agreement for which the Government has responsibility. Deputies will be aware of the considerable progress made to date – for example, the enactment of the legislation to amend the Constitution and its subsequent overwhelming endorsement by the people, the negotiation of the North-South elements of the Agreement and subsequent enactment of the British-Irish Agreement Act and the enactment of the legislation dealing with the release of prisoners and the progress made in that area.
The Bill to establish a human rights commission in this jurisdiction is being drafted on a priority basis, based on proposals approved by the Government, and will take account of the views of the Joint All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights. The Bill which will in some respects go further than the provisions of the British Northern Ireland Act, 1998, establishing the Northern Ireland Commission, is expected to be published and taken in this session.
As regards equality legislation, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has set September next as the target date for the implementation of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. The Act prohibits discrimination in relation to employment on nine distinct grounds – gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, disability, race and membership of the travelling community.
On 8 March the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform announced arrangements for the equality infrastructure which is being put in place to underpin employment equality and equal status legislation. The equality infrastructure which he announced and which was established under the provisions of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, consists of two new bodies – the Equality Authority which will replace the existing Employment Equality Agency and the Office of the Director of Equality Investigations to provide a forum of first redress.
The Equality Authority was appointed by the Minister on a designated basis on 8 March. After enactment of the equal status legislation, the remit of these two bodies will be broadened beyond the employment equality area to cover matters under the Equal Status Bill. The Equal Status Bill was published yesterday and is a comprehensive measure to tackle discrimination in our society in the non-employment sphere.
In the Good Friday Agreement the Government agreed, taking account of the work of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and the report of the Constitution Review Group, to bring forward measures to strengthen and underpin the constitutional protection of human rights. These proposals will draw on the European Convention on Human Rights and other international legal instruments in the field of human rights. The question of incorporation of the ECHR will be further examined in this context. I have written to the chair of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution requesting that the committee examine the issue with a view to bringing forward recommendations to the Government. The matter is also being examined interdepartmentally.
On 16 February the Government approved proposals for the ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities. Formal ratification is expected to take place in May of this year to coincide with ceremonies relating to the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Council of Europe.
Regarding measures to demonstrate respect for the different traditions on the island of Ireland, it is expected the Department of Foreign Affairs will soon be in a position to bring forward proposals relating to the Battle of the Boyne site. This is in addition to the Government's contribution to the cost of the memorial at Messines, the participation of the President at the opening of the Peace Park there and a new construction, landscaping, maintenance and guide services project under the Wider Horizons Programme of the International Fund for Ireland. I also expect to be able to announce further funding for relevant projects under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988.
Is the Taoiseach in favour of an international inquiry into the death of Rosemary Nelson as recommended by the US House of Representatives?
From the first time I heard Rosemary Nelson had been murdered I raised the matter with the British Government and have had numerous discussions with that Government and with the Prime Minister in particular. What I have consistently pressed the British Government for is an investigation with the maximum independence and international involvement. I have had discussions with Paul Nelson and with the international groups on human rights and the groups here dealing with the human rights case. In those discussions there have been a number of developments in relation to the conduct of the investigation into Mrs. Nelson's murder, including the appointment of two senior British police officers, David Phillips and Colin Port, to take charge of the investigations and the involvement of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. These developments are welcome as far as they go. We have continued at political and senior official level to press the British Government to do more.
There are two aspects in all of this. The investigations have to take place first. In reply to Deputy Bruton I said there had to be outside police forces involved. At first one police force was involved but there were difficulties because the individual saw his role, not as a direct hands-on role, but as an overseeing role. We pressed hard for hands-on involvement and co-operation and the second officer was appointed. A substantial number of people from outside Northern Ireland are involved as well as the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.
What we have continued to press for, on which there are discussions today at senior level in Belfast, is information on how an investigation or an inquiry happens. We have continued to stress there will have to be a thorough, impartial and independent investigation and that whatever investigation takes place will be the essential starting point for any future inquiry. There are two aspects in all of this: the investigation and the inquiry.
I have discussed this matter with a number of Nationalist organisations and human rights organisations. The difficulty is that most Nationalists will not co-operate or give evidence to RUC officers in this case. They have refused to do so. That has been articulated to me by everybody, including Rosemary's husband, Paul. They have stated that the structure for the many Nationalists who want to give evidence to an outside police force must be absolutely clear. We support that. There has to be an outside police force.
There could be an argument about international involvement. I have taken the view that if the British Government can give us the assurances that this investigation is impartial and independent, that the police officers are not the RUC and that it is structured in such a way as to satisfy the groups involved – and with the American involvement – that could be satisfactory. If it moves on to an inquiry, which is almost inevitable, an independent inquiry such as the Saville Inquiry would lend support. These matters are ongoing. I have had both private and public conversations with the British Government. Discussions continue today in Belfast and will continue at political level later in the week.
Will the Taoiseach explain the thinking of the British Prime Minister and himself in publishing the Hillsborough Declaration, given that that declaration contains a number of novel ideas for overcoming the decommissioning impasse – and there are not many novel ideas around for this – at a time when the talks were adjourning? Would it not have been better to have retained it as a working document, without publication, to ensure people did not find themselves in the position of having to reject it because it was published? Why was it decided to publish it in the way it was done?
That is a valid question. We had been in discussion for close on two months with some of the parties on this matter. The Irish Government which was the initiator of the idea had explored the matter in considerable detail. We also discussed it with the NIO and the British Government at various meetings and with the political parties. It became clear in Hillsborough that we were discussing it. In the tight confines of Hillsborough all the parties were picking up aspects of what we were discussing. We had not been involved with the broader groups of parties on this issue but mainly with the UUP, PUP and Sinn Féin. By the time we came to the last morning in Hillsborough everybody had a fair idea of the proposal. All the other parties requested that we address the issue with them and we had discussions with them. Following those discussions it was considered that this was a novel idea. The approach suggested in the declaration was an honest, fair and well-intentioned attempt to find a way through the difficulties. While we tend to have more discussions with the three parties that will, I hope, form the Executive the other parties are equally important. The only fair way of dealing with it was to publish the proposals.
In respect of the Hillsborough Declaration not all of the contents were published. The bones of the idea were put out but not all the details.
I return to the first question put to the Taoiseach by Deputy Bruton. While I listened to the long answer he gave I am not sure whether he said "yes" or "no". Does he regard the current arrangements which he described in some detail as tantamount to and equivalent to an international inquiry?
I have accepted, and said in the House previously, that the RUC has to be involved in the investigation. I was not satisfied when only one police officer was involved. The Irish Government pressed hard, as did others, for more involvement and I was happy with that. I was certainly happy with the involvement of the FBI. However there are still difficulties. A matter I am still trying to have resolved to my satisfaction with the British Government and its officials is the need to ensure in the investigation with the British Government that there is absolute certainty for Nationalists, which there is not at present, that they can deal with the investigators and give a frank and total report of what they know in a way that will not land them in difficulty with the RUC. I do not wish to make too much of it until we conclude the negotiations. We have spoken with most of these groups. I am conscious that discussions are ongoing in Belfast. I am not satisfied that that matter has been fully dealt with but I believe it can be. We have put forward certain proposals. If they are accepted I am satisfied we will be able to carry out the investigation.
Will that be sufficient to meet the demands for international objectivity?
Yes. If that part is dealt with satisfactorily, it would be unreasonable of me to put further pressure on Prime Minister Blair to do any more at this stage. We must wait and see how it works out. In security terms there is a distinction between an investigation and an inquiry. As I said, everybody believes that the investigation must take place before an inquiry. The form of the inquiry will be extremely important and I have given my views on what I consider would be a workable solution in that regard.
Will the Taoiseach indicate why the Government is so implacably opposed to incorporating in domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights?
I and the Government are not implacably opposed to it. The issue is to find the basis on which it can be done. Long before the Good Friday Agreement, the constitutional review group came out against incorporating the convention if it meant replacing the constitutional provisions relating to fundamental human rights with those of the convention. Given the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement, as I said yesterday, the matter is being further examined by a small interdepartmental group comprising officials from the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Foreign Affairs, my office and the Office of the Attorney General. Its work is almost finalised. As soon as it is completed, it will examined by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I have seen the preliminary report. Yesterday I was not sure whether it was the preliminary or final report, which was why I did not wish to comment on it. However, it is not the final report and the work will be finalised. While it was stated that the weight of legal opinion is against incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights in the Constitution, the relevant arguments do not apply to incorporating the provisions by means of legislation. This happened in Britain.
And in every other country.
It also happened in other countries which are members of the Council of Europe. If that is the case, once the interdepart mental group's work is concluded, I will agree to such a move. However, I want the work to be completed before a decision is made. If that is the case in other countries, legislative provisions could be made. The Deputy is incorrect that the Government is against incorporating the convention. It is a matter of ensuring the work is finished first.
My party published a Bill around Christmas, proposing the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law and not an amendment to the Constitution. When proposals emerged from the Government following due consideration, that provision was eliminated. The Taoiseach has restated the current position, which is that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that bastion of liberty and reform, is against the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights. The issue of incorporating the convention in the Constitution has never arisen as far as my party is concerned. What is the Government's position on incorporating the convention in domestic law?
It may not have arisen with regard to the Deputy's party but it arose at the constitutional review group two years ago. At that stage, the group viewed it as a negative step and it recommended a series of amendments to Articles in the Constitution to bring them into line with modern international human rights norms. That is not the Deputy's point, but in view of commitments I gave and when the work of the interdepartmental group, which includes officials from my office, is finished, it should be incorporated in legislation if that is possible. The Deputy will appreciate that the group should be allowed to finish its work before a final decision is made.
Deputies J. Bruton, Sargent, Higgins (Dublin West) and Quinn rose.
May I make a final point?
The time for questions to the Taoiseach is limited and other Deputies tabled questions.
The Cabinet cleared a set of proposals for the establishment of the Irish Commission on Human Rights which explicitly excluded the incorporation of the convention into domestic law.
The Deputy is making a statement.
Why did the Government make that decision? The reason is not clear from the Taoiseach's comments. Why it is so opposed to the incorporation of the convention?
Deputy J. Bruton rose.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins. I will return to Deputy Bruton.
(Dublin West): In relation to Question No. 7—
I tabled ten questions and I represent considerably more people than the Deputy.
(Dublin West): The Deputy had a good say already.
I asked two short questions.
I ask the Deputy to proceed with his supplementary question. He should not be interrupted.
(Dublin West): Nobody could think that Deputy Bruton does not get his fair say.
Nobody could say that about the Deputy.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): When the Deputy is leading 54 Members, he will get the same say.
(Dublin West): Given the ways things are going in this country, that might happen sooner than the Deputy thinks.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The summer.
(Dublin West): Did the Taoiseach specifically discuss the tragedy of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson's death with the British Prime Minister? Does he agree that many people, including civil rights lawyers, would not regard an investigation under the auspices of the British Government and in which the British police would play a significant role as a truly independent investigation or inquiry? When alleged threats were made against Mrs. Nelson, the RUC was also acting under the auspices of the British Government. In cases of miscarriages of justice relating to race and nationality, the British police has a record which leaves much to be desired.
Given these aspects and the full page advertisement in today's newspapers by a campaign seeking the full truth surrounding the tragic murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson, will the Taoiseach agree to call for an independent, international judicial inquiry and investigation into her murder?
I will call for what I hope the campaign is also trying to achieve, which is a thorough, impartial and independent inquiry into all aspects of the case. This perhaps is more important than the name that is placed on it. Senior officers from two different police forces outside Northern Ireland, a large number of other officers and representatives of the FBI are involved. However, if we can get satisfactory answers to the concerns expressed about the ability of the RUC to conduct the investigation in an impartial and thorough manner, that part of the investigation will proceed. If we cannot get satisfactory answers, we will re-examine the position.
We must also consider the inquiry aspect which will follow this investigation. I am more interested in getting to the bottom of the case and ensuring that it is done correctly. I am not sure who placed the advertisement in the newspapers and whether it was one of the groups who put its case to me. However, we have taken on board the views of all the groups who put their cases to me. I have put forward the points of view of all the human rights groups, including those which met in the United States and Ireland, and I will continue to do so.
In relation to the murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson, does the Taoiseach agree that the yardstick of the independence and effectiveness of the investigation is if he is satisfied that collusion, if it existed, could be uncovered under the structures now in place for the investigation? Is he satisfied, if collusion existed, that such a revelation could be made under that structure? If not, what precise recommendations will he make to the British Government to ensure the independence of the inquiry?
In relation to Question No. 8, I appreciate that the preferendum option is not appropriate in all conflict resolution circumstances. However, as Deputy Bruton said, there is a lack of novel ideas to get us beyond the impasse. The de Borda Institute, which has done considerable investigation on conflict resolution from Bosnia to Indonesia and East Timor, should be kept in mind and consulted when there is a lack of novel suggestions as to how we might move forward. East Timor now faces a civil war—
The Deputy is making a statement. He should confine himself to a brief supplementary.
I ask that the de Borda Institute, which has carried out much research on conflict resolution, be consulted.
That is not under consideration but I do not rule it out if there is a valid way to look at it.
Some people argue that the RUC should not be involved in the investigation into the murder of Rosemary Nelson. It is not much use sending Australians or Americans to look for the Garvaghy Road to find out how it was involved in this. I do not understand that argument. The RUC is the body which has considerable knowledge about these matters and people and must be involved in it.
There is an important issue. Against a background of serious allegations of threats and intimidation directed towards Rosemary Nelson by RUC officers, which stand up to scrutiny, concerns have been raised by everyone to whom I have spoken about the ability of the RUC to conduct the investigation on its own in an impartial and thorough manner. That is why the FBI and two other police forces are involved. Paul Nelson and many others emphasised that there are many potential witnesses who possess relevant information who are reluctant to come forward because of the involvement of the RUC in the investigation.
We must negotiate and finalise this issue with the British Government so we may be satisfied – and I am not yet satisfied – that the key operational concern is to ensure the investigation is structured and operated in such a way that all potential witnesses or those with relevant information can come forward with confidence. If we can achieve that I will be happy. If we cannot we must look further.
The Taoiseach said that he has heard credible allegations that RUC officers threatened Rosemary Nelson. Will he outline the allegations he believes are true?
Has the Taoiseach received any explanation from Sinn Féin of why it believes decommissioning is not an obligation under the Good Friday Agreement in light of the fact that Sinn Féin, in agreeing the Mitchell Principles, accepted that it had an absolute commitment to the total disarmament of paramilitary organisations? That element of the Mitchell Principles was included in the Good Friday Agreement which was voted on by the people. Has Sinn Féin explained how that does not constitute an obligation?
Rosemary Nelson gave detailed accounts to the congressional hearings. She prepared a detailed report for the upcoming hearings containing chapter and verse on this: dates, times, locations and names of clients who were intimidated. It makes for a conclusive story. When I attended the congressional hearing which looked at this at a very full meeting of the Congress, it stated that it believes that these allegations have substance. I would be wrong if I did not say that they stand up. As I have said before, I am sure the vast majority of officers go about their business in an upstanding way, but there seem to be some in this case who do not.
It must also be borne in mind what Rosemary Nelson was doing mainly at these times. She was not just representing the residents of the Garvaghy Road. Her more detailed role was the work she was doing on the Pat Finucane case; the congressional hearing related to that case. The groups I met think her death was as much to do with that as anything else.
It is the view of Sinn Féin that its position was to use its best endeavours to convince those with whom it would be associated to involve them selves in the decommissioning of arms and explosives. It considers that to be something it will do over the course of the Agreement. It does not agree with my view of the indispensable role of the decommissioning process as part of the entire Agreement. It is no secret that we see things differently. We must construct a way to take on the different understandings to find a resolution. We are quite some distance apart at this stage although we are trying to move closer. The contents of the Hillsborough Declaration demonstrate that we are trying to use our imagination to give everyone a soft landing on this issue. I am being honest in saying that the hostility with which what I thought was a very soft landing was greeted, leaves me unsure about how the process can be moved forward but I am honour bound to try to find a resolution and will continue to do so.
The Hillsborough Declaration was a genuine and imaginative effort to overcome the difficulties for everybody. My only regret is that it was rejected so readily by people for whom it was designed to be of assistance. I am worried that might not have happened if we had not published it.
Has the Taoiseach considered the possibility of assembling a book of evidence on the murder of Rosemary Nelson of the kind I initiated concerning Bloody Sunday which led to a new enquiry into the matter because the Government had done a great deal of the homework on the subject? The Taoiseach has said that there are allegations which he believes. Would it not be useful to present them in a comprehensive report which would have standing and objectivity and would be of assistance?
That might be necessary in time but the Deputy will appreciate that the book of evidence on Bloody Sunday was prepared 20 years after the event. I said before that that work was extremely helpful in achieving the Saville inquiry; it would not have been achieved without it. It is too early in this case. I hope the British Government, taking into account the Pat Finucane case, which is related to this, will make the necessary changes in structure to make sure that witnesses will participate.
If that is not possible the issue of further international elements or a book of evidence, with the international way being looked at first, will have to be examined. We must ensure that those who believe they have a contribution to make feel able to be adequately involved in the case.
Did the Taoiseach raise the demand of the IRA for legislation concerning the return of the bodies of the disappeared in his conversations with the British Prime Minister? If so, what conclusions did they reach? Does the Taoiseach agree that, after a quarter of a century, the relatives who received good news now have to wait for the legislation to go through? Why is there such a delay in this House? Is the Taoiseach aware of the confident expectation among Nationalists in the North, as exemplified in today's Irish News, that this legislation would be put through the House this week and through the Seanad next week as a matter of urgency? What is causing the delay? Is the Taoiseach aware that in his absence last week, the Tánaiste gave me an assurance on the Order of Business that there would not be any delay? She said it ought to be quite easy because the new legislation would be based on the legislation on decommissioning. What is the reason for this further delay after a quarter of a century?
First, there are many reasons, one of which is that we have to agree an understanding with the British Government on the type of legislation. That has not yet happened but perhaps I should not go into that because it might raise more questions that it would answer. That issue remains to be resolved. Second, the Minister has been involved in other obvious matters which has delayed some of the progress, but work is ongoing on it. The Deputy will know that I discussed these matters with the British Government. I hope we are not being blamed for the delay in the return of the bodies of the disappeared, for which I have argued for a long time. Under the legislation forensic or ballistic studies cannot be carried out which would be used for future prosecutions. It will give immunity in that regard. The bodies could be returned but those who were involved are seeking protection and a concession on that basis which, in these circumstances and from a humanitarian aspect in terms of the relatives, we are prepared to do. We will not delay unduly.
The Taoiseach knows I do not ask questions which might create difficulties because of my sensitivity to these matters; he described me on one occasion as the most helpful Member of the House in relation to Northern Ireland. Does he understand my perplexity in relation to this matter? We were told that after 25 years this matter would be addressed with the maximum urgency, that it was a simple matter based on legislation similar to that on decommissioning. Does the Taoiseach understand that the relatives, some of whom were a little sceptical of the IRA statement, are now totally perplexed as to the reason we are not proceeding with the legislation in this House? I agree with their puzzlement in this regard.
The answer is as soon as possible, but it is not entirely a matter for this House. We have to have agreement in terms of the basis on which this legislation will pass through these Houses and Westminster.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will talk to me about it.
Arising from the Taoiseach's comprehensive reply on the impasse in the Northern talks and the danger that that impasse constitutes for the Good Friday Agreement, and bearing in mind that this House gave enactment to the legislation that provided for the referendum in the first instance, what concrete steps does he believe this House can take – the Agreement belongs to all of the citizens of this country – to maintain the momentum that will lead to a resolution of the outstanding issues so as to ensure that all the components of the Agreement, not just the question of decommissioning, can be brought into effect as is the wish of the overwhelming majority in this Republic and on this island who voted for it?
We discussed this matter the other day. Many aspects of the Agreement will give people confidence that it will be implemented – including the equality and human rights agendas, the legislative measures, the status of the Irish language, etc. There are other more minor issues which are important to loyalists, Unionists and republicans. I stressed the other day that these issues are important. I have gone through the Agreement and any small decision will help in that regard, otherwise people see these issues as a difficulty.
There are other areas which are difficult. The position changed dramatically following the murder of Rosemary Nelson. I am dealing on a daily basis with the various groups and bodies but I believe our society does not totally understand the enormous effect Rosemary Nelson's death had in Northern Ireland. The people here see this as more of the same but it has been said to me that if pipe bombs exploded here most nights over a number of weeks, this House would be debating it, or if the families of republicans and Nationalists had been threatened, there would be more said about it.
Not so.
That is an issue they continually raise. From a constructive point of view, any movement we can make on legislation or on any elements of the North-South bodies should be made. I believe we are doing that.
I do not wish to be destructive but bearing in mind the Taoiseach's three previous sentences, will he not concede that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is hopelessly overloaded with work? He is required to introduce 30 Bills. In retrospect, the decision to merge the Department of Equality and Law Reform with the Department of Justice was a disaster.
Perhaps he does not have the horsepower.
The Bill on the human rights commission is stalled; it will be discussed tomorrow for the first time. We will not see the Bill in relation to Irish citizenship until September. Will the Taoiseach agree that on the small measures which the Taoiseach has outlined, and with which this House wants to help, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is overwhelmed and cannot cope? Some emergency steps have to be taken to provide additional forces, either civil servants or legislators, to deal with the small blocks that together could construct a wall of confidence between ourselves and those who do not want to see the Agreement put in place.
There are issues outstanding but an enormous amount of work has been done. Before Easter this House passed all the institutional arrangements. The Human Rights Bill is before the committees.
It is not. That is a misrepresentation.
It is an inaccuracy.
We will shortly see the Bill Deputy Currie was talking about.
We will not.
As soon as possible after agreement is reached. These issues have to be dealt with. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for approximately 34 Bills, most of which are on the Justice side. The Deputy knows the number of Bills that were passed by the Department of Equality and Law Reform during its entire period.
I do. A substantial number.
It was substantial legislation but not in a numerical sense. There are many non-legislative issues that can be dealt with and it is important that is done. Some of those are here and some are with the Secretary of State.
We must conclude questions to the Taoiseach.