Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the discussions or meetings, if any, he has had since 6 May 1999 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [12055/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting and discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12061/99]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12153/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12279/99]
Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings in London on 6 May 1999 with the Northern Ireland parties and the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12284/99]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London recently with the leadership of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12291/99]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London recently with the leadership of the SDLP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12292/99]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in London with the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12293/99]
John Bruton
Question:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the matters other than issues relating to Northern Ireland which he discussed with the British Prime Minister when he met him in London recently. [12294/99]
John Bruton
Question:13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meetings or telephone discussions he has had since 12 May 1999 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12775/99]
John Bruton
Question:14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meetings or telephone discussions he has had since 12 May 1999 with the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12776/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 14, inclusive, together.
The British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, and I met the leaders of the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin in London on Thursday, 6 May, and Northern Ireland was the only item on the agenda. We had a useful series of meetings and we made progress. The parties resumed their discussions on Monday, 12 May, and the Prime Minister and I held further talks with the parties in London last Friday.
I have said before in this House that our objective is to bring forward proposals that would have the support of all the pro-Agreement parties. In the discussions last Friday, proposals emerged which it seemed, potentially, could achieve that objective. However, it remains to be seen if this is so. The two Governments are of the view that the time has arrived when it is necessary to bring these matters to a conclusion.
Given that the Taoiseach said it is necessary to bring these matters to a conclusion, is the proposed date of 30 June a deadline? Will the Taoiseach indicate what the parties in this House can do to support his efforts, as they supported the efforts of the previous Government, to bring about peace? In what way can we assist the Taoiseach to ensure the deadline is met and that the outcome is constructive and satisfactory?
It is a deadline. If by 30 June the parties to the Good Friday Agreement have made no progress, it will be for the two Governments to reflect on that situation and examine where they go from there. I acknowledge the support of all parties in the House for my work in trying to convince all the parties to continue to make movement in their various ways. It is clear where movement is required and all parties know what they must do, although some are more aware of it than others. Hopefully, they can make that movement.
Is the Taoiseach still of the opinion he expressed on 14 February that it is not practical politics to envisage the establishment of an Executive without a start being made on decommissioning?
That has been my position since last autumn. It was tried but it did not work. Then we moved to the Hillsborough compromise, which I believe was a fair one and a collective act of reconciliation which effectively put at least some arms beyond use. The current proposed solution has a lot of benefit. The Ulster Unionist Party had what is called a "positive" meeting this morning. I am not fully briefed on its precise outcome so I am anxious to say only what will be helpful. I got a quote from David Trimble before I came to the House. He said:
The Ulster Unionist Party needs more clarification of the Downing Street proposal. We met for over an hour this morning. It was a positive meeting. The Downing Street proposals are incomplete. I expect to have more talks with the British Prime Minister soon. The Ulster Unionist Party position remains no guns, no administration with Sinn Féin".
Clarification of some matters might be useful. Some of the spokespersons for the Ulster Unionist Party in their statements last night misinterpreted some aspects of what happened last week. It was not a situation where people were asked to set aside the decommissioning issue; that was not the outcome of the discussions.
The position was taken in two stages. First, that the d'Hondt system would be moved on Thursday, that the Ministers designate would take up their positions. There would not be a formal meeting of the Executive so they would not take up their full positions until 30 June or before that, if it proved possible. Second, and separately, talks would continue and be intensified with the chairperson of the International Commission on Decommissioning, General de Chastelain. There would be an intensive session of talks over the next few weeks in an effort to find a resolution. In the discussions around that, the decommissioning issue or a means of trying to sort it out would still be on the agenda.
My reading of the statements by UUP spokespersons yesterday is that they appeared to think they were being asked to forego the decom missioning issue. That is not what was agreed and if that is the clarification required, I am happy to make it absolutely clear.
I hope the discussions go well and that the Government can bring about the necessary agreement. Does the Taoiseach see a need for putting a non-binding referendum or preferendum to the Northern Ireland electorate in the run-up to end June? That would help determine if there is a need for parties to act outside their normal constituencies and, if so, they may be able to refer to the greater good and recognise the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Does he consider such a measure would help to bring parties beyond their traditional positions in the talks?
What is the Government's view on the status of the LVF and UDA ceasefires in light of Mr. Adam's belief that they are over?
All acts of assistance are useful. The holding of referendums or preferendums and other measures are kept under review. I heard the statement of Archbishop Eames to the Church of Ireland Synod at lunchtime. In his lengthy statement on the matter he said the key to peace is contained in one word, "trust". He is right. We have had five sessions of discussions lasting 43 hours in the past few weeks. The difficulty lies in getting people to trust each other and to appreciate that there is not something hidden in every line or every move. I understand why people hold that view. All the years of conflict, deaths, mayhem and murders have made people distrustful of others in Northern Ireland. We must continue to try to build trust in every possible way.
I have continued to say during the talks that a referendum has been held and that the people have spoken. A referendum cannot be held every day. When the referendum was put, the people turned out in great numbers and gave their views. Eighty per cent of the people on this island voted for the Agreement less than a year ago. By doing so they gave the political leaders, North and South, who supported it, the signal to proceed to negotiate it. That is what we should be doing rather than thinking about what the people would say today or tomorrow about various solutions. We are still trying to implement the Good Friday Agreement, which was put to the people. Members of all parties in Northern Ireland have said no document was ever analysed as closely or understood and debated so well. That being the case, we should have the confidence to conclude it, and I hope we can do that. I have no problem with people seeking clarification and I hope such clarification will work. I am also conscious that the political situation is not easy for some of the party leaders.
What about the status of the ceasefires?
I do not have particular information on that, but it has been stated fairly widely in the North that there has been targeting by some of the groups. There has been some concern about that matter, but I would not over-read anything into that. I am more concerned about those responsible for the ongoing attacks on Nationalists which have intensified. There have been 158 attacks, which include bomb attacks, pipe bombs and shootings, on Nationalists in the past few weeks.
Is it the Taoiseach's view that the Provisional IRA intends to decommission its weapons in the foreseeable political circumstances and, if so, what are those circumstances?
During the ongoing discussions and those on Friday, I have been at pains to get agreement to state that all parties agree to the implementation of all aspects of the Agreement, including the objective of achieving total disarmament and complete withdrawal of all weapons from politics, to accept that the issue of arms must be fully and satisfactorily settled and that the parties will do what they can to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within the timeframe set down in the Agreement in the context of implementing the overall settlement. If matters had been concluded on Friday or Saturday when people had to refer back, that would have been part of the package.
Is it difficult that the IRA is not party to the talks and any commitments given are not represented as binding on it? Is there any indication that the IRA might be willing to make a statement about its medium-term intentions on decommissioning, which, if made would obviously have considerable political effect?
There are two aspects to that question, one of which is so different to the position in which we were only a year ago. A year ago one could not have said "Sinn Féin" at any meeting without people correcting it and saying "Sinn Féin-IRA". People took the view, as I have said over the years, that they were opposite sides of the same coin. Now if one says "Sinn Féin" people will correct it and say it is not the IRA. It has somersaulted in a year. The position which Sinn Féin used to adopt, that it was not answerable and could not say anything, is now being put by everyone. This creates confusion.
Looked at closely, the Easter statement of the IRA – I said this publicly at the time, as I do not want to get into answering IRA statements – contained many signals and phrases which were new and did not rule out decommissioning in the future. If Deputy Bruton is asking me whether I believe it is likely the IRA will make a statement in the short-term, I have no reason to believe it will.
I wish to ask two questions, one of which arises from the Taoiseach's last reply. First, does he still hold the view that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two sides of the same coin, no matter how they interact with each other, and that the Sinn Féin party, on occasion, speaks for the IRA? Second, in the course of the discussions which took place in Downing Street last Friday, was the role of General de Chastelain discussed in some detail with the various parties as to how he might measure progress in relation to the difficult issue of decommissioning? Have the British and Irish Governments been in contact with General de Chastelain or his office to confirm that the analysis of what might constitute progress in the eyes of both Governments would be the same from his point of view?
From the detailed discussions we had with General de Chastelain before Easter, I know he would be in a position to try to make that a realistic opportunity and to build on it. The parties would go along with that. I do not think that will be a problem. There will be constructive dialogue to try to resolve this issue.
The position of Sinn Féin and the IRA is more blurred now in terms of the perception in Northern Ireland as distinct from here. If Sinn Féin makes a statement now one is asked what is the view of the IRA. That was not the case a year ago. I have always had a difficulty with that because I do not have a clue what the view of the IRA is on anything because, as far as I know, I only deal with Sinn Féin. The position is not as clear as it used to be. Unionists and loyalists would now put it that Sinn Féin and the IRA speak from quite separate positions. One rarely hears people say "Sinn Féin-IRA". I looked through press cuttings of interviews given in the past five or six weeks and no Unionist or loyalist said "Sinn Féin-IRA".
Who is on the army council?
Perhaps the reason that usage is not being maintained is because Sinn Féin has been at pains to contradict and attempt to correct the link of the two. Is it the view of the Irish Government that the army council has not been represented in some of the Sinn Féin delegations which have met frequently with either the British Government at No. 10 Downing Street or with the Irish Government or its representatives here?
I do not know that because, unfortunately, I do not know who is on the army council of the IRA.
The Taoiseach has security advice.
I still do not know. In terms of the senior members of the IRA whose names are mentioned to me, I have never met them. If I have, I do not know them. I have never met the people or if I have, I do not know them.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is a generally accepted fact, which has apparently been confirmed in recent days, that four out of the seven members of the IRA army council are leading members of Sinn Féin? I sympathise with him in the frustration he must be feeling at the apparently never-ending discussions and differences. Does he agree that knocking one's head against a stone wall could be considered a positive experience in comparison to dealing with some people in Northern Ireland? However, I encourage him to keep going on the basis that the important difference between these and previous discussions is the verdict of the people in the North and the South. Will he clarify a reference in one of today's newspapers, which he repeated, if not directly, in his initial reply earlier, in which he appears to be offering to David Trimble that he would be a guarantor of the Unionist position as a result of agreements emerging from current discussions?
That is a fair position. I have continually said, and I do not believe that I have been found wanting – in many of these discussions I have sought fairness and a properly balanced discussion and I have supported lines put forward by Mr. Trimble – that where positions are put and agreed, we will stick by those. It is important in these matters that all of us understand what we negotiate and agree on and that we do not try to change from that position. Even though we have had many such discussions and agreements, I have stuck firmly to that line and I think that is helpful. I understand the problems of Mr. Trimble and Mr. Adams and the even more considerable problems of Mr. Mallon, who is a tower of positive strength throughout all these discussions.
Will the Taoiseach convey to all the parties engaged in these difficult negotiations in the North that they enjoy the goodwill and support of all the parties here, that equally they enjoy the goodwill of all elected representatives in Britain and Ireland? Will he further convey our concern that the huge potential of strands two and three must not be put aside and, while there may be a deadline of 30 June, the greater urgency is that the huge potential for partnership between ourselves and the North in whatever agreement is reached can only benefit all the people in the North together with our partners in Europe and throughout the world? Will he also convey to them that our only interest is to give support, goodwill and help, which must be encouraging to them in their negotiations?
Yes, at every opportunity I get I will certainly convey that. I am aware that the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, at its recent meeting, outlined what the Deputy, who is its co-chairman, has stated. We have been saying to the parties – there is agreement on this – that the Good Friday Agreement is an unprecedented opportunity to put the past behind us and to begin again. The part of the Agreement based on partnership, equality and mutual respect has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the people, North and South, and one of the core features of the Agreement is respect for diversity and difference. Nobody is being asked to sacrifice fundamental aspirations and ideals. The Agreement requires only that their pursuit be by exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
I sincerely hold the view that, within the negotiating positions, nobody is being asked to sign away any of those fundamental positions and I do not think they should. What they are all being asked to do – it is not fair for us to look only at one side – is to move to positions where there can be compromise and where some trust can be built up. If we get trust we can make the institutions work. Without it we will have considerable difficulties.
(Dublin West): Ordinary people want the politicians to get on with it and feel they are going about it very tortuously. Nevertheless, does the Taoiseach agree there is a danger in setting 30 June as a definite date in the sense that if agreement is not reached by then it could be seen as a watershed which would be grist to the mill of those sectarian elements who do not want an agreement. They would see it as some kind of signal to step up sectarian activities. In light of that, has the Taoiseach had any recent discussions on the Drumcree-Garvaghy Road problem? Does he agree that the continuing refusal of the Orange Order to enter into dialogue with the elected representatives of the Garvaghy Road is not just intransigent but highly irresponsible, in that it can heighten tensions leading up to 12 July? As we know, last year those tensions caused terrible injury and the atrocity that claimed the lives of the Quinn children.
Does the Taoiseach agree that, equally, it would be very unhelpful if the residents of the Garvaghy Road and their representatives took a positive decision at this time that a parade would not, under any circumstances, be countenanced on the Garvaghy Road in 1999? Despite the siege by elements of the Orange Order, will the Taoiseach urge the residents to keep all options open in the event of dialogue, in the hope that a compromise can be worked out which will involve give and take on both sides? Adopting intransigent positions can only create a sense of hopelessness that we will face the same horrific situation as last year.
The Deputy has posed two separate questions. The first one related to the deadline and my interpretation is that if the parties have not agreed by the end of June the two Governments will have to assess the situation. We have to bring this stage to some conclusion, however, and the British Prime Minister feels very strongly about that. We will assess the position at the end of June.
We have had discussions about Drumcree. We had a lengthy round table session at the end of our meeting last Friday night. It included the British Prime Minister and myself, Mr. John Hume and Mr. Séamus Mallon, Mr. Trimble, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, a number of senior UUP officials and other officials. We went into some considerable detail concerning the way forward on Drumcree. We looked at suggestions and options, based on the experiences of the past, as to what might usefully be done to make some progress and avert the difficulties of the last four years and what is known in the North as "Drumcree Five", this year. There is much goodwill between the parties to do that.
I had an extensive meeting with the Garvaghy Road residents association on Thursday night, which was attended by Mr. Breandán MacCionnaith and other residents' representatives. I would like to be able to say that all options are open, but I think some may have been closed off.
Why?
I urged them to keep their options open and to present the Garvaghy Road issue in as balanced a way as possible. However, the Orange Order and the elements that want to march say they will talk about compromise and dialogue providing the 1998 march can be completed. The Garvaghy Road residents say they will have compromise and dialogue provided the 1999 march does not commence. It is difficult but we will continue to try to find a compromise.
The Taoiseach said that if, by 30 June, progress has not been made the two Governments will have to assess the situation. Do I take it that one assessment might be that the Agreement has, in effect, lapsed? If that is the case, what steps does the Taoiseach feel the parties in this House can take to try to advance progress on this difficult issue? This Agreement does not belong to the Oireachtas but to the people, not just of this Republic, but of all the island. We are anxious that any help that can be given by the House is delivered in the spirit of bipartisanship.
I do not want to go further on the 30 June date other than to say the issue will be reviewed. However, if a message is to go out from this House, it should be that all parties believe in the Agreement. The people voted for it and it is the people's Agreement. The reasonable movement that is being asked for, and which has been agreed to by the various leaders, as far as I am concerned, as well as the political system to be built around that will allow people to move ahead. If that happens we can make progress. It would be unfair if anyone was tied in unnecessarily by what is on the table. This is a fair position. I am not singling out any leader but I believe they all want to move forward on that basis and there should be an overwhelming political movement encouraging them to do so.