John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting at the EU Summit in Cologne with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14864/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit Northern Ireland. [14869/99]
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meetings or telephone discussions he has had since 2 June 1999 with the leaders or representatives of the political parties in North ern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14870/99]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with United States Senator Pat Leahy and a trade delegation from the state of Vermont; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14960/99]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the current state of the talks process between the parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish and British Governments. [15333/99]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15334/99]
John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussions or meetings with the leadership of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15335/99]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussions or meetings with the leadership of the SDLP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15336/99]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussions or meetings with the leadership of the Alliance Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15337/99]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussions or meetings with the leadership of the UUP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15338/99]
John Bruton
Question:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussions with the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Trimble; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15339/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had with the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15341/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15342/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had in the last fortnight with the president of Sinn Féin or the Sinn Féin leadership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15352/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the pro posals, if any, he has for the next round of discussions on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15355/99]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:17 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had since 3 June 1999 with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15383/99]
Trevor Sargent
Question:18 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the arrangements for talks with the pro-Agreement parties in Northern Ireland coming up to the deadline of 30 June 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15385/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 18, inclusive, together.
I met with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the margins of the recent EU summit in Cologne and this was the only bilateral meeting I had. We agreed that we should concentrate all our efforts in a bid to break the current impasse on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. Intensive rounds of negotiations involving the two Governments and all the pro-Agreement parties are getting under way. These discussions, which I expect will be ongoing right up to 30 June, will be conducted at various levels under the overall supervision of the Prime Minister and myself and we will be directly involved during the closing stages.
The two Governments have been in touch with the parties over the past few days regarding the detailed arrangements for the discussions. I had separate meetings yesterday with the First Minister designate, Mr. David Trimble, and the deputy First Minister designate, Mr. Seamus Mallon, and I am meeting with the Sinn Féin president, Mr. Gerry Adams, this evening. I have also kept in touch by telephone with Prime Minister Blair. All the parties must approach the discussions in a positive and constructive spirit. It is just over a year since the people on this island, North and South, democratically expressed their overwhelming support for the Good Friday Agreement. The onus now is on all the parties to give effect to the will of the people and, in this regard, it is crucial that the implementation of all aspects of the Agreement proceeds without further delay. I believe firmly an acceptable basis for a breakthrough can be achieved by 30 June. All sides need to be aware of the serious consequences of not reaching agreement on the outstanding issues by that deadline.
I met with Senator Pat Leahy and a visiting delegation from the state of Vermont on 1 June. Our discussion centred around the situation relating to the current impasse and we also touched on matters relating to the Irish economy and events in Kosovo.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the people who murdered Paul Downey are the enemies of the peace process? What is his view of the reports that the provisional IRA was responsible for the murder of Paul Downey and the effect that has on the status of their ceasefire?
There has not been any indication from the Secretary of State that the status of the IRA ceasefire is in question. The investigation into the murder of Paul Downey, who was known to the police, is under way. Whatever the circumstances of his execution, there are not any circumstances in which his murder can be justified and it is condemned by this House.
Does the Taoiseach believe that republican elements were involved in the murder of Paul Downey?
I have no knowledge about that at this stage. The Secretary of State is awaiting the investigations into the murder. The individual was known to the police.
I discussed this matter yesterday with Séamus Mallon, who has a fair amount of knowledge about the case and also with Mr. Trimble, who had his security reports but there is no certainty at all about who was involved.
Will the Taoiseach be more explicit on his statement that the victim was "known to the police"? Does he mean that the victim was a known criminal, a known drug dealer and if that was the case why did the police not take action to prosecute him in the proper way?
The individual was known for criminal activity, but I have no evidence of the activity. I understand from everybody to whom I spoke yesterday that the individual was well known for criminal activity. The victim must have been questioned because everybody seemed to know him very well yesterday. but I have no further knowledge.
If there is a question the IRA will not decommission its arms but is proporting to retain them to use them effectively to police parts of this island where drug dealing is rampant and the police do not take effective action against people who, to use the Taoiseach's phrase "are known" to them, is that not part and parcel of the problem? Would the Taoiseach agree that if the police do not take action, to investigate and to prosecute vigorously people who are "known" to them for criminal activities, the IRA may be left with some kind of persuasive argument, however invalid, as to why it should retain arms?
I do not know the details. I do not want to be unfair to Paul Downey and I have no evidence of what he was involved in, but his name was well known in political circles. I understand his name was well known to the RUC, but I have no details of the evidence they had to prosecute him. There is no justification for any organisation, not least the IRA or any other pseudo- paramilitary organisation to be involved in these type of activities on this island.
Would the Taoiseach agree that there is an inconsistency in him volunteering the information that Mr. Downey was "known to the police" and not volunteering an opinion as to who might be responsible for killing him? Surely the same quality of information is available in regard to both matters? Is there evidence that paramilitary organisations are collecting protection money from criminals and those criminals who do not pay are liable to be killed?
What constitutes a breach of the ceasefire? If it was to transpire that the IRA was involved in this killing, what would that mean for the ceasefire?
I am not responsible for the RUC and it is not answerable to me. I do not get security reports from it, as the question implies. I read the Northern papers and listen to Northern radio on a daily basis and all say that this unfortunate individual was known to the police.
The same media are also saying that the IRA was involved.
Yesterday I spoke to Mr. Trimble, Mr. Mallon, Mr. Blair and a number of other people in the North. They were not certain if this killing was paramilitary in nature. There are always such difficulties when there are guns in circulation. In our jurisdiction many people who were involved in the drugs trade have been shot dead. Rarely did it seem that paramilitaries were involved; it was usually the action of other drugs gangs. I do not have any more information.
When there was evidence of breaches in the ceasefires last year, the Secretary of State moved, with the support of the Irish Government, in one circumstance to remove the UDP from the talks and in another case Sinn Féin was suspended. The precedents and processes exist for dealing with cases where there is known evidence.
The Taoiseach will appreciate that questions about potential IRA involvement must be asked. It may be hard to ask them but that is part of the job of an Opposition, particularly as reports to that effect have appeared in the newspapers.
What is the position on the triggering of the d'Hondt mechanism? Have the British Prime Minister and Secretary of State consulted the Taoiseach on whether the d'Hondt mechanism will be triggered this week? Has he expressed a view on that?
I do not believe the mechanism will be triggered this week. I discussed the matter with the British Prime Minister but final conclusions were not reached on when it might be triggered. To trigger the d'Hondt mechanism in isolation would be a mistake. We must work out all of the procedures for what will happen between now and the end of June. We must work out if the executive could be set up if the mechanism was triggered now. I see no benefit – and I may differ from others in my view of this – in trying to set up the executive in shadow form for a fortnight and then standing it down at the end of that period. That does not make sense.
This round of discussions must deal with people's readiness to trigger the d'Hondt mechanism and set up the executive. If we set up the executive, what happens from there? What are the commitments? What happens to Jean de Chastelain and the International Commission on Decommissioning and the commitments given to satisfy the parties that this is operable? All of those issues must be addressed. Any individual move made without thinking everything through will only lead to more grief and we have had enough grief. The issues are fairly straightforward at this stage. I am clear about what requires to be done, but I am not clear about whether that can be done. We will have to stop going around the houses on this issue. It is a question of whether the people and the main parties – we all know who they are – are prepared to set up the Executive and to assure each other and the Governments they mean real business. If that is possible it can be done. If it is not, we face major difficulties. We should sit down and make those decisions.
I commend the Taoiseach on the practical approach he is taking to this matter. Does he agree one of the reasons for the problem in regard to the decommissioning of weapons is the sense of encirclement of the Nationalist community in Portadown? Does he agree the Orange Order and the Defenders were founded in the vicinity of Portadown and that Portadown is the centre of contention almost in north east Ulster? Does the Taoiseach agree, therefore, that those who have the possibility of finding an agreed solution to the parades issue in Portadown have a responsibility not only in regard to that issue but for the fact that if it is not resolved it will make it much more difficult for many other associated issues, including decommissioning, to be resolved? Will the Taoiseach use his good offices with all involved, the Orange Order and the residents, to adopt an attitude of compromise on this matter?
That is a correct assessment. There no doubt, speaking to religious and community leaders, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and everybody else that the sectarian poison being created around Portadown is having an enormous negative bearing on every other factor. A positive effort is crucial to the overall picture. Many efforts are being made. The British Prime Minister is meeting some of the parties today. We have continued, through the secretariat, to talk to the side. The intermediaries are working hard but are not having great suc cess. The Frank Blair initiative ten days ago had some success but was rejected by the Orange side. Various compromises have been put forward – there is not much point in dwelling on them given that none of them has been accepted. I think we should constructively try to disengage that.
One of the issues I am thinking about, and have mentioned to the other side and to Deputy Quinn here about ten days ago, is what we can usefully do. I offered to speak to the parties here and to send an all-party group to speak to the people on Garvaghy Road, or to both sides if that would help, as an expression of sincerity from the Irish parliamentary system. I am awaiting a response. I do not want to do that if it would be unhelpful. I have asked Mr. Trimble and Mr. Mallon to consider that and I will do it only if they agree. We need to lean in a helpful way. If Drumcree 5 goes wrong it could be very difficult to pick up the pieces. I have been trying to convince people of that since October, but to no avail, I have to admit. They are still trying. We should try to avoid confrontation on this issue. As the British Prime Minister said this morning – he quoted something he heard me say 100 times – it is difficult to explain to any person outside this island how there can be a ten month stand-off over a ten minute march. There must be some mechanism for building trust and confidence. The situation is quite dangerous. If we do not find a way to de-escalate the tension, everything else will flow from it.
The date of 30 June is only a few days before this year's march, which will be followed by the other 1,400 to 1,500 marches. This brings huge pressure to bear and I will do everything possible to try to de-escalate the situation. The Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, is also anxious to do so.
We will support that initiative.
If the proposal outlined by the Taoiseach is accepted by the relevant parties in the North, the Labour Party will participate in it.
The deadline of 30 June has been firmly set and repeatedly stated by the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. From the Taoiseach's tone, am I correct that he is now more committed to that deadline than he was some time ago? If that is the case, because deadlines concentrate the mind, what will happen if agreement cannot be reached? Is it envisaged that the assembly will be stood down? The Agreement is such that the referendum cannot be reversed. What will happen to give force to the deadline? How can both parties to the impasse be convinced to begin to make the necessary compromises? What is the sanction behind the deadline of 30 June?
I have always been committed to the deadline. It was first put forward by the Prime Minister Mr. Blair because of the devolution of power in Scotland and Wales. It did not only relate to the North. I was anxious to bring the Northern parties on side and to be equally firm about the deadline. I am happy about that. I did not want to move away from what the parties thought and they have now put their minds firmly to it.
As this issue was discussed and I reflected on it during the week away from the talks and following my contacts with the parties on Sunday, yesterday and this morning, the more one aspect has become apparent. The next obvious date is the end of September because July and August are out of the question. However, I cannot think of anything which would change the position by delaying matters until the end of September or even December. The credibility of the Agreement and confidence in it would become completely unstuck.
While the last opinion poll showed steady support, that might not remain the case if matters drifted for a long period. In addition, the patience of the political system and the people who are endeavouring to make the Agreement work would be tested. This includes people on all sides and even members of anti-Agreement parties. I cannot speak for them because they will not meet me but I consider that they feel there is much good in the Good Friday Agreement and it should not be delayed or deferred. This focus and determination to try to achieve as much as possible by the end of June is all round.
The Deputy asked what will happen. This morning the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, said: "I want people to understand that I am serious about this deadline. On 1 July we will move this process forward or we will have to look for another way forward." I agree with that statement.
What does it mean?
What does the Taoiseach understand that to mean?
It means that the Agreement as it stands would be effectively set aside. We would have to try to find another way forward. This is what all the pro-Agreement parties are now saying. However, it does not mean that certain parts of the Agreement would not be taken forward in some other process. I spoke to Mr. Mallon about this last night and I know the views of all the parties. They would not want a situation where their current positions and the Assembly would be frozen. The Assembly is democratically elected but does not meet and people are frustrated about that. There is not an executive in shadow or interim form and we cannot go on in those circumstances. The Prime Minister and I are saying we would then have to review our positions to see what we could rescue. Naturally we would not give up but we would have to find another way. That is what it means.
I express doubt about the wisdom of that, but others are closer to it. Does the Taoiseach not agree that even if agreement is not reached on all outstanding issues by 30 June, there would still be a lot of good will on 1 July and much of what has been achieved to date would be extant? Does he not agree it would be wiser to present in somewhat less black and white terms what might happen on 1 July if agreement is not reached?
I will give the views of the parties and then my own. The parties feel that if we do not bring this to a head people will start talking about deferrals before we even enter the discussions. They were doing this a few weeks ago. We must try to resolve the issues. We have spent all our time since December on one issue and for a year we have concentrated on the general issue of moving forward. That is my view.
In terms of what happens on 1 July, we will still have good will and the contents of the Good Friday Agreement but we cannot let time pass. We must make as many substantive achievements as we possibly can. If we were a little short of time it would be a different question but that is not the case now. There has been no movement of substance. We had the Hillsborough Declaration and the Downing Street Declaration and we are trying to bring those together. The British Government and our Government believe we must make an intensive effort, and all the pro-Agreement parties believe that. As I said earlier, if we are almost there on 30 June, the Prime Minister and I will have to reflect on that. If we are still where we are now – depending on what I hear later today and over the next few days, I will be able to make a quick judgment on that – we will be able to decide whether we can move forward. Most of the wrapping has been taken off this subject, we know what the issue is. If we can make real progress we will do so; if we cannot, we will have to think of another way forward, as the British Prime Minister said. That will not mean throwing out any of the positive things we have achieved but we will have to try to find another way. I hope that will be avoided.
I am somewhat happier with that rather more nuanced presentation than with the earlier presentation by the British Prime Minister.
In his earlier reply the Taoiseach said the Agreement would have to be set aside. The results of the referendum cannot be set aside but, presumably, if nothing happens by the end of the second year, Articles 2 and 3 will not be amended, as was agreed in this part of the island. Do I take it the Taoiseach is contemplating, among other things, that the operation of the Assembly, including the employment of personnel and the payment of salaries and allowances, would be suspended as and from 1 July if no progress is made before 30 June? Is that explicitly being considered as an option?
I must be careful in dealing with Strand One issues. They are outside my remit and I have no control over them. That issue would be a matter for the British Government.
I presume the Taoiseach would be consulted.
It has not reached that stage yet and I hope it does not. I met the Canadian Prime Minister yesterday, and when he spoke to Northern Assembly members on Saturday they indicated they would like to get on with their parliamentary duties. I would like that also and we must find a way to do this. To put it nicely or bluntly, this issue has been debated to death. It depends on whether people are prepared to compromise. It is not complicated any more, though it may be difficult to achieve. We have moved from a position of violence to one of peace and we must now try to move from peace to democracy. There is no better time to do so and I cannot see how delaying this any longer than 30 June, 1 July or 2 July will improve matters. If we leave the situation until the autumn and allow people to undermine this and make life difficult for all sides, that will not help the Good Friday Agreement. The British Prime Minister and I are trying to get people through this stage with compromises and agreements and we cannot do so on our own. We need our political systems and the pro-Agreement parties to help us. We will put our best negotiating efforts into this. As I said to Deputy Bruton, if we cannot do that, we will have to be honest. We would then have to see what we can do. There is no point in codding the people of this island. It is unfair to keep the people of Northern Ireland on tenterhooks and bring these matters to the last days of negotiation. I hope we can have daily dialogue rather than bringing everything down to the last day. It does not help when one is not sure if one is dealing with those inside or outside the process. We have to structure our approach to make sure we can work over the next few weeks to get agreement between all sides.
There are only about four questions to answer. I do not want to spell them out but most of the rest have been answered.
Is it not the case that the distrust in the Unionist community about the ultimate decision or intention of the IRA to decommission their arms is at the core of the impasse? That distrust is shared by many others but it is at the core of lack of political manoeuvrability for Unionists under the leadership of Mr. Trimble. Notwithstanding what is written in the Agreement, there has been slippage all along the line on decommissioning and the arms issue. If the republican movement is serious about making progress in this matter and wants to avoid setting aside the Agreement after 30 June, to use the Taoiseach's phrase, they must offer some kind of response that will enable Mr. Trimble to move. It is up to the republicans to decide that response but it will have to enable the process to be triggered and the Executive to be established. If the Taoiseach agrees with my analysis, will he convey that forcefully to the President of Sinn Féin? I understand the Taoiseach will meet him this evening.
Needless to say, I will forcefully convey what I feel will help to resolve this impasse. There are two sides to this issue. Trust is certainly a problem on all sides. We mentioned Portadown, Drumcree, the murder of Rosemary Nelson and the 158 pipe bomb attacks, all of which work against the building of trust. There has been a huge increase in the number of splinter loyalist groups – they seem to keep growing and assuming new names – and this is making life difficult for republicans.
On the other hand, I will be working over the next few weeks to try to set up the Executive. I have gone off the idea of temporary measures to set up an Executive. We should talk about doing this in its real form. On the other side, are all the parties who have signed the Agreement committed to decommissioning by April 2000, as the Agreement requires? If they are, can we come to an understanding as to how decommissioning will happen? I accept that this will necessitate much discussion. If it is not going to happen I will tell the House. If it is, I shall negotiate the terms of the decommissioning. If I knew decommissioning would take place and how it would take place under the supervision of the international commission, headed by General John de Chastelain, I could at least try to convince the Unionists that we could set up the Executive.
There lie the two issues. The matter is neither confusing nor complicated, but there are hard questions which must be answered. I cannot conclude an agreement unless we get straight answers to them.
That is a fair comment.
It is my understanding that, under the terms of the Agreement, decommissioning is not a precondition to the formation of the Executive and decommissioning is to take place by April 2000. If I know that is the understanding of both sides, I will negotiate agreement. If it is not the understanding of both sides, I cannot negotiate it.
That is well said.
I agree with what the Taoiseach has said. Does he agree that the statement by the British Prime Minister that we must move the peace process forward by 1 July or find another way forward, will concentrate the minds of all in Northern Ireland who seek a solution? If a solution cannot be found by 1 July, it will not be found during the mad months of July and August.
With regard the continuing barbarity of the search for the disappeared, does the Taoiseach see any significance in the fact that after extensive digging on six designated sites, no bodies have been found?
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach believe on reflection that setting the deadline of 30 June, the eve of the marching season, is a good idea? If the political establishment does not come to an agreement by that date, does the Taoiseach not see the danger of extreme sectarian elements using that failure to cut loose during July and August when sectarianism comes to a crescendo? Does the Taoiseach see a danger in the marching season commencing with a failure by the political leaders to come to an agreement?
Since the situation in Portadown is a touchstone on which so much depends, will it feature in the intensive discussions of the political establishment between now and 30 June? Members of all parties whose leaders will take part in the discussions, are active in Portadown. Will the Taoiseach point out to them their responsibility not to plunge communities in such horror as led to the murder of the Quinn children and to the feast of sectarian hatred which we saw last year?
I note Deputy Ó Caoláin is not in the House today.
June 30 is linked to the dates of devolution in Scotland and Wales. I am conscious of the difficulties presented by that date, which is why we tried so hard to conclude the stage of the discussions at Hillsborough before Easter. That was my preferred option and I have been trying to achieve it since 18 December when we finalised the plans for North-South bodies. That did not work, however, so we tried for a date in early May. There are risks but we will work with everybody to, hopefully, avoid getting into the sectarian difficulties and bitterness that few people want. Most people do not want to get into such difficulties but it is not easy to find a way around this matter. Everybody's best efforts are going into finding a solution. I thank the House for its indication of support should we send an all-party group.
I have already answered Deputy Currie's first point. As regards his second point, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I have gone to all possible lengths to find out if the information provided initially was credible. All our sources indicate that it was. In recent days there has been confirmation from unknown sources, which I would say are fairly close to people who might know, that these are the right locations. Regrettably and unfortunately we have not yet found the remains of those people but it seems as if those are the locations. As I said previously, the difficulty is that locations of a general nature were given and they were not pinpointed. However, I do not think this is a wild goose chase.
Does the Taoiseach not think that out of six sites, something would have been found in at least one of them?
I do. However, from my own sources I know that when the attempt to exhume the remains began, senior people in the republican movement believed we would have had all the bodies that weekend, and I think they were acting in good faith. I have to be honest about these matters.
Someone sold them a pup.
Perhaps not. It has certainly been reconfirmed that a few of the sites are the right ones, but locating the remains is the problem.