Trevor Sargent
Question:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland peace process. [6816/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the USA; the official engagements he undertook there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7000/00]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting in Washington with President Clinton. [7001/00]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent discussions, if any, he had in Washington with leaders and representatives of the political parties in Northern Ireland. [7002/00]
John Bruton
Question:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at a meeting in Washington of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7003/00]
John Bruton
Question:13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the recent communications, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7006/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his telephone discussion of 1 March 2000 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and the new initiative, if any, he is considering with him to move the political situation in Northern Ireland forward. [6809/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for a bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in the margins of the special summit in Lisbon; the matters to be discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6812/00]
Joe Higgins
Question:16 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government and the parties in Northern Ireland. [7065/00]
John Bruton
Question:17 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent discussions with Mr. Séamus Mallon, Deputy Leader of the SDLP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7743/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:18 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States. [7812/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:19 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Clinton and other United States political leaders during his recent visit to the United States. [7813/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:20 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if, in view of his speech at the University of New South Wales, he has put to the republican movement or to any other group the view that every organisation involved in the Northern Ireland conflict accepts that a return to armed conflict was not an option; if so, the response, if any, received; his views on whether this is an acceptable alternative to decommissioning as provided for in the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7985/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:21 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he raised with the US Secretary of State the question of renewed military activity by pro-Indonesian militias in East Timor; if so, the response, if any, he received; the plans, if any, he has to raise the issue with other EU leaders at the Lisbon summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7988/00]
Gay Mitchell
Question:22 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach if he raised with US Secretary of State Albright, following his visit to East Timor, the question of militia attacks on East Timor from West Timor which are increasing in spite of assurances from the Indonesian authorities. [8171/00]
John Bruton
Question:23 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will elaborate on his comments in a speech to the Australia Ireland Fund in Melbourne that the British army in south Armagh was a source of harassment; the evidence he has received to support this; the complaints, if any, he has made to the British Government regarding this subject; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8173/00]
Trevor Sargent
Question:24 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress, if any, made during his visit to the United States in breaking the present impasse in the Northern Ireland peace process. [8224/00]
John Bruton
Question:25 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Lisbon with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; the matters they discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8718/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:26 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the margins of the special EU summit in Lisbon. [8830/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:27 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the prospects for a possible formula for the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Executive in view of the statements reported to have been made in Washington by the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble; if he has discussed the matter with Mr. Trimble or with any of the other participants in the process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8831/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 27, inclusive, together.
On Wednesday, 15 March, on arrival in Los Angeles from Australia, I met Mr. Michael Flores, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the State of California. We discussed issues relating to the development of a memorandum of understanding with California, as a follow on from the very successful meeting I had with the Governor of California, Mr. Gray Davis, in Dublin last October. At my meeting with Mr. Flores, we discussed the idea of setting up a small high level group to formulate a strategy for the development of stronger links in specific areas, including education and research in leading edge areas between Ireland and California.
On a point of order, is the Taoiseach taking Questions Nos. 21 and 22 as part of this group of questions? It seems that East Timor and Northern Ireland are physically quite a distance from one another and the questions which one might wish to pose on these matters might be different also.
Questions Nos. 8 to 27, inclusive, are being taken.
I know, but Questions Nos. 21 and 22 come within that rubric and I feel they should be taken separately. When I contacted the Taoiseach's office before Question Time, I was led to believe that they would be taken separately.
Around the world in 80 minutes.
Questions Nos. 21 and 22 are included but there are other questions on East Timor.
Could the Taoiseach not take out Questions Nos. 21 and 22 and answer them with the other questions on East Timor?
They would come up later anyway. If the Deputy wants to ask supplementary questions on either occasion, I will take them.
If we are to skip from Northern Ireland to East Timor and back again, it will be confusing.
The only reference to East Timor in this group of questions is the discussions I had with US Secretary of State Albright in that regard. I had those meetings in Washington. It is difficult for me to take questions on discussions in Washington together with questions on a visit to a different part of the world.
It is not. The Taoiseach could take each—
I should point out that East Timor—
To be helpful, I will not object to answering supplementaries on either question. As you will be aware, a Cheann Comhairle, every day I answer supplementaries on matters which do not arise from questions.
That is terrible.
It is good to see the Deputy again.
He never left.
Let us proceed with the questions because time is limited.
In Washington on Thursday, 16 March I attended the Speaker's lunch on Capitol Hill before attending a meeting with the House International Relations Committee, chaired by Congressman Ben Gilman. That evening, at the Ireland Fund Dinner, I had the opportunity of acknowledging the tremendous contribution which over the past two decades the American Ireland Fund has made to this island. I also took the opportunity to pay tribute to Senator Mitchell and President Clinton, for their outstanding contributions to the peace process.
On St. Patrick's Day, I attended a breakfast at the State Department, hosted by the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. I was accompanied by my colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs. Inter alia, I raised the question of renewed military attacks in East Timor and by militias, as I did also at the European Council meeting in Lisbon. Later on St. Patrick's Day at the White House I presented President Clinton with the now traditional gift of shamrock.
I had lunch that day with the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board where we had a detailed discussion on developments in the Irish economy, particularly with reference to e-commerce developments in Ireland and the European MediaLab initiative.
As is now customary, President Clinton hosted a major reception at the White House that evening. Similar to previous years, the events in Washington hosted by President Clinton and his administration facilitated various meetings and discussions both formal and informal including with leaders and representatives of the Northern Ireland parties.
In my telephone conversation with the British Prime Minister on 1 March last we agreed that there should be an intensive process of consultation in the run up to the St. Patrick's Day period. In this regard, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had a number of useful meetings over that period with the main parties in Northern Ireland, including a round table meeting with all the pro-Agreement parties.
It is clear there is no easy solution to the current difficulties. The only way forward is through dialogue and agreement. The second anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement is not far away, a fact we were all conscious of in our discussions in Washington. The consultations leading up to and over the St. Patrick's Day period provided a good opportunity for all of us to step back and consider all that is at stake in this process, to look again at all the progress we have made and reflect on the most productive options for moving forward to the early restoration of the suspended institutions in the context of implementation of all aspects of the Agreement. This was also what I had in mind in my speech at the University of New South Wales. After those meetings, and after the events in Washington, it is clear that all the parties are committed to the Agreement and want its full implementation. All of the parties want to see the earliest possible restoration of the institutions with their inclusive cross-community mode of operation. What remains to be dealt with is the issue of trust which has been at the heart of all the difficulties in this process that we have been through over the years. We must continue to work on this, to get all of the parties to provide the necessary reassurances, including that violence is not an option and that democratic inclusivity is the only way forward. This was very much the message of President Clinton in Washington.
I met the British Prime Minister on the margins of the EU Summit in Lisbon last week where we focused on the need to intensify our efforts to move the process forward.
Clearly, there are challenges still for everyone. What we must do is set these issues in the wider context of an overall agenda of trust and confidence building. People on all sides have come a long way. This must be acknowledged, as the courage they have shown, including by David Trimble last Saturday, must be acknowledged. We are in a very different situation now than we were before the process began. However, work has still to be done to address people's fears and insecurities on all sides. The value of being able to do this in a peaceful environment is inestimable. Further intensive efforts are now needed in the period up to Easter, with the full and active engagement of the two Governments and all the pro-Agreement parties.
The Taoiseach said dialogue and agreement are necessary. In that context will he agree that the outcome of the UUP council meeting last Saturday will make it far more difficult to restore the institutions? With this in mind is it acceptable for the Irish and British Governments to consult various persons in the Nationalist or republican family? Would the Taoiseach recommend further consultation with aspects of the Unionist family who feel, as they stated at last Saturday's meeting, outside the events and developments and who would feel better if they were included to a greater degree? Would the Taoiseach see this as a possibility in consultation with the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party?
There is no doubt that last Saturday's result was disappointing in so far as it was not what Mr. Trimble or his leadership group required from the meeting. The vote was more or less the same as it was in November for and against the Agreement and if people reflect on it a few days on, that is what is thought more by Mr. Trimble and others. Perhaps to expect a higher vote was not that realistic but there is no doubt that it makes the position more difficult and that is everybody's assessment.
The two Governments began this morning in Belfast with the Northern Ireland officials and this involved Mr. Blair's officials going through what we agreed last week, examining all the aspects of the Good Friday Agreement which have not yet been completed and drawing up a programme to deal with those issues. Some of them are easy, some difficult and some have proved impossible so far. However, over the next ten days or so, we hope to take each one, and try to reach an understanding on how they can be implemented, a realistic timetable and the obstacles envisaged.
Inevitably, we can clear up most of these issues, although there will be some debate around all of them. We will still come back to the issues of decommissioning, the Patten report and a few more issues which are difficult. We made progress on the criminal justice Bill and equality issues in the past few weeks in meetings which the Minister for Foreign Affairs had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I had with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. We must do that in the first phase.
The second phase will be to see what support we can win from all the parties. That will come down to the inevitable few difficulties still there. The view of the two Governments and the pro-Agreements parties which have spoken to me is that for the third year in a row we should set Easter as a period in which to try to make progress. It is difficult to see how we can square the circles around the few aspects that have defeated our efforts since last year but there is an impetus to keep on trying and that is what I am committed to doing.
I call Deputy Bruton.
I did not get a reply. I understand that the Taoiseach did not answer for diplomatic reasons but I want that on the record.
The time is very limited and a number of Members must be given an opportunity to ask supplementary questions. I call Deputy Bruton.
The Taoiseach should get all the parties around the table very quickly. Parties are retreating from previous concessions as long as time remains and they are apart from one another. The only way to get them back into a mode of compromise is to have them around the table with the two Governments having the same policy on all key questions. What is the policy of the Government in regard to decommissioning and when should it occur? What is its view on the conditions that should be fulfilled for the suspension of the institutions to be lifted?
As I said to Deputy Sargent, the two Governments are trying to come to a joint agreement on all the issues. The position of the Government on decommissioning and related matters has not changed. We would like to see progress today and certainly by 22 May. That is also the view of the British Government. We have no problem agreeing those issues on the same front but we are realistic and we know that there is not a hope of us achieving that objective. That is the view of all the pro-Agreement parties and the two Governments. We are not getting any support for that position. All the efforts we made in Castle Buildings this week last year, when we almost had agreement on an act of reconciliation and some other matters, failed because republicans could not deliver. Again in Castle Buildings nine months ago this week when republicans appeared to be moving the Unionists could not handle that, and then there was the Mitchell Review, which started in September, and lasted 11 weeks. At the end of the review, George Mitchell stated that he believed the conditions for disarmament now existed. That position has not held. All of these positions, which we strongly support, have not succeeded. The two Governments can state our positions but we also have to be realistic and state positions on which we believe we can get agreement. Mr. Trimble was brave enough in Washington – I want to praise him for that – to state that his party and his leadership were prepared to move to try to find a way on which it is possible to seek agreement. I would love to be able to tell Deputy Bruton and the rest of the House that I see a way of achieving that but I do not at the moment. We have to try to find a way of dealing with this issue.
On the suspension of the institutions, in the context of trying to get agreement on the matters over which there is disagreement, we still believe we should try to get the suspension of the institutions lifted. Equally, we are realistic enough to know that the only way that will happen is if we can get agreement by the parties. We will not be able to do that unless we get agreement on the outstanding issues which now include the Patten report as well as decommissioning.
In summary, we have to reach a position where the two Governments can agree on all the issues and then see if we can build a consensus among all the pro-Agreement parties, big and small, around those issues. If that involves round table meetings, I have no difficulty with that but I would just say to Deputy Bruton that in terms of what has been indicated to me in the past 72 hours, and last week, I will meet the loyalist parties shortly. I will meet the Women's Coalition. The Alliance Party has had a meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will meet David Trimble in Dublin by the weekend, and I believe the SDLP is here today. We will seek to try to build support around what the two Governments put together over the next ten days or so.
Specifically on Question No. 20, the Taoiseach made a comprehensive speech in the University of New South Wales in which he indicated that it was his intention to try to establish an agreement across all of the parties in Northern Ireland that a return to armed conflict was no longer an acceptable option. If the Taoiseach was accurately quoted, and I believe he was, has he had any response from either the republican movement or any of the loyalist groups to that invitation to a declaration of progress? If not, and I suspect that is the case, will the Taoiseach, on this platform alone, attempt to establish, with the British Government, that a return to armed conflict is not a political or an operational option? Can that limited degree of progress be established and, if so, does the Taoiseach believe, in support of what Deputy Bruton has said, that a round table of all of the parties including, if necessary, the parties in this House, would be helpful in bringing parties back to the centre of compromise, from which they seem to be retreating, in order to establish, as a minimum, that a return to armed conflict is not an option for any of the political parties, particularly political parties that have paramilitary wings?
I will make one general point first in reply to Deputy Quinn. We have always said that the Good Friday Agreement is a balanced accommodation and that it is not possible for each party to be entirely happy with every position of the Agreement but everyone has to live together in peace on the island. We cannot allow a situation to develop where parties on one side or another return to the zones of the most intransigent elements of their constituencies. It was in that spirit that I said we should at least try to agree on certain points, and the Deputy has correctly taken the point I was making in that speech. It is not possible in the short-term to do something unless people respond in a voluntary way to the dynamics or lack of dynamics – as is the case this week – of the situation. Other than that, there is not anything either Government or any party can do to get movement on the arms issue on either the loyalist or republican side. On that basis, we should, at least, construct the safety ground and establish the certainty, if not that decommissioning will happen, then that guns will remain truly silent, and that people are moving on the democratic path, although slowly. I raised these issues in Washington with the parties. As the Deputy correctly anticipated, I have not had a response. However, it can be taken with certainty that we will develop these points in what we are now trying to do with the British Government.
And the all-party talks?
I think there will be quite a number of bilateral talks first. I would like to cut that circuit and get straight to the all-party talks. However, unfortunately, I am very much in the hands of what the pro-Agreement parties will settle for in this regard. Until we have some basis on which to build something, it will probably not be very productive.
(Dublin West): I want to diverge slightly from the issue of the discussions the Taoiseach had in the United States on Northern Ireland. Was he lobbied during his visit to the United States by members of the US Government, as happened before, or others on Ireland's position on a relaxation of the EU policy on genetically modified foodstuffs produced by United States multinationals? Was he lobbied on behalf of United States based biotechnology companies operating in Ireland or the EU?
The answer to all those questions is "no".
Does the Taoiseach think it is accurate to say that loyalist and republican guns are now silent, in view of the fact that guns are being used in punishments? What is the obstacle to bringing all the parties around the table together? Is it that the two Governments have not yet reached a common position on what they might put to them? Or is it that the parties themselves do not want to come together in the same room?
My view on the ceasefires is that they still hold. Deputy Bruton knows my views on punishment beatings.
And shootings?
We have seen an escalation of shootings in recent weeks. However, I believe the IRA ceasefire still holds. I condemn the attempted bombings and other attacks by dissidents, and punishment attacks by whoever. I have already deplored—
Are guns not being used and discharged in these punishments?
Guns have been used in at least one or two cases.
So they are not silent.
I do not know – and I do not know if Deputy Bruton knows – whose guns they are. I have seen the statements by the various people who have condemned them. I can only answer the question the Deputy asked me about whether the IRA ceasefire holds, which I believe it does. Some of the attacks we have seen in recent weeks, were certainly by dissident groups – some of the arrests were of dissident group members, and—
I asked about both the IRA and loyalists.
There has also been a number of loyalist killings, which seem to be more criminally related than to do with the so-called Troubles. However, I condemn all those killings. I was critical here of the Sinn Féin leadership a few weeks ago on this matter, but it has been trying hard on the ground to stop these punishment beatings and to persuade people to stop them. It was very successful in doing that six or nine months ago. I hope its influence holds. I am sure Deputy Bruton is aware that these matters are not as certain in parts of Nationalist areas as they were even a year ago.
Is the Taoiseach suggesting Sinn Féin is losing control?
The position is not as simple as it used to be, even a year ago, in some of the Nationalist areas.
Is that their admission or the Taoiseach's security information?
That is everybody's admission. I condemn all punishment beatings. On the other question – I will have a better assessment of that. The parties believe some initiatives should be developed first. We can have a round table meeting at any time as we had just a few weeks ago with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Brian Cowen. As for a meeting involving both the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair and me, or a meeting at a more substantial level, we would need more than we have currently, to warrant such a meeting.
I am not suggesting the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister of the UK should become involved but that we need dynamics in the process. If people are apart they will listen only to their own constituents who will urge them to greater intransigence. We need to rekindle a spirit of compromise. That can best be achieved where people are in the same building together for reasonably long periods of time and are required to listen to one another and to the concerns of their antagonist constituents rather than just to the concerns of their own people. A focus for dynamic in the process is currently lacking. While I fully accept that the Taoiseach should not necessarily become involved in an expectation-raising exercise with the British Prime Minister, does he agree that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, both of whom are well able to handle these matters, should be given a week together as soon as possible with all of the parties to see how much they can achieve?
I thought Deputy Bruton was talking about me and the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair having a meeting. There is no difficulty. The Secretary of Stage and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have had two meetings in recent weeks and there is no difficulty whatsoever with that. However, even when we get them all there, it does not necessarily create the dynamic.
Would the Taoiseach accept that the impression has been created, inadvertently or otherwise, since the suspension of the institutions in Northern Ireland that the firm purpose of resolve and unity that characterised the relation ship between the British and Irish Governments had somehow been relaxed, divided or reduced? Would he accept that there is an imperative for the two Governments to be clearly seen to be ad idem in their resolve to relaunch these talks and in that context the question of decommissioning remains an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement? Would he accept that while impressions may have been inadvertently given by representatives of the Irish Government that we were no longer as committed as we were in the past to decommissioning, this House regards decommissioning, along with all the other elements of the Good Friday Agreement, as an integral part of a complex and balanced set of arrangements? Can he confirm that the British and Irish Governments are working together at all levels to present a united front to relaunch these talks from the impasse in which they are currently locked?
That is definitely so, and has been all along. There were some difficulties about the 11 February position but recriminations on that are long past. We are now engaged in looking at all aspects and in coming up with what we believe will be a fair and balanced settlement, a fair accommodation, as the Good Friday Agreement is, and we can then try to win support for it from the other parties. I do not want to make it seem an enormous exercise. There are probably only ten issues outstanding, six of which require much work. We can complete our review within about ten days and then consider the position. We will come back to the same two issues. However, since we have not done an audit on the Agreement for a long time, the two Governments can complete such a document and then we can try to win support from the other parties.
Even though last Saturday might have given rise to pessimism, the view of all the parties is that the will of the people is the main issue. The will of the people is for implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It is not like any other document or any other effort over the past 30 years involved in trying to achieve peace. This time the people voted, and as I continually quote to the parties in the North, they also told me at the time that no other document in Northern Ireland had been read or questioned so closely, nor was any other so clearly understood. On the basis that over 70% of the people in the North voted for it and 96% voted for it in the South, the will of the people has to be implemented. That is what people voted for, so I cannot cherry-pick the document. It refers to all aspects and people have to implement all aspects even if some imagination and some dynamic has to be put into trying to interpret how some of those things should be done. That is what we are engaged in now.
Will the Taoiseach agree that he has provided a significant elaboration of the Government's position this afternoon in indicating that, in his view, the outstanding issues include the Patten report as well as decommissioning, and that that is a matter to be discussed between the parties? Will the Taoiseach assure the House that while these issues of policing should be discussed, it would be very difficult if the details of the Patten report were to become the subject of political negotiation, in the sense that this would create such a large number of obstacles, arising from the detail of Patten, as to make the process virtually interminable?
I have to be clear on all these matters. The section of the Good Friday Agreement dealing with policing says that an international commission should be set up. That was done and the commission has reported. We will be having discussions on that. The Irish Government's position – the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made it clear the other day – is for the implementation of the Patten Commission's report. The legislative programme has to take into account all aspects, including staffing, pensions and other issues. We want to see all of them implemented as we do all the other aspects. We are talking about the implementation of the Patten report because that is part of the Good Friday Agreement.
We must conclude Taoiseach's questions.
Surely the Taoiseach is not going to discuss that sort of detail with the political parties. If the Taoiseach is going to discuss Patten with the political parties, as he indicated earlier, surely he will be having discussions on broader issues, not on that sort of stuff.
A tentative programme for the implementation of the Patten report has been outlined. In our documents we will be endeavouring to see that the implementation programme is part of Irish and British policy. We are not getting into rewriting Patten, it is there. However, full implementation of the Patten report is what we are concerned about and that includes the dates for the legislation and its implementation.
We must now conclude Taoiseach's questions.