Vol. 517 No. 6
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will consider the reactivation of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to help fill the political vacuum created by the suspension of the institutions in Northern Ireland and with a view to finalising outstanding reports; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6811/00]
2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the independent North-South consultative forum envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement will be established; if it is possible to establish it in the absence of the Northern Executive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7995/00]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to reconvene the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8772/00]
4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the discussions he has had with the British Government regarding the establishment of the independent consultative forum to be appointed by the two Administrations provided for in paragraph 19 of Strand Two of the Good Friday Agreement; if it is intended to proceed with the forum; if so, the form it will take; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8832/00]
5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to reconvene the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. [9931/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
In replies to previous questions over the past two years or so on the possibility of convening further meetings of the forum, I indicated that, while this is a matter for the chairperson of the forum and the parties participating in it, the Government would be open to one or more such meetings if this seemed likely to advance progress in the political and peace processes and if support for this course of action was the predominant tendency among the participants in the forum. I also indicated that, since the last meeting of the forum on 5 December 1997, the predominant tendency on the part of the forum participants was to concentrate their time and energy on, first, the negotiation and, subsequently, the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. As I indicated in my reply to questions previously, the latter remains the focus of the Government's policy and efforts. In that context, I envisage there will be further round table meetings of the pro-Agreement parties, such as took place earlier in the current process of intensive consultations. I have arranged with the chairperson of the forum for soundings with parties participating in the forum, as to their views on an early meeting. The strongly preponderant view is that it would not be opportune to hold a meeting at this time.
If there were to be a change of opinion in favour of such meetings, this could provide a context in which consideration could be given, perhaps by the co-ordinating committee of the forum, to finalising outstanding reports of the forum. The draft reports involved were comments of the forum on two consultancy reports which were published in 1995 and a draft report of the forum's sub-committee on obstacles in the South to reconciliation. It may be doubtful as to what would be the value now of finalising comments on studies published almost five years ago.
The draft report of the obstacles sub-committee is in a different category, as it represented the primary follow-up on the undertaking given by my predecessor, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, in paragraph 6 of the Downing Street Declaration of 15 December 1993. However, while the preparation of the sub-committee's report was well advanced at the time, early in 1996, when forum meetings were deferred, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge in the meantime in regard to the matters dealt with in the draft report. Thus, if the broad issue were to be taken up again, it might not be a matter of finalising a report but rather of a very substantial reconsideration of the issues and extensive redrafting of the report.
There have also been calls, in the context of current efforts to overcome obstacles to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, to take forward establishment of the civic forum in Northern Ireland and the possible independent North-South consultative forum, as envisaged in the agreement. The relevant provisions of the latter involve roles for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland and for the Northern Ireland Administration. However, if it were felt to be helpful in the absence of other institutions, the Government would be open to proceed with some form of civic consultation arrangements.
In previous replies to the House, I have said that in the context of implementation of the agreement proceeding successfully, the Govern ment would envisage that the role played by the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation would be discharged by the joint parliamentary forum and North-South consultative forum, envisaged in paragraphs 18 and 19 of strand two of the agreement.
A Cheann Comhairle, I welcome you back to the House after your recent bereavement.
Was the Fianna Fáil Party one of the parties that indicated to the chairperson of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation that it was against reconvening the forum? My understanding is that the Labour Party and other parties were very much in favour of the forum being reconvened. If it is a question that the Fianna Fáil Party was against reconvening the forum, could the Taoiseach indicate why?
As the Taoiseach rightly said, the work of the obstacles sub-committee is now five years old. Does he believe that now, more than ever, there is a need for that document to be completed and, of necessity, updated as well?
In respect of both questions, first, is the Fianna Fáil Party, as a political party, in favour of reconvening the forum? I am not referring to the Taoiseach as the head of Government, because this is an inter-party matter. Second, does the Taoiseach think that, in light of the difficulties that are currently ongoing in Northern Ireland, there is now a more pressing need than before to have the obstacles sub-committee rewrite or add to the draft report which it had virtually completed?
The Fianna Fáil Party's view, if I can answer for the Fianna Fáil Party, is that it would go along with whatever was the general view of other parties, and particularly—
On a point of order, maybe I did not put the question very well. I did not ask the Taoiseach if he would go along with the point of view of other parties. Was his own party in favour of or against reconvening the forum?
I will answer the question in another way. The Fianna Fáil view is to listen to what other parties have to say, particularly parties in Northern Ireland. If they had said "yes", Fianna Fáil would have been quite happy to go along with it.
How could the Taoiseach know?
Because the parties were checked. Fianna Fáil has had a number of meetings with the parties.
The Taoiseach's reply suggests that the decision to reconvene the forum is a matter for the chairperson.
Exactly.
Is he indicating that he conveyed to the chairperson the views of other parties or the view of the Fianna Fáil Party? Or did the Fianna Fáil Party itself have a view, independently of what other parties' views might be?
Deputy Quinn seems to be a bit excited about the answer. Fianna Fáil continually, as a party, meets the parties in the North. It has had a number of such meetings recently and this issue has come up several times. It is the view of the parties in the North and a number of parties in the South too that there would no purpose in having the forum meet at this stage. If the parties in the North were to change that view, parties here, particularly the Fianna Fáil Party, would be very happy to change its view. We are relaxed on whether the forum meets or not.
But if the Fianna Fáil Party does not have a view?
Our view is that we would like to go along with what would be best for the parties in the North—
From behind?
—who take the pressures. That is our point. It is not the Fianna Fáil view that we should force the chairperson in any way to call a meeting with the parties in the North who do not want it.
I want to pursue a different aspect.
Obviously the Fianna Fáil Party does not have a view of its own.
The Taoiseach is not responsible to the Dáil for the actions or statements of the Fianna Fáil Party.
In the light of revelations from other places, he is very lucky. My second question to the Taoiseach concerns the obstacles sub-committee and the report it was likely to complete if the forum was to be reconvened.
As I said, that report is in a different category from the others. It came out of section 6 of the Joint Declaration of 15 December and was intended to try to take account of recognitions of the fears of the Unionist community. As a token of willingness to make a personal contribution to building up that necessary trust, the Taoiseach will examine with his colleagues any elements in the democratic life and organisation of the Irish State that can be represented to the Irish Government and of course political dialogue. That work was to try to deal with those kinds of obstacles. There is some merit in that because it is important in the long-term anyway. The report was done in draft terms. We should continue to look at that but we cannot do it without the forum.
But did the Fianna Fáil Party—
I am not allowed to answer that during Question Time. Deputy Quinn asked that the chairperson be asked repeatedly to consult with the parties. Through the secretariat that was done. I had no discussions with the chairperson myself but the secretariat tell me that they checked with all the parties. There were a few parties who thought that the forum should be reconvened but the majority did not.
We will explore that issue.
I ask the Taoiseach if the British and Irish Governments have yet agreed on a common approach on what is to be done now following the suspension of the Executive and the institutions with a view to finding a basis urgently to have them put back in place.
That is covered in the later questions. This was just on the forum.
This matter concerns the vacuum which is referred to with regard to the possibility of establishing a civic forum. The civic forum is not to be established at this stage because the Taoiseach has said that there is a First Minister and no Deputy First Minister in place. Arising from that lacuna in the arrangements, I put my question. Deputy Quinn's questions about the forum are tabled because there is a political vacuum arising from the absence of an Executive, about which I am asking.
My question is in order, the Ceann Comhairle allowed me to put it and the Taoiseach should answer. I will put it again. Have the Irish and British Governments yet reached an agreed common joint Government decision on what should be done now in the wake of the suspension of the Executive to have the institutions restarted? Second, does the Taoiseach agree that this is now a matter of the gravest urgency in view of the organised spate of punishment beatings and shootings which are designed by paramilitaries to send, in the most macabre form possible through the severed limbs of individuals, a signal that they are unhappy and restless?
The Irish and British Governments continue to try to find a joint way forward. We have had a number of meetings at official level and a number of contacts at political level which we are continuing today and tomorrow. We hope by the weekend to have finalised our joint position, not that there is any particular difficulty with any point. Needless to say, there are a number of outstanding issues in the Good Friday Agreement, though it should be easy to come to a common position on most of them, but then there are the ones that continually create difficulties, which are well known. We must try to find a way we can usefully put that and win the support of other pro-Agreement parties to overcome the obstacles and resurrect the institutions in order to get on with politics. I do not think we are at a stage yet where we have that formula and we know that from our knowledge of the stated positions of parties in the discussions we have had with them at round table level and bilaterally over the past two or three weeks.
As a result of their deliberations, which the Taoiseach hopes will conclude by this weekend, will the two Governments publish any statement of their joint understanding of the best way forward?
No, I do not think we will. We will endeavour to have an agreed position between the two Governments and I am determined that we will do that. We will then consult all the other parties on their views and see if we can win support for that position. That is a difficult task, particularly at this time when there are strongly held views within those parties. We may agree on a position, but publishing that without consultation with the parties would probably prove very unhelpful, rather than helpful, to the process. Ultimately, if this gets anywhere, our proposals would probably see the light of day, but not in the shorter-term.
Notwithstanding the non-publication of the position they hope to agree, will the two Governments put this position in writing between themselves so that there will be a written document in existence? Even if it is not publicly known it could state in unambiguous terms what the two Governments have agreed.
In the cases of the multi-party talks, the negotiations for the Good Friday Agreement, the implementation bodies and the North-South bodies, all these matters were in writing. Of course, that does not stop people from having different interpretations later of what was said.
Does the Taoiseach agree that part of the lesson of previous negotiations is that if a piece of paper with all the material is not available to all participants, the absence of such a document facilitates misinterpretation?
I take that in the spirit in which Deputy Bruton says it. Of course it is, if he accepts that even in the case of having such a document, as in the Good Friday Agreement, that does not stop the interpretation from being entirely different. However, I agree it should be written.
Does the Taoiseach accept the concerns of many people who voted overwhelmingly for the Good Friday Agreement that in the period of eight weeks since the suspension of the institutions in February the two Governments have not appeared capable of agreeing a joint document, as the Taoiseach said? The other parties which were party to the Good Friday Agreement, which negotiated substantially in public and reported in public, have been marginalised to the point that no multi-party talks are being convened, North or South, on any agenda put forward by the two Governments. Does the Taoiseach share my concerns and those of many citizens of both states on this island that it behoves both Governments to put the process of negotiation and conciliation back on public track without delay? Will the Taoiseach explain why, following a lapse of eight weeks, no joint position has been agreed between the two Governments? How does he expect cross-party support from this side of the House if the doors of consultation are slammed shut?
I would be disappointed if that was Deputy Quinn's view.
I asked the Taoiseach how does he expect cross-party support.
I am not only referring to the last question. After the suspension of the institutions, the parties had no will to engage in bilateral or multilateral talks. A strong position was taken by both sides and many parties on the status of the suspension in discussions with both Governments. The talks which ultimately led to the Good Friday Agreement, after the conclusion of the strands talks, were not in the public domain. The conclusions and final discussions two years ago were not in the public domain then or at any other time. This was not the way the parties wanted to do business.
I hope the Irish and British Governments would have no difficulty finalising a joint approach. However, we are conscious that we should be not only doing this but trying to carry all the pro-Agreement parties with us. We must focus on their concerns as best we can. Whatever we agree, we must try to pitch a compromise which will carry all the parties with us. We could draft a document that would satisfy both Governments, but depending on which way it was worded, we would know which party would not participate. That is not what we are engaged in. It is not just a question of putting the views of both Governments down on paper. I have many solutions to this problem, but unfortunately neither party is in agreement at any given time. I think the British Prime Minister is in exactly the same position, as are the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and Secretary of State Mandelson.
For the past three or four weeks we have been endeavouring to see how far all parties can stretch their constituencies and use their initiative to find a compromise that will resolve the difficulties which have bedevilled the process for some time and enable us to bring forward a paper which would win the support of the pro-Agreement parties. That is difficult to do. I ask Deputy Quinn to support this process and not any other.
Does the Taoiseach agree that a small part of the current problem is the perception among many of the parties that the two Governments are not on the same road, derived from briefings on behalf of the Irish Government against the recent decisions of the Secretary of State which resulted in some retaliation? That is now in the past and nothing can be done about it. However, does the Taoiseach agree that the two Governments must not only adopt a joint position but that in order to provide stability in a difficult situation, they must be seen to adopt an explicit joint position so there is none of the fracturing which tends to occur if they are not perceived to be on the same road?
I take it from the Taoiseach's previous reply that while the two Governments are capable of arriving at a joint position, they are reluctant to do so until bilateral negotiations are held with some of the other parties. Is a joint position representing no more than four parties, including both Governments and two other parties at loggerheads, being negotiated before an internal joint position is presented to the other parties? Is that a fair and accurate interpretation of the Taoiseach's answer?
It is not a fair or accurate interpretation. In the past ten days I have met the following parties. – the UUP, the SDLP whom I will meet again tomorrow and whom I have met several times and the Alliance Party. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has met the Alliance Party. I met the PUP and I met the Women's Coalition. Therefore, all of the parties are as up to date as I am. Sometimes they are more up to date because they meet each other more regularly than we meet them. There is a good relationship. They exchange information on each other's positions. They do not agree, but they exchange information. Therefore, there is not anybody being left out. The only one who I have not formally met in the past ten days is Mr. Gary McMichael of the UDP, who we like to keep posted on what is happening. The UDP, although not represented in the Assembly, is still a member of the pro-Agreement parties. We will continue to make sure it is kept posted.
I would like to feel that we had a document which was all but finished. I hope to achieve that by the weekend, but it is not at that stage yet. There will be further meetings tomorrow with the British Government.
On Deputy Bruton's question, the Government was extremely restrained regarding the issues of 11 February and I continue to be so. In so far as there was briefing, any briefing we would have done would have been mild compared with that of the Secretary of State, but that is his right – I have no difficulty with him.
Was it an illegal act?
As the Deputy will be aware and as I have said many times before, my advice was that what he did was not in line with our constitutional position.
Was it illegal?
I do not want to use that word, but it was not in line. Deputy Bruton would be right if he criticised me if I did not make my strong views clear to both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. However, I did so and just a few days later I went to London to do it, where I said it straight to the two gentlemen. That was the fair thing to do.
Since then, I have not engaged in any actions on this issue because that would be futile. As far as I am concerned, the Secretary of State Mr. Mandelson is there and is doing his best in a difficult situation. I have no difficulty working and getting on with him. As far as I am concerned, I just want to find a resolution and so does he. Whatever happened between 11 and 14 or so of February, it happened, end of story. It has been that way since and it will remain so.
However, Deputy Bruton is quite correct. It is vitally important that the positions of the Irish and British Governments remain as close as possible. It is not always possible because of the nuances, but they should remain as close as possible. I will do my utmost to achieve that.
Why did the Government appear to be so surprised and angry at the decision to make the suspension in view of the fact that this had been signalled in legislation which had been passed in Westminster a full week previously? How come the Government was not active at that stage rather than afterwards in expressing anger after the event?
Has the Taoiseach considered the issue of what would have happened in terms of the difficulties of reinstatement if the resignations had gone ahead, as the Taoiseach would have apparently preferred, rather than the suspension? Is it not the case that if resignation had occurred, there would have had to have been an affirmative vote of the Assembly to reinstate Mr. Séamus Mallon and Mr. David Trimble, they were at least two members shy on the Unionist side and, therefore, the reinstatement could not have occurred? Is it not the case in contrast that however unpalatable it was that in the case of suspension there was no need for an affirmative vote of the Assembly to reinstate the Executive, and this could be done by executive fiat; and that that choice was taken to avoid a vote which would not have been carried to allow the option of reinstating the Executive? Where is that analysis incorrect? If the Taoiseach cannot tell me where it is incorrect, can he explain to me how the Government came to be angry about what was, it would appear, an unpalatable inevitability?
Deputy Bruton ended his last contribution by saying the issues of 11 February should be left in the past and that we should not go on about them. He then proceeded to ask me a long question about those events. I do not want to be argumentative in any way about this, either inside or outside the House. Deputy Bruton asked a fair question. I made the position known to the British Government. I went as far as explaining the position and giving it a fair briefing of what the Attorney General's advice was in advance of meeting Mr. Trimble, at its suggestion although I was going to meet him anyway, to explain to him precisely what the advice was and of arranging for his adviser to meet the Attorney General prior to the events so he would be aware of this and other issues which it would not be helpful to discuss now.
I went to enormous lengths in this regard. For that reason we kept pressing Sinn Féin to give an updated position which I knew was on the way, but which was very slow in coming. I do not want to go back on events in this regard, but it is known that we spent 11 days trying to get this updated position. We tried to explain to Sinn Féin that it was important a second de Chastelain report was presented, and Members know the story of how this was delivered in the middle of the night and how it changed the position. During those days the position of the Government was that a review without a suspension was possible and that was almost achieved, although that is now history and there is no point in talking about it. That was our preferred position and a real option which could have been pursued.
Will the Taoiseach indicate how a review without a suspension could work? If matters are in review how can they continue as if they were not in review?
There is no difficulty in reviewing something in this regard. There was a difficulty over a certain matter, not over the operation of the institutions. In our view and in the view of many others, the institutions could have continued to operate while the issue and the second paper were further explored. That did not happen, it is water under the bridge and I am not arguing about it. However, it could have happened.
Will the Taoiseach agree that we do not want to revisit the history of the events of 11 February? However, the interpretation of those events, understandably and in a very real sense, affects the near future. I want clarification from the Taoiseach in respect to the assertion repeatedly made by the president of Sinn Féin on behalf of that party and the republican movement that the actions taken by the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, to suspend the institutions rather than face the possibility of the resignation, which was the clear alternative, were illegal. Will the Taoiseach say the action taken by Mr. Mandelson was not illegal? We need clarity on this, and I know the Taoiseach hates clarity. A major party in the peace process is stating that one bona fide party, one of the two Governments, engaged in an illegal act and we need to know the view of the other Government in this regard. In the view of the Taoiseach was the act illegal?
I will answer questions the way I want to and the Deputy will not pick a way to say things and tell me I have to say yes or no. The Deputy has endeavoured to do that a number of times today, but I will not do so. We had a constitutional position which I explained and previously put on the record of the House. We explained it to the British Government, Mr. Trimble and others. I know other constitutional lawyers circulated their views to Deputy Bruton and others, and they can have their own interpretations. It creates a constitutional difficulty. In the British view it was quite legal because they do not have a written constitution, and an Act of Parliament supersedes whatever is in place on the day. From their point of view, therefore, what they did was quite legal but it created a difficulty for us. This is Ireland, not Britain, and we have a Constitution—
Therefore, the Secretary of State did not act illegally within his powers.
No, because his position relates to whatever Act supersedes it but he was party to an agreement with us and the North-South bodies and other institutions were set up with us. The Irish Government's view, therefore, should have been taken into account but it was not and that was the argument.
So it was not an illegal act?
That was the argument on 11 February.
My legal advice, which I obtained separately, is that the suspension, although regrettable and a drastic step, was not contrary to our Constitution but, obviously, these are matters of opinion between lawyers.
Absolutely.
They are not black and white matters and I have no doubt that the Taoiseach's advice was given with the best of integrity. I do not reflect on the persons who gave it to him but people of equal integrity have given me the opposite advice.
Leaving that aside because it is unresolvable, does the Taoiseach agree that there were political realities in terms of reinstatement which would not have been facilitated by resignation and that an alternative to resignation was desirable, given that the paper containing the resignations was in the hands of one individual who was about to meet Lord Alderdice in order to hand it over to him, if he is to be believed – I believe he is to be believed having met the gentleman in question – and that created a situation which was very difficult in practical terms?
Would it be helpful to the process at this stage if the Taoiseach would at least express in the House comprehension of the decision that was taken so that we can ask the British in turn to express comprehension of the Irish Government's difficulties with that decision in order that we can move on and put behind us the mischievous briefing of one Irish newspaper by one official, apparently acting on behalf of the Government?
The Deputy asked me whether I knew anything about that issue in February and I said that I did not. I am not quite sure what we are doing here on 11 April still talking about it since it was discussed two months ago, but if it is of benefit—
Somebody spoke to the journalist in question. He did not make it up.
I did not and neither did any of my press office staff.
The journalist in question said it was somebody from the Government.
It did not come from my press office. I cannot speak for the entire system although I wish I could at times, but the Deputy is aware that is not possible. I assure the House that there is no difficulty—
The Taoiseach is ultimately responsible for the system.
I accept that I am responsible for all public servants and everything they do under the 1927 Act. I understand responsibilities but I cannot control them.
The Taoiseach accounts in the House for that.
I accept that. However, there is no difficulty—
That is why the Taoiseach is paid more than the rest of us.
I also accept that.
Although I do not know for how long.
I will not relate money to responsibility. However, I assure the Deputy that there is no difficulty on this issue. I have not discussed this issue since approximately 18 February with Prime Minister Blair, Peter Mandelson Mr. Trimble or anyone else. It is long since off the agenda although other people have gone on about what did or did not happen in regard to the suspension. Resignation would have been entirely unhelpful but that is why the review mechanism has kept things going. It could have worked and I do not blame anyone for that because more than one person was needed to help it. Unfortunately, on the day through a series of meetings it did not fall right, but I will not go into that now. The history books will record what happened on that day better than I would relate it, but having a review nearly worked.
When was the review without suspension option first canvassed?
The review without suspension option, in one form or another, was around since before Christmas—
I did not hear about it in all the briefings given to me.
—but it did not work.
I had many briefings; that was not mentioned.
