Austin Currie
Question:1 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent discussions with representatives of the republican movement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9932/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
Austin Currie
Question:2 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach if he will demand in his meetings with Northern Ireland political parties which have connections with paramilitary organisations that those who have been ordered out of Ireland under threat of injury or death be allowed to return; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10560/00]
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with the leader of the British Liberal Democrat Party, Mr. Charles Kennedy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9597/00]
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 31 March 2000 with the leader of the UUP, Mr. David Trimble; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9724/00]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 30 March 2000 with a delegation from Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9725/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 31 March 2000 with the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble; the matters discussed and the conclusions reached. [10381/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 31 March 2000 with the President of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams; the matters discussed and the conclusions reached. [10382/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with Mr. Charles Kennedy, leader of the British Liberal Democrat Party. [10467/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Paul Murphy, and the Welsh First Secretary, Mr. Rhodri Morgan. [10468/00]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with a delegation from the Progressive Unionist Party; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10556/00]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with a delegation from the Women's Coalition; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10557/00]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had since 5 April 2000 with the pro-Good Friday Agreement parties. [10563/00]
Trevor Sargent
Question:13 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with representatives of the Women's Coalition. [10839/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 5 April 2000 with members of the Women's Coalition of Northern Ireland. [10877/00]
Joe Higgins
Question:15 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland. [11501/00]
John Bruton
Question:16 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if, further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 1 to 5 of 11 April 2000, he will make a statement on the agreed joint position of the Irish and British Governments on a way forward in Northern Ireland; and the consultation process the Governments will have with the parties in Northern Ireland. [11694/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 16, inclusive, together.
I met Mr. Charles Kennedy MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, and Mr. Lembit Opik MP in Government Buildings on Tuesday, 28 March. We had a general discussion about the current political situation in Northern Ireland. I expressed my appreciation to them for the keen interest which they have shown in the process and I thanked them for their ongoing support for our efforts.
On Friday, 31 March, I met Mr. Paul Murphy, Secretary of State for Wales and Mr. Rhodri Morgan, First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. Our discussion centred on the potential for further developing co-operation between Ireland and Wales. We also discussed Northern Ireland related issues.
I met separately with Mr. Gerry Adams and with Mr. David Trimble on Friday, 31 March. I met with the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition on 5 April and with the Progressive Unionist Party on 6 April. On 12 April I met with the SDLP and on 13 April I met with The Workers Party. The meetings were part of an intensification of engagement with the parties in order to overcome the current difficulties.
As I have said before in this House, I condemn all attempted bombings and other attacks by dissidents as well as all so-called punishment attacks and exilings. I have consistently urged, both privately and in public, that all such activity should cease immediately. I would again acknowledge the consistent efforts that have been made in recent years to reduce the numbers of such attacks. It is clear from the experience of the past six months that such efforts can be very effective and I would hope that these ongoing efforts would intensify and we would soon see a reversal of the recent tendency towards a recurrence of such attacks. It is deplorable that punishment attacks continue to be carried out by loyalists and republicans.
I emphasise to the House that while clearly we are in a difficult situation, we continue to make considerable progress in the implementation of the Agreement. We have seen substantial reforms in the equality and human rights area. In Northern Ireland, a Human Rights Commission has been established and is now holding consultations on the possible contents of a Bill of Rights. These are huge advances. We look forward to the implementation of the proposed reforms of the police service and the criminal justice system. In this jurisdiction, the Government has enacted equality legislation. Legislation to establish a human rights commission is before this House.
All of the pro-Agreement parties recognise the need for a major fresh collective effort by all the parties to carry into operational effect the Agreement so overwhelmingly endorsed by the votes of the people of Ireland, North and South. The two Governments are working intensively with the parties to resolve the difficult issues which we face. We all recognise the critical need to move forward and achieve the full implementation of the Agreement.
The Prime Minister has judged that the time is right for him to consult again with the parties and for that reason he is visiting Belfast today. The Prime Minister will then come to Dublin where the two Governments will jointly take stock. In the light of this, we will decide how best to take matters forward with the parties in Northern Ireland.
Much valuable work has been done in recent weeks by the two Governments, but much remains to be done. In deciding how best to make progress, we have been consulting with all the parties. It is now the highest priority of both Governments to take this work forward to completion at the earliest possible date. To be successful, we clearly need the support of all sides, including a willingness on the part of all to reach out and try and create the necessary confidence.
I will concentrate on the two issues I had in mind when I tabled these questions.
I welcome the fact that some progress has been reported on the matter of the disappeared and that searches have started again since I submitted this question. However, does the Taoiseach agree that this is a matter for which no one but the republican movement can be blamed? It is not the responsibility of the British, of the Unionists or of the Northern or Southern States or police forces. Members of the republican movement murdered these people, hid their bodies, lied to their relatives and took away their reputations. Does the Taoiseach agree that it is the responsibility of the republican movement to find and return their bodies and that the republican movement should not be let off the hook in this regard?
Does the Taoiseach agree that there are other missing bodies for which the IRA has not accepted responsibility but for which it is known to be responsible? I refer to people such as Gerry Evans from south Armagh and Charlie Armstrong.
In relation to my second question regarding people who have been ordered out of Ireland under threat of injury or death, does the Taoiseach agree that while we do not know the exact number, hundreds of people have been ordered out of the country by republicans and loyalists? They have been described in the Irish News as the invisible victims of the troubles. Entire families have been forced out of Northern Ireland to relocate in England and elsewhere. It is two years since the Good Friday Agreement was signed in which at least some responsibility was placed on the paramilitaries to do something about these matters. In some respects what is happening to these individuals and their families is worse than a prison sentence. At least in prison a definite release date is given. Will the Taoiseach give an assurance that this matter and the issue of the disappeared will be pursued with the same urgency as other issues which are the responsibility of the Good Friday Agreement?
The answer to both questions is "yes". As the Deputy has continually urged me to do at Question Time, I will do all I can to try to ensure the bodies of the so-called disappeared are recovered. As he is aware, in recent months Mr. Wilson has received some new information. While the commission continues to receive information, it has been slow to act without hard facts. The generalised remarks made last year caused much trauma for the families concerned. The information provided was loose and centred on a general geographical location. Whenever the commission has received information of sub stance it has taken action. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I support such moves. The Garda Síochána has been involved. We will continue to raise the matter. I do not know how many people have been ordered out and forced into exile during the years.
Hundreds at least.
If the peace is real, the people concerned should be allowed to return to their homes. As I said to the Deputy many times, over the past five years I met some of the large number of groups campaigning on behalf of the disappeared and the exiled. I agree totally with the Deputy, it is a source of enormous trauma. They live in the slight hope that the people concerned might be alive, although they know in their hearts that it is more likely that they are dead but until their bodies are found and there is a Christian burial they will continue to suffer. I have raised the matter time and again with limited success.
I thank the Taoiseach on the extent to which he agrees with me in these matters. The republican movement has whinged about the way in which others allegedly have not lived up to their responsibilities. These are two extremely important matters on which it clearly has not lived up to its responsibilities. Does the Taoiseach agree that it should never be allowed to forget this and that these matters should be put in front of it continually in this House and elsewhere? This is the only way we will get progress on them.
There are no differences between the Deputy and I on these issues which I have raised continually. On the first of them some advances have been made but on the second few advances have been made. While the information provided on the disappeared has proved to be of some help, it has not been anything like satisfactory.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will avail of the opportunity to raise the matter in his next press conference with Gerry Adams?
Would the Taoiseach like to respond to that suggestion?
Will the Taoiseach raise the matter in his next press conference with Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness or any of the others?
When I did that last year he made a stronger statement than Deputy Currie or I. It led to some progress but not enough.
Last week in the Dáil the Taoiseach said he hoped by last weekend he would have an agreed position with the British Government on how to move towards restarting the Executive and cross-Border bodies. Was that target achieved and, if not, why not?
The work of the two Governments finished on Friday. The Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and I had a number of discussions over the weekend. In so far as we can take it, it is near complete. The only aspects outstanding are those on which we are listening to other people's views before completion. We have fairly well tied down the work between the two Governments, what we want to do as regards full implementation and where we want to bring it, but we have to deal with constitutional, criminal justice and human rights issues. The House could help by dealing with the human rights legislation which was published many months ago. I understand it will be before a committee tomorrow and it would be of enormous help if it completed it this week. We have agreed on most aspects.
The Taoiseach mentioned a number of issues, all of which are laudable but none of which are the reason for the Executive coming to an end. Have the British and Irish Governments reached an agreed position on the question that led to the suspension of the Executive?
There is no difference between the position of the British and Irish Governments. It is a question of whether we can implement what we agree on. I do not know the answer to that yet.
I know the two Governments are agreed on what they would like to happen. I presume that has been the case for many years. However, have the two Governments agreed so far on a precise way forward for dealing with the unresolved issue of the disarmament of paramilitary organisations, the failure to deliver upon which was at the heart of the suspension of the institutions? Have the two Governments an agreed way forward on that matter?
I will be as helpful as I can to the House. The two Governments have a clear view of what we agree on and the best way forward. It is not much use the two Governments setting down something if we cannot carry everyone with us. We now want to see if we can get agreement. As I said in my reply and at all stages of this Agreement, it is an inclusive process and has been for many years and the two Governments are working towards that. The only way to get success and to reach conclusions is by carrying the people and the parties with us. That is what we are endeavouring to do. I cannot answer the question as to whether we will be successful. We are down to a small number of processes that we think would lead us to full implementation of the Agreement and to deal with that issue, but we need to win support for it.
In respect of Question No. 5 which concerns the Taoiseach's meeting with Sinn Féin, has Sinn Féin put forward any suggestions or proposals on how the decommissioning question might be resolved? Has Sinn Féin addressed the issue of asking the IRA to agree to the Mitchell principles of non-violence in the same way that Sinn Féin has already agreed to them? If the IRA was to do what Sinn Féin has already done, it would then be saying that the war was over and that it was committing itself to disarmament.
We have not got the type of agreement the Deputy mentioned. However, a considerable amount of effort is being made to try to find a satisfactory way forward. Whether it is enough or can be tied down is an ongoing issue. As the British Prime Minister said in Belfast this morning, the gap between the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin still exists. There is not too much of a gap between the other parties at this stage, but it has to be bridged. What is important is how we do that. Discussions are taking place but it would damage our efforts if I gave details of the points on which they centre. We are trying to bridge the gap but there is some way to go. In recent weeks there has been a greater commitment and concentration on trying to resolve matters than there has been for months.
Does the Taoiseach agree that this is not just a question of a gap between two positions of equal value where, as a broker, one is trying to fix on a middle point of agreement? Does he agree that there is a difference between political parties signed up to principles of non-violence but who are associated with paramilitaries who have not signed up to those principles, and a normal political party with no paramilitary links? Suggesting that it is a question of trying to bridge a gap between the two is to imply that such an essential qualitative difference does not exist and that this State does not have a clear position with regard to the acceptability of parties with paramilitary links. Would the Taoiseach care to reformulate his approach other than in terms of bridging a gap which suggests a moral equivalence of position? I have no doubt this is not his view but such a formulation is open to such a misconstruction.
The Deputy is correct in his interpretation of my view. I would not wish what I said to be open to any construction other than that I support democracy and oppose violence. However, I am conscious of what we are trying to do. We are trying to carry political parties with clear paramilitary associations. We are trying to convince them once and for all that we see an end to violence, to armed conflict and to the mayhem of the past 30 years. While it is easy for me to say that, it is another thing to achieve it given all that has happened. We wish to bring movement with regard to a conclusion of such activities and not just move to a situation where someone else continues them.
We are making an effort to demonstrate what we know to be absolutely right. We will not solve all the problems we wish to solve, but we are trying to bring this conflict to an end. We have to convince those engaged in violence and who do not see things through democratic eyes that we wish to see an end to conflict. The situation is delicate. Deputy Bruton and I know that these people do not always listen to the language he and I use.
The Mitchell principles which were the start of this process are principles to which I am totally committed. As happened before in the history of this State, our efforts must be to try to get people away from the mentality of armed conflict and violence so that they end such activities in an organised and ordered way. It will not be easy to achieve this objective but that is what we are engaged in and what I am determined to try to achieve.
Has the Taoiseach received and studied the proposals on a way forward which I sent to him, the British Government and to all political parties in this House and in Northern Ireland? This proposal is based on two elements. First, the signing up to the Mitchell principles by all parties and all of the paramilitaries associated with them who have not done so and, second, a renunciation by the British Government of any intent to unilaterally suspend the Northern Ireland Executive if re-established. Has the Taoiseach considered this proposal and will he incorporate it in his thinking and his discussions with the British Government?
I have received them and I thank the Deputy for the effort put into them. We would, of course, always take them into account. In terms of what one can achieve in negotiations, it is difficult to convince others to sign up to them. Naturally, I have no difficulties with them. However, we will continue to try to reach a conclusion.
We are at the stage, once again, where we are endeavouring to find a way forward by carrying all the parties with us, in a way which is not just a recipe for further failure. I trust and thank the parties for their efforts. They have put in a considerable amount of effort over the past few weekends. We will continue to try to do that. The Irish and British Governments will sign off very quickly on our stated position and our ambitions for the future. However, we know we need to carry people with us – otherwise, we will not succeed. That is the difficult part.
I will work to secure support and agreement for a way forward, based on the proposals I have made. Naturally, I will convey any hopeful responses I get to the Taoiseach in an appropriate way.
In regard to Question No. 6, and a similar question in my name concerning the meeting with the Ulster Unionist Party, has the Taoiseach received a letter from that party concerning allegations that appeared in The Irish Times on 10 March, to the effect that information was passed to the IRA by a member of the Garda Síochána? Has the Taoiseach responded to a letter on that point from the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party? Was the matter discussed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party with the Taoiseach when they met? Has the inquiry into the matter, which was initiated by Commissioner Byrne after I wrote to him on 13 March, concluded yet?
I received a letter which I discussed with Mr. Trimble. I have replied to it and have given the information I have to date. I do not have all the information. I understand Commissioner Byrne is looking into aspects of it which were raised by the Unionists.
Does the Taoiseach agree that if suggestions were made about the passing of information by the RUC to paramilitaries, as has been the case, there would be great concern about it? To demonstrate our concern about any such allegations in the case of the RUC, we must display similar concern, publicly and privately, when such a serious allegation is made about the Garda Síochána, however loath we might be to believe such an allegation could have any truth.
Allegations of that kind are very serious and must be fully investigated. If they are found to be correct, action must be taken. We cannot have it both ways. I will not prevent the taking of any necessary action if these matters are true. However, they must be investigated.
I call Deputy O'Shea.
Could I ask—
I have called Deputy O'Shea.
Was there any indication at the Taoiseach's most recent meeting with the republican movement that it is prepared to move forward on the decommissioning issue, either before the May deadline or in the longer term? We expected last week that a document would be agreed by the two Governments on the way forward. Is that document in place? Am I correct in assuming from what the Taoiseach said earlier that his meeting with Prime Minister Blair today is more of a review meeting than a meeting with any expectation of moving the agenda, in terms of the resurrection of the institutions, substantially forward?
We have made some progress, although not enough. We will continue to endeavour to do that. I hope we will make more progress when we meet tonight. The Prime Minister wanted to take an opportunity to meet the parties. I have had an opportunity over the past month of meeting the parties, some of whom I met on two or three occasions. Not to allow any confusion, which sometimes happens in the British press when I say the republican movement, I met Sinn Féin. I have not met the movement, as it is known elsewhere. Sinn Féin is making efforts to make sure that its commitments under the Good Friday Agreement come to some fruition, and I hope they will.
(Dublin West): Would the Taoiseach agree that the overwhelming desire of people in Northern Ireland is for a lasting peace and that that desire is continually being thwarted on the one hand by paramilitary organisations, which do not have a mandate from anybody but whose existence is seen as a threat, particularly in communities of another tradition, and on the other hand by those politicians who continue to jockey for sectarian political advantage rather than putting the well being of the entire community first? Would the Taoiseach agree that if a number of elements were introduced unconditionally it would lay the basis for moving quickly beyond the present position? Would he raise with Prime Minister Blair the withdrawal of the British military machine from all areas in Northern Ireland where their presence is resented by the residents, that all paramilitary organisations should pledge that they will not threaten anybody and, in fact, that they should disband, and that there should be a move immediately to the creation of a genuine unarmed community police force working with and in alliance with all communities? Would the Taoiseach agree that if those elements were put in place we would move to an agenda where the well being of the entire community would come first?
The 2,000 firefighters in Northern Ireland have had extremely difficult and dangerous lives for the 30 years of the troubles. Their lives have been put at risk on many occasions. Today will the Taoiseach raise with Prime Minister Blair the decision by the Northern Ireland fire authority to worsen significantly the conditions of Northern Ireland firefighters by withholding the Northern Ireland allowance from new recruits and also by threatened cuts in the annual leave of firefighters, arbitrary transfer procedures and the loss of certain overtime rights? Would the Taoiseach agree that, despite the improved conditions in Northern Ireland, firefighters continue to face an extremely difficult and dangerous situation which places them in a category operating above and beyond the call of duty of other workers; and that they should not be treated in such a shabby fashion?
Whatever about the firefighters, I note what the Deputy has said. Deputy Higgins asked if I agreed that life would be better if sectarianism, paramilitaries, decommissioning and demilitarisation were all dealt with; of course I would. If we could achieve it before Easter, it would be a happy Easter. However, these are all major difficult important issues but they are the key issues which create division, mistrust, hatred, bigotry, etc.
I detect – it is useful for us to say this here – from the many groups from Northern Ireland I have met over recent weeks that, while there are still punishment beatings and some activities, all of them, both the political parties and the community and civic parties, want to emphasise that the first quarter of this year was one of the quietest. People are out and about at night, families are living normal lives again, there is quite a lift evident in economic activity and even their beleaguered tourism industry is beginning to pick up. Hopefully all those signals and messages which are evident to the community will help the respective leaders, and the two Governments who are working with them, to make the necessary final moves. The status quo can never be maintained. If progress is not being made things can slip in the other direction. The marching season is not too far off and we know the dangers attaching to this each year. Those dangers will again exist this year if we do not make political progress, and in some cases even if we do make progress those dangers will exist. We must try to continue to work with the issues as Deputy Higgins said and try to find as much agreement and progress as possible.
The issues mentioned by Deputy Higgins, including the review of policing and the Patten report, the review of the criminal justice system, equality legislation, the Ombudsman and the human rights review are taking place and are in operation. Advanced progress is being made on all these issues which has proven very useful, something activists on the ground are saying. If we could get the institutions up and working we could make considerable progress. For the institutions to be up and working progress must be made on demilitarisation on one side and decommissioning on the other.
(Dublin West): Will the Taoiseach raise the question of the firefighters since a strike ballot is unfortunately taking place?
The Taoiseach has said that to get the institutions set up and running we must have progress on demilitarisation on the one side and decommissioning on the other. Does he regard these two issues as equivalent? What exactly is he looking for in terms of demilitarisation?
Deputy Higgins said there are many places in Northern Ireland where the wishes of the communities must be listened to, communities in places such as south Armagh where 99.99% of the people are Catholic and have been seeking for many years to get some of the more obtrusive security installations removed. This is supported by all parties, including very strongly by Séamus Mallon who has the longest record in terms of fighting for this. We must have progress on this issue. There has been some progress in terms of demilitarisation, which is important. The Deputy knows my views on decommissioning.
Will the Taoiseach agree that using a phrase like "to get the institutions set up again we have got to have progress on the one hand on demilitarisation and on the other hand on decommissioning" suggests that in his eyes these two issues are on a similar plane and in some sense are equal and opposite aspects of the same problem? Is that the view he wishes to give somebody who is the head of a legitimate government which has an army under democratic control? Will he agree that to put that army, or any other army like it, on the same plane as a paramilitary group is not what one would expect him to do?
I think Deputy Bruton knows very well the difficulties with all these issues, including the arguments on demilitarisation and decommissioning. Following the Deputy's logic, he is making a grave mistake in saying that the argument for demilitarisation is only being put forward by republicans. The Deputy is entirely wrong in this regard. Demilitarisation is put forward by the entire community in these areas, including those who support the SDLP, Sinn Féin and neither party and those who do not vote. Therefore, the basis of the Deputy's argument is incorrect and fails to understand the situation in these areas.
Demilitarisation is a big issue in these communities. Thankfully, these people have now had six years of almost no activity, but they have more troops and more police and army activity than ever and this creates difficulties in communities as expressed by religious leaders. There is also much sympathy from people in other parties representing unionism. I have heard these difficulties raised by senior people in other parties. Therefore, I ask the Deputy not to put the issue in an adversarial way. He either misunderstands the issue or is trying to put it in a way which seeks to say I am trying to have an equivalence when he knows I am not. The Deputy should desist from such comments. Decommissioning must be dealt with if we are ever to succeed and, as I stated several times earlier, we will continue to try to achieve that.
Does the Taoiseach agree my concern was with the phraseology he used which clearly implied equivalence? The precise words he used had that implication. We both know one must be careful with one's choice of words and my concern was solely with that. Does he further agree that I also concur that demilitarisation is an urgent matter and that when I held his position I urged the case for demilitarisation in certain areas with the same force he has, but I do not regard it as on the same moral or political plane as decommissioning? They are two entirely different issues. Decommissioning concerns the activities of paramilitary organisations that are not under any form of democratic control whereas demilitarisation concerns winding back the mistaken and foolish activities perhaps of armies that are under democratic control. This is a different issue and it should not be seen as equivalent.
With regard to Question No. 10, when the Taoiseach met the PUP, which is associated with the Ulster Volunteer Force, a paramilitary organisation with substantial lethal capacity, some of which has been or could be used against people in this jurisdiction, did he ask Mr. Ervine if he would consider it constructive for him to ask the UVF to be the first organisation to put weapons beyond use now that we have changed our Constitution in such a fashion that it no longer contains any claim over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland to the land in which they live and, therefore, the threat which might have justified the UVF taking the view that it had to wait for the IRA to make the first move because its constitutional position vis-à-vis here was not as clear as it wished? Did the Taoiseach put the argument to the PUP that as a result of its actions in signing up to the Good Friday Agreement that is no longer the case and, therefore, the circumstances now exist in which to help resolve the issue and that the UVF should be asked to be the first to start a process of disarming and set a example rather than continuing to hide behind Gerry Adams and the IRA, as it is doing?
We have dealt with the first issue but I do not think any of these matters are equivalent.
I am happy the Taoiseach said that.
I have raised the second issue, our constitutional change, the relationship with Dublin and the atmosphere in the PUP. One of its delegation, at least, has met and explained various political changes to people in the UVF and the Red Hand Commandos whose attitude to Dublin is very different today than it was in the past for reasons such as the constitutional change and other matters. Unfortunately, I could only detect that we are unlikely to see any move by loyalist organisations until the greater picture is resolved, as they see it. They will not make any pre-emptive moves. That seems to be their position.
Does the Taoiseach agree that representatives of the PUP get an irresponsibly easy ride from everyone, both in the media and in politics, as they are able to talk in reasonable tones as if they were similar to members of the Alliance Party, people sitting in the middle trying to help everybody to agree, while they continue to be associated with a dangerous paramilitary organisation which refuses to make any move to disarm and that they are just as responsible for the current impasse as Sinn Féin or the IRA? While I would be the last person in this House to sympathise with Sinn Féin, it is unfair that all the emphasis is on what Sinn Féin cannot get the IRA to deliver when the failure of David Ervine to get the UVF to deliver a single bullet to General de Chastelain is just as irresponsible.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the associate of the Ulster Democratic Party, the UDA, has stated that it accepts the Mitchell principles on non-violence? While it has accepted that there should be disarmament and punishment beatings should cease, it has not commenced a process of disarmament, even though it agreed it would do so two years ago when it accepted the Mitchell principles. The UDA continues to perpetrate punishment beatings and shootings in direct defiance of the sixth Mitchell principle.
Does the Taoiseach agree that these loyalist politicians are hypocrites who are being given the easiest of rides by the media and everyone else? Now that we have amended the Constitution, they should be asked to decommission to help us to get the IRA to do what it should have done long ago.
In relation to Question No. 9, arising from the Taoiseach's meeting with the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh First Secretary, have any joint initiatives arisen in the fields of language, culture, economics or elsewhere?
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach often makes representations to the British Government on the plight of sections of the community in Northern Ireland, particularly cross-community groups. Why is the Taoiseach reluctant to give me an assurance that he will raise the difficulties faced by a cross-community group of workers, the fire-fighters, with the British Prime Minister? Their union said that since the assembly was suspended it has no democratic authority to which it can address its problems. Will the Taoiseach give me an assurance that he will raise the matter?
While it is true that progress has not been made with arms, I am not here to defend any particular organisation. People like David Adams, Gary McMichael, David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson face a difficult task in their communities, steering paramilitaries and those involved in other violent activities away from violence and maintaining the ceasefire. To be fair, we should acknowledge the work they have done. However, that does not detract from the fact that there has not been any movement on arms.
There was an enormous amount of progress with the North/South bodies. In December we agreed work programmes for this year with the Welsh on e-commerce and education. When Mr. Paul Murphy and Mr. Rhodri Morgan were here two weeks ago they met a number of Ministers and made progress in these areas. There is not the same activity as there would be if the North/South bodies were still in effect but there are work programmes and many useful projects where we can exchange information to each other's benefit.
I am anxious not to get into industrial relations with which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers must deal. If I get an opportunity tonight I will mention to the Secretary of State that the issue was raised in the House, although I am not familiar with the details.
Would it be possible for Question No. 9 to be allowed again? It deals with bi-lateral relations between Ireland and Wales and I respectfully suggest that it should not have been grouped with the other questions because it concerns a different and important dimension of cross-channel relations with Wales. I ask that if a question is submitted about the Taoiseach's meeting with Rhodri Morgan, which is something worth following up in its own right, it will not be ruled out of order as a repeat because no such subject matter was reached today.
It is a little hypothetical but if the Deputy resubmits it—
Rhodri Morgan is someone I know very well and I would like to ask questions. He can do a lot for Ireland.
That will be taken into consideration when deciding whether the question should be repeated. We will consider the matter.
Thank you.