John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 18 April 2000 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12383/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the issues other than those relating to Northern Ireland which he discussed with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in Dublin on 18 April 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12384/00]
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has replied in full to the letter he received from the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble, regarding allegations that members of the Garda Síochána acted as informers for the IRA; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12385/00]
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the official engagements he undertook on his visit to London on 20 April 2000. [12649/00]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with church leaders on policy issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12677/00]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent discussions with the Deputy Leader of the SDLP, Mr. Seamus Mallon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12679/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting in Dublin on 18 April 2000 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [12743/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting in London on 20 April 2000 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair. [12744/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the contacts or discussions he has had with the political parties in Northern Ireland since 19 April 2000; if he will give his assessments based on these contacts for the prospects of the re-establishment of the Executive in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12746/00]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the joint meeting he and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, had with Northern Ireland political parties in Downing Street on 2 May 2000. [12747/00]
Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach to make a statement on last week's talks with the British Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland political parties; and the progress, if any, made towards the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and institutions. [12809/00]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meetings between the British Government and the pro-Agreement parties on 2 May 2000. [12813/00]
John Bruton
Question:13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London on 2 May 2000 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, and the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12816/00]
John Bruton
Question:14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Northern Ireland on 3 May 2000 and on the meetings he held there. [12817/00]
Joe Higgins
Question:15 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, and the political parties in Northern Ireland. [12819/00]
John Bruton
Question:16 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Northern Ireland on 4 May 2000; the result of his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; his discussions with parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12937/00]
John Bruton
Question:17 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the current round of talks involving the Irish and British governments and the parties in Northern Ireland. [12938/00]
John Bruton
Question:18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the communications he or any of his officials have had with the White House concerning a visit by President Clinton to Ireland before he completes his term of office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13382/00]
Trevor Sargent
Question:19 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the British Prime Minister and Northern Ireland political parties; and the progress which has been made in restoring the Northern Ireland Executive and institutions. [13658/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, together.
Following the meetings referred to by Deputies and numerous other meetings, I wish to report to the House some very significant developments. I have laid before the House a statement issued by both Governments on Friday, 5 May and a letter to the parties in Northern Ireland sent by both Governments on Saturday, 6 May. The statement by both Governments on Friday, 5 May, was responded to by the IRA on Saturday, 6 May. The British Prime Minister and I welcomed the IRA statement and announced that, following consultations with the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland, and Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa, former Secretary-General of the African National Congress, had agreed to head the recurrent inspections of a number of IRA weapons dumps, as set out in the IRA statement.
Following intensive discussions and negotiations, we have secured a map for the comprehensive implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. As the Governments indicated in their statement, subject to a positive response to what we have proposed, the Secretary of State Mr. Mandelson plans to sign an order to enable the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Executive to be restored by 22 May next, the second anniversary of the referendums that overwhelmingly endorsed the Agreement.
Deputies will be familiar with the background to the situation. In my statement to this House on 15 February, following the suspension of the institutions, I expressed my disappointment at what had transpired, but I pledged that we would dedicate ourselves to ensuring the earliest possible restoration of the institutions, so that the progress we had all welcomed could be built upon and developed. In the period of their suspension the institutions have been sorely missed and commentators and politicians on all sides have expressed the need for local, inclusive and accountable governance in Northern Ireland and for the effective operation of the North-South institutions. Senior political figures from Wales and Scotland have looked forward to the activation of the British-Irish Council.
Few anticipated the progress achieved in the time when the institutions were in place. We have now regained the opportunity to build on that work and to re-establish the basis that will allow democratic politics to flourish.
Above all, the progress we have made allows us to fulfil the democratic wishes of the people as expressed in the referendums, North and South, following the successful negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement. The people voted then in overwhelming numbers for a new beginning, a new future. In this process there cannot be winners and losers because that is only storing up trouble for the future. We have now, the potential for a win win situation but the opportunity must be grasped. The prize in our grasp is bigger than the individual concerns of any party.
It is the obligation of all democrats to ensure that the violence of the past is firmly put behind us and that we achieve a new way forward. In this regard, the IRA statement of Saturday, 6 May, is highly significant. I have always said the IRA ceasefires and the ceasefires of loyalist paramilitary organisations have made a crucial contribution to the search for peace. Now, the commitment by the IRA, as set out in its statement, to resume contact with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning; to initiate a process to completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum public confidence; and the agreement to put in place a confidence-building measure to confirm that weapons are secure are all immensely positive developments. Furthermore, the IRA repeated in the statement that there is not a threat to the peace process from it and that it saw a political context "in which Irish republicans and unionists can, as equals, pursue our political objectives peacefully". All of this represents a significant and historic advance on the part of the republican movement.
We also look to early commitments by the loyalist paramilitary organisations. I would like to express my warm appreciation to Mr. Martti Ahtisaari and Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa, both of whom are widely respected international figures for agreeing to undertake the inspections.
The issue of decommissioning had been a persistent challenge, which had to be addressed satisfactorily. It would be a serious mistake if other matters were to overshadow the achievement of what has been accomplished. It was also critical that we address issues around the implementation of other aspects of the Agreement. This has now been done over a range of outstanding issues. For our part, we stand ready to offer whatever clarification the parties consider helpful. With regard to security, the British Government will progressively take all the necessary steps to secure as early as possible a move to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland consistent with the level of threat at the time. The statements of the weekend before last have been highly significant and, in response, the British Government will take further substantial normalisation measures by June 2001. A number of important measures in this regard were announced last week, which I warmly welcome. We will continue to oppose with resolute and determined action any group that uses or threatens violence to disrupt this process and we will take whatever measures are necessary to do so.
We have a timetable for the implementation of the Patten report and the criminal justice system and yesterday saw the publication of the policing Bill. The need for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland is central to the Agreement. It is in the interests of all in Northern Ireland that the police service be able to function fully and freely in all areas and across all communities. People from both communities want to be able to give unqualified support to the police service and want police men and women to be made welcome in every home.
The publication of the police Bill yesterday was another step on the road to implementing the Patten Commission recommendations. However, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated, there are some issues that give cause for concern and need to be addressed during the legislative process. At the end of the day, what is essential is that the SDLP and Sinn Féin be in a position, for the first time, to encourage young Nationalists and republicans to join the Northern police service. To do this, the legislation needs to deliver a police service which will be acceptable in every town and village in Northern Ireland. Both the British and Irish Governments are fully committed to this, and I am convinced that any difficulties can be satisfactorily resolved.
It is also in everyone's interest that the criminal justice system delivers a fair and impartial service, is responsive to the needs and concerns of both communities and has the confidence of the public to deliver an efficient and effective service.
With regard to rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity, incorporation of the EHCR into British and Irish domestic law will take effect from October 2000. This will require legislation in this jurisdiction. As Deputies will be aware, the Human Rights Commission Bill is before the Oireachtas and the Irish Commission on Human Rights will be established in July 2000, so that the Joint Committee of both Human Rights Commissions required under the Agreement will, therefore, be established by the end of July. The British Government will ratify the Council of Europe Charter on Regional or Minority Languages by September and significant measures relating to the Irish language will also be taken.
It is now up to all of us to ensure that the restoration of all of the institutions provided for in the Agreement becomes a reality. I call on the pro-Agreement parties to respond positively to recent developments. I also urge all those in civic society, who have done so much to support the process from the start, to once again lend their support. Some have already done so. I welcome in particular the statements by the two Primates and by the Group of 7 in Northern Ireland. We have a unique opportunity to pursue democratic politics constructively, for the betterment of everyone on this island and on these islands. We have the opportunity to build trust between parties and between communities. We have the opportunity to work together for the sake of all our futures. The alternative would only play into the hands of those who seek a return to confron tation and mutual distrust. It is only in that atmosphere that extremism and violence can flourish.
I pay tribute to all of those who have worked so hard in recent weeks. The Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, my colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Attorney General, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, all of the pro-Agreement parties and officials of both Governments, who worked tirelessly and intensively on this process and continue to do so. I also pay tribute to the smaller parties, the Alliance Party, the Women's Coalition, the PUP and UDP for their constructive contributions. I thank Deputies in this House and the leaders of the other parties for their assistance. Once again President Clinton and his Administration have been unstinting in their support, including through the issuing of statements after the Government's statement of Friday, 5 May and the IRA statement of Saturday, 6 May.
The result of all of our efforts is that real progress was made at Hillsborough. The story of this process to date has been one of an historic achievement being followed by a period of frustration. The reality, however, is that we now have the potential to move to a new phase of exciting political development and economic and social progress within a framework that can deliver true equality. To realise this, everyone in positions of leadership must show the courage to seize this opportunity.
Apart from the ongoing formal and informal contacts with political representatives, the Government endeavours to keep in touch with the broadest possible spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland. In this regard, I and my office continue to avail of the good services of individual clergy and community leaders to help further the cause of peace, stability and reconciliation. They have an important role to play and I have always valued their support, as on this occasion. However, I have not had any formal meetings with church leaders recently.
On 13 April the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, in reply to priority questions, said that the Garda Commissioner had asked a senior officer to investigate the allegations that had been made about gardaí in relation to a number of murders. I replied to the letter I received from Mr. David Trimble on the matter on 14 April and I conveyed this information to him.
There have been no discussions to date about a possible visit to Ireland by President Clinton.
Has the inquiry by the Garda Commissioner into the possible passage of information by a member of the force to the IRA yet been concluded? Will the Taoiseach indicate the exact parts of the policing Bill as published and now before the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, to which he has objection? Will he identify in specific terms the problems he sees? In regard to the IRA statement that it will put arms beyond use, does the Taoiseach understand that to mean that each weapon would be rendered physically incapable of use or, simply maintained in some place where it is intended that nobody would allow it to be used?
In reply to the first question, my understanding is that those investigations are ongoing. In reply to the second question, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed out last night, we have particular concerns. We have done an analysis of the Bill over night. We have concerns about the provisions relating to structures of accountability, that is, the policing board and the ombudsman, and particularly their power to initiate inquiries as clearly envisaged in the Patten report. We have also concerns about the membership of the policing boards and the district policing partnerships that they should be representative of the broadest possible cross-section of the community as detailed by the Patten report. In respect of the human rights aspects, we are concerned about the contents and scope of application of the oath. They are the main areas. We have a number of other questions and concerns about the legislation, which we documented. As stated in my reply I think they can be satisfactorily dealt with. The Bill was published yesterday afternoon but already we have an 11 page detailed list of concerns from the SDLP and a three page list of concerns from Sinn Féin. Those lists will be extended enormously.
To reply to the third question, my understanding of the position is that the arms will be in dumps and a number of these will be inspected, as stated in the IRA statement. They will be secured and inspected on an ongoing basis. The operations of this will be worked out by Mr. Martti Ahtisaari and Mr. Cyril Ramaphosa in conjunction with General John de Chastelain and his commission. The move from secure dumps to destruction of weapons on another, unspecified day, would also be regularly monitored in the remit that will be extended to General John de Chastelain and I hope the task will be worked through successfully over time.
What will happen to the arms in the dumps that are not to be inspected? What control would there be over their use? Is there any assurance that punishment beatings involving the use or the threat of the use of IRA weapons will not continue? Does the Taoiseach consider that the use of IRA weapons and the possible discharge thereof in the course of punishment beatings or shootings represents a breach of the ceasefire? Will he indicate approximately what proportion of the total of IRA dumps he expects will be inspected? Does he expect it will be a number that constitutes about half, most or less than half? What exactly are his concerns about the contents of the oath to be administered to members of the new Northern Ireland police service? To which aspects of the oath does the Irish Government object? What problems has he with the proposals in regard to representation on the police boards? What precise changes would he envisage on the boards? What groups does he believe should have reduced representation to allow the additional representation that he is presumably seeking?
I do not want to get into second guessing the work that will be undertaken by the de Chastelain commission in conjunction with Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa. They started to discuss the operational aspects on Monday and will work out in the immediate days ahead how they will inspect the dumps, how they will monitor and seek control of that and how they will check back. In regard to the arms that are not in the dumps—
The dumps that are not inspected.
On the dumps that are not being inspected, we have seen from the IRA statement that it is its intention to continue to maintain them under its management as it has maintained dumps successfully over the past six years. I hope, over time dumps can be included in the remit of the independent group examining them. As indicated in its statements, the IRA will be responsible for making sure there is not a misappropriation of these arms and that they will not drift into criminal activity or into the hands of other subversive or dissident groups. This is a matter of concern. The IRA is very conscious, as we all are, that these guns should not be used. We have emphasised that time and again to the political representatives of these parties. Sinn Féin has also made statements about punishment beatings even though punishment beatings have been reduced substantially, by about 25% in the first four months of this year compared to last year which was down on the previous year. We want to see the elimination of all punishment beatings.
Did the Taoiseach ask, through whatever means of communication he had with the IRA prior to the issue of its statement, if it would issue a statement in regard to the involvement of IRA volunteers or IRA weapons in punishment beatings? Will he agree that the IRA should have made a statement saying it would cease forthwith to support punishments of an extra legal kind? Has the Taoiseach reflected on the implications of the acceptance by an Irish Government of arms dumps being, as he put it, continually under the management of an organisation which is illegal? Will he indicate how long he expects these arms dumps to continue to be under the management of an organistion in this category? Will he revert to the earlier question I asked about the oath and the police boards?
I intended to deal with that, but the Deputy indicated that he wished to intervene.
I apologise, it is my fault.
My position is that I want all the dumps identified and all the guns and arms handed in and disposed of tonight, but that is not likely to happen. The Government's position remains that the Garda or the Army will continue to search for such dumps. They will not cease searching for dumps. If we knew where they were located, they would be put out of action quickly. That will continue to be the position. A number of dumps have been found over the years and I hope more will be found.
In the meantime, the independent commission and the two independent individuals who will monitor the situation will work out the arrangements for the international body. The IRA says that guns are not drifting in and out of other dumps which cannot be found or sourced. It is not a satisfactory position, but it is better than the way it has been for the best part of three decades. We will continue to do all we can to ensure the disposal of these arms.
One of the things Mr. Trimble asked me to do was to endeavour to get a statement on punishment beatings from Sinn Féin. This issue was raised after the IRA statement on decommissioning. We have been working on the issue of decommissioning in recent months, but the issue of punishment beatings was subsequently raised. We asked Sinn Féin to deal with that matter and it made a statement, which has been welcomed.
Sinn Féin made a statement, not the IRA.
Sinn Féin made a statement.
Sinn Féin would say that it is not carrying out punishment beatings.
It is not, but my difficulty, as usual, is that I only deal with Sinn Féin and, as the Deputy said, whatever sources are available to me. Perhaps this is unsatisfactory at times but that is the way it must be. My conduit to the IRA is Sinn Féin; I do not deal with the IRA directly.
The Deputy asked about the policing boards and the pledge. In relation to the policing boards, there is still much debate about how the district partnerships will be addressed. The Patten report contains detailed pronouncements on how the district policing partnerships should operate. It states that they should monitor police performance, raise resources for community funding, meet in public etc. However, my problem is that these proposals are not included in the Bill. They probably have been deferred until decisions are made on the community safety element. There are no requirements in the Bill and we will have to pursue those.
I do not want to make too much of our posi tions on these matters at this stage. We have an enormous number of questions and the SDLP, which has taken a particular interest in this matter, has even more. It is most concerned about many aspects of the Bill. However, we will try to bring some legislative influence to bear on the issues raised, particularly those which are of concern to us. Many of these issues are important and generated an amount of anxiety – I will not put it any stronger than that – in the North overnight. We will do our best, from the Nationalist community, to assess what is the best thing to do and to put forward our views. There were meetings last night with Seamus Mallon and we will keep in close touch with Sinn Féin and the SDLP on this issue.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the most important decision to be taken over the next few days is that by the Ulster Unionist Council? The House should at this time be sensitive to the legitimate concerns of that body to ensure that the institutions can be reinstated next Monday with the First Minister and his executive colleagues in place and willing to participate. In that context, does the Taoiseach agree that the problems of so-called punishment beatings are the other side of the coin of the absence of an acceptable police force? At this time anything we say south of the Border, which has been in effect enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, should be sensitive to the concerns of the Ulster Unionist Council.
Assuming that Mr. David Trimble, who has not yet incorrectly read the numbers in his party, is successful on Saturday, as I hope, when will all the institutions be reinstated? When will the civic forum be established? What input, if any, will the Irish Government have in relation to the composition of the civic forum?
I agree with the Deputy regarding his first point. His comments are eminently sensible. We have spent the past ten days almost exclusively trying to work, in whatever way we can, with the British Government and the parties in the North on dealing with the other issues which have been raised. Few questions are being raised about decommissioning anymore. Operational issues remain to be worked out in that regard.
There are no more political questions.
If I said there was overwhelming support for the initiative, somebody might say that was not the case. However, although I am not playing down the difficulties, it is as near to that as makes no difference. That was the big issue which we tried to address. The problem and logjam was in that area and all our efforts have been directed—
We are over that now.
Politically.
Have they endorsed it?
I am glad Deputy Bruton and Deputy Quinn agree.
Would that it were that simple.
Has everyone said that?
I agree with Deputy Quinn.
I do not think the Minister, Deputy Cowen, agrees.
The Taoiseach and I are totally at one on this issue.
I did not mean it in that way.
It is serious.
I share the Taoiseach's optimism.
I accept the view of the House. However, it is worth pointing out, in the spirit of Deputy Quinn's comments, that we should be extremely helpful to all the parties. We all agree on that and there is no difference. An enormous amount has been achieved and this is a significant breakthrough. We have spent endless hours, days and weeks trying to address this issue and we have reached this point.
In addition, Mr. David Trimble has won my respect and that of many others for his excellent work. He moved on the Good Friday Agreement and maintained the issue of decommissioning as an obstacle, although we all would have preferred him to move away from it. That was the issue which brought down the executive and created the difficulties. It created all the uncertainty and it was the reason for the order which ceased devolution. That issue has been dealt with, although perhaps it has not been addressed entirely. People in Mr. Trimble's party and elsewhere should realise that the issue has been addressed.
I put this alongside Mr. Trimble's other major achievements, which were signing off on the constitutional issue and the changes to Articles 2 and 3. Some people may forget that they were not easy to achieve. Other issues included the principle of consent and the institutional changes that he achieved. Sinn Féin had to move and change its constitution to allow it to take part in the Assembly. All these matters should be taken into account in terms of what people have achieved. However, I am concerned that all the achievements could be taken off the list while people move on to concentrating on a particular issue.
In reply to Deputy Quinn, we need to understand that we have tried and will continue, within the legislation and by all other means, to satisfy reasonable need. Everyone has put in a great effort and I hope that, after all the major issues, be they constitutional, institutional, changes in parties or decommissioning, that we do not now get into a wrangle over whether the RUC will be called the RUC today and what it will be called after 1 September 2001. The Patten report stated that the RUC would not be abolished, nor will it. We are talking about a new beginning so that there will be proper policing and so that there will not be punishment beatings and problems in areas. I am not saying what I will not do. I am being as helpful as I can. If that issue can be resolved, and it is quickly becoming a major issue, then we will be able to move on Monday to quickly establish the institutions.
I agree the civic forum should be set up quickly because we desperately need to create balance in many areas. It needs to include the groups which will be represented in G7, the smaller parties, equality organisations and organisations active in either community, and they should play a key part in it. We do not have an enormous statutory or implementational role. I assure the Deputy that we will do all we can to encourage it to be an organisation which has the full participation of as many important civic groups as possible, from trade unions to employers to cultural groups to equality and humanitarian groups. I would prefer if we were dealing with this issue next Monday morning and not still trying to deal with issues which are difficult to resolve.
The Taoiseach has partly responded to my question in the context of the forthcoming debate in Belfast, a debate which will be public, unlike the Army Council debate and vote. Does the Taoiseach agree that the proposals from the Patten committee for the modernisation of police services in Northern Ireland do not, as he said, constitute the abolition of the RUC, rather its modernisation, and that, of the 175 recommendations contained in the report, if the five which refer exclusively to symbols and names were excluded, the other 170 which allow for different local government structures could be usefully applied in principle to the Garda Síochána? Does he also agree the people of Northern Ireland, who are suffering from the imposition of vigilante terrorism, otherwise known as punishment beatings, would recognise that we in the South have a problem in terms of the modernisation of our own police force, and that there are lessons for all the people on this island in terms of the necessity to modernise police forces on an ongoing basis? Does he also agree Patten should not be seen as some type of "in your face" insult to the tradition of policing in Northern Ireland which, for one community, is seen as a defensive force, and for the other, as an oppressive force. Does he agree we must go beyond that, that restating prejudices is not helpful in the current climate, and that we must understand the fears and aspirations of both sides? Is it the Taoiseach's intention between now and Saturday to communicate with David Trimble or to try to assist the process of normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland by sending whatever signals would be considered supportive without being intrusive to the Ulster Unionist Party?
Our aspiration and desire is for Saturday to be successful. All the matters I mentioned, all the changes and progress made, the confidence building measures, all that is happening with decommissioning and all the other aspects of the agreement we set out in the Government statement are designed to achieve a successful conclusion as regards the Ulster Unionist Council conference and vote on Saturday. That is what we want to achieve. I have responded in writing twice this week to David Trimble. I have been in touch with him and will continue to do so. We are working closely with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson. We have been in contact several times a day and will continue to do so to achieve our aims.
Regarding the Patten report, it is worth revisiting its origins. We could not reach agreement on exactly how policing should be dealt with in the discussions on the Good Friday Agreement in the time available. That is not surprising. The issue of policing has been so complex and sensitive that the parties to the Agreement felt it best to request an independent commission to make proposals for a police service which would be acceptable to all parts of the community so that all communities, be they Belfast, Derry or rural areas, could have a successful police force.
Chris Patten and his colleagues did an excellent job in coming forward with an authoritative set of proposals which I agree with the Deputy could be used anywhere. The head of the RUC has often said he believes almost all the recommendations are good policing and could be used in any country, be it New Zealand, the Republic or Northern Ireland, for example. Chris Patten had to strike compromises between all that he heard. It should be noted that he did not just sit down and write the report in London or in the Northern Ireland Office in Belfast. He spent all winter holding consultative meetings in the community. He did that along with Senator Maurice Hayes and the other commission members who were from the United States and who had enormous experience of policing in other countries which had racial discrimination and divided communities. The report was a set of balancing compromises.
In reply to Deputy Bruton, we have been looking in our examination at where the Patten report has moved vis-à-vis the legislation. We do not have any hang-ups about it. We are merely seeing where it has moved from this balance. We welcome the introduction of the Bill and are committed to its full implementation. The issues of the RUC foundation and the oath were raised and I can understand some of the concerns in that regard. There is a certain logic about some of the changes to be made. While we want to discuss it, the important point is that it is successfully implemented.
We have worked closely with David Trimble on the Good Friday Agreement and on the constitutional aspects. We, the people and the parties in this House, have delivered to him on the consent principle for which the Unionists have fought for 70 years. We changed Articles 2 and 3. We established institutions and urged Sinn Féin to change its constitution. David Trimble then insisted on decommissioning. We continued to try to find a successful solution to decommissioning. We have not gone overboard in our comments on the changes in the Bill yesterday, although we are worried about many of them when viewed against the Patten report and we will have to argue and debate many of them. At the same time, we are sensitive to people's positions. We have agreed to the inclusion of the RUC foundation in the Bill because it is something which was sought. These are all important matters. We have supported the plight of the widows and I am due to meet the widows of RUC members shortly, as I am sure other parties will do.
We will do all we reasonably can. However, we cannot ignore the SDLP, especially in this case, because it put in years of work. Deputy Currie will tell me how long because I do not remember. It put in years of work and held endless meetings on policing. It has said that we will not achieve the principles of the Good Friday Agreement if policing is not got right. I cannot agree to anything which parties such as the SDLP cannot sell to its members.
Like others, I too hope and pray the Saturday meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council will allow the institutions to be re-established. I wish to ask the Taoiseach two questions, one of which relates to Mr. Ahtisaari and Mr. Ramaphosa. To whom are both gentlemen directly accountable as regards the operation of their inspections and what is the relationship, both legally and in terms of operational matters, between General de Chastelain and the inspectors? Has the Taoiseach or the Government been in contact recently with the Ulster Unionist Party or Mr. David Trimble to offer a view on the various aspects of policing reform currently being debated in terms of whether a postponement of the name change is acceptable or the insistence on a neutral name would supersede any aspect of retention of the name "RUC" or whether there is any more useful communication that can be entered into to ensure a full and frank exchange between now and Saturday in order to avoid any difficulties that might arise?
In reply to the first question, the two individuals have taken on the role in an independent capacity. They will deal, in the first instance, with General John de Chastelain. They are independent and they are very conscious, as international figures, of their independence. The arrangements that will be worked out as regards inspections, how they will move, travel and report back will be very much dictated by them. So that we will not tie them into a remit we have not taken on—
Who pays their costs?
The Governments. They are very clear on the fact that they will have to have a working operation and not be moving around. They both have considerable experience in this area. On the second point, as I said in reply to Deputy Quinn, we have been in touch and will continue to help in every way. We want to see full implementation of the Agreement. It is a new beginning. We are conscious the decisions made on Patten ensure we are talking about a new police force that has a cross-community name and serves on a cross-community basis. That has been emphasised very strongly to us in the past few days. We are helping in any way we can without upsetting that delicate balance and, as Patten is already a balance, we must be conscious of that. Much is being achieved and perhaps clarification may be required on a small point but it seems to us that there is an enormous amount to sell.
I would like to be able to say that every item asked for by every party has been achieved, but that is impossible. We could agree to anything from the safety of Dublin, but what use is that if the Nationalist parties and those who have lobbied and worked on this for years say they will not ask Nationalists to join the police force? Where will that get us? The reality is the RUC is not being disbanded. The RUC Bill will be passed by November. The policing commission will be set up in the springtime. The first recruits will come in September. The force will have a new name. That is the clear position of the British Government, and the Irish Government is happy with that. Anything that changes that will only create difficulties and unravel the position.
People sometimes forget that the Irish Government and parties had a problem trying to stop people objecting to Patten. It is only now that we have succeeded in getting the Nationalist side to agree that Patten is acceptable because of the balances that were in the report. I cannot balance it any more.
Deputy Currie. I ask the Deputy to be brief as the time is almost up.
There are 54 Deputies in this party.
The time limit was laid down by the House and the Deputies mentioned by the Deputy agreed to 45 minutes for the Taoiseach's questions.
How many times have you heard me say that policing is the potential Achilles heel of any settlement? Unless young men and women of both traditions in the North can join the police service, almost inevitably, the new institutions will fail. Does the Taoiseach agree that, for understandable political and historical reasons, one section of one community in the North has been negative in its attitude to policing – it is not our State, parliament or courts and it is certainly not our police service? Does he agree that even in optimum circumstances there will be a considerable task in getting people from that Nationalist and republican background to join the police service? Does he agree that getting Catholics and Protestants to join is not sufficient, particularly in relation to the Nationalist community? They must be young Nationalists and young republicans ideally similar to those who joined the Garda Síochána in this State, particularly those with a GAA background. That is what we must achieve, otherwise what we have been involved in will almost inevitably fail. Will the Taoiseach, if he has not already done so, spell that out to all those who are talking about things that are important but secondary such as, for example, which flag will fly where. Unless we have a police service that is acceptable, those issues will cease to matter.
There are other matters on which I hope the Taoiseach continues to talk to Sinn Féin such as the so-called punishment shootings, the disappeared—
The Deputy has exceeded his time.
—and those who have been exiled from Northern Ireland.
Hear, hear.
Will he explain to Sinn Féin that these matters have not gone away?
I agree with Deputy Currie and people should note what he said. His colleagues from times past and the SDLP have been making those points. They are eminently sensible. The case has been put that if we really want to go forward – I believe we do and that everyone means well – we cannot ignore the points. It has been put to me by the SDLP that to make any permanent references that strike at the core philosophy of the Patten report and changes that would mean that it will not be a new beginning and would be a conscious decision to deprive the new police force of cross-community support. It would lead to division among the communities on the very name of the police. It used to be offensive to Nationalist elements of the community and members of the force if Nationalists were to join. Unless these issues are dealt with correctly, the force will be made unattractive to Nationalists. It is difficult for people in the Republic who may say you can put this or that into a section, but that is not how it is seen in the North. If it is done a certain way people will not join the force. We know of cases where dual names were carried for a number of years and enormous difficulties were created.
Having achieved so much of what we have all worked for on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, the constitutional aspects, changing the Constitution, which all parties here supported, accepting the principle of consent and now convincing others to accept institutional changes so that there will be an assembly in Northern Ireland, and the issue of decommissioning is resolved, if not totally satisfactorily, this is the opportunity for people to go to their various meetings, positively and constructively, and support these initiatives so that we can set up the institutions and move forward. This is the opportunity for people to go to their various meetings with a positive and constructive attitude – it is not just one party – and to support these initiatives so that we can set up the institutions and move forward. We should not get ourselves hung up on other issues that can be dealt with in the legislative process or in a calmer, saner environment in the future.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions.