Question:
1 Mr. Hayes asked the Taoiseach his views on the future role of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation; if it is intended to reconvene the work of the forum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28296/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if, following on from his reply to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 1 and 2 of 29 November 2000, he will consider re-establishing the sub-committee of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to allow it complete its work. [28718/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
In a previous reply on this issue on 11 April, I indicated that, in the context of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government 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.
At the plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council on 26 September last, it was agreed to initiate a study on the establishment of an independent North-South consultative forum; that the study would be taken forward by a working group comprising officials of both Administrations and the joint North-South Secretariat; and that the working group would report to the plenary meeting of the council in March 2001.
The establishment of a joint parliamentary forum is a matter for the two Legislatures to decide upon. My colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, wrote to the Ceann Comhairle earl ier in the year to express the Government's encouragement and support for the establishment of such a forum. I understand that proposals are currently being formulated and these will be brought to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in due course.
As regards the question of the sub-committee of the forum on obstacles to reconciliation in the South being enabled to complete its work, I have an open attitude, though any consideration will obviously need to take into account the envisaged developments I have set out, as well as the general and ongoing implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I will take an early opportunity to raise the matter with the chairperson with a view to establishing what is the preponderant view among the participating parties.
Mr. Hayes
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Would he not agree that it is sensible and wise that work which was initiated by the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation should be completed before any decision is taken about long-term future plans for the forum and that this work should be completed as soon as possible? Does the Taoiseach believe it sensible to reconvene a meeting of the forum as a means of bringing together all pro-Agreement parties and groups who want to see the Agreement implemented in full? Does he agree that the forum has proved in the past to be a useful means of allowing pro-Agreement parties to express their views at very difficult periods in the peace process? I am sure he will agree we have entered such a period and that reconvening the forum would not be a hindrance to the current dialogue but would actually provide the Government, the British Administration and the parties in Northern Ireland with a means to make progress.
I have no difficulty with the forum reconvening to finalise some of its work. I researched this matter last week and I discovered that the forum's report was last worked on in February 1996, by which time matters had reached a fairly advanced stage. If we were meeting to dealt with that particular report, there is a question of whether we would be obliged to begin our work again or whether it is relevant in view of the many changes that have occurred. It is the view of some of those involved that we could not finalise the report as it stands because so much has happened in the interim. If the parties believed the forum could make a useful contribution by meeting, I would have no problem in that regard.
Last year and early this year, when some difficulties arose, Deputy Quinn raised with me on a number of occasions the question of whether we should meet to try to assist the process. At that stage the preponderant view was that matters had moved on and the Northern parties wanted to continue to focus on the negotiations in which they were involved and to allow the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement to proceed.
The situation in the North has changed dramatically from that which obtained when the forum used to meet virtually every Friday. For example, most of the institutions are already in place. While there is a difficulty with a particular party in one of the institutions, the parties can use the other institutions to further their aims. Matters have moved forward in a way that has proven useful and beneficial.
I have never believed, however, that we had concluded the work of the forum and I will contact the chairperson of the forum in that regard. I had hoped to do so in recent days but the opportunity did not arise. I give a commitment to contact the chairperson as soon as possible. I have no difficulty in finalising the work of the forum, regardless of the stage it has reached, because it might prove useful to do so.
Will the Taoiseach give greater priority to making contact with the chairperson of the forum, particularly in view of this indication that he discussed this matter in April and that it was discussed in the House on 9 November?
He alluded to the fact that he would consult with the chairperson. Will the Taoiseach do that in the near future, or will we have to ask another question before progress is made?
This request from Deputy Hayes and me is not a request for the whole forum to be reconstituted, bringing in the leadership of the various parties and the structures involved initially. It is simply a request for the reconstitution of the sub-committee. From its work, which has yet to be completed, we can evaluate the merits of going further with the forum. No civic forum is envisaged on this side of the Border. I do not accept that the PPF is a civic forum in the same sense as the northern civic forum. Does the Taoiseach accept that the forum presents an opportunity to give voice to civic society so that the report on obstacles to progress can be concluded? We would then have something to show for the considerable work which has already gone into the work of the sub-committee.
Notwithstanding the comments the Taoiseach has made, does he agree that the report could be published in its present form as work in progress? If the group to which Deputy Sargent referred is brought together and if its members decide they can not go further, given the nature of the matter to which the report was central, its publication could be a useful contribution. We could be in difficult times in the new year after the next meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council.
There is merit in what Deputy Quinn has said.
With regard to Deputy Sargent's question, perhaps I should not have mentioned April, which is the last time we did a check around. It was only when Deputy Hayes raised the matter during question time a fortnight ago that I said I would talk to the chairperson.
I also asked a question then.
Deputy Sargent also asked a question. I intended to talk to the chairperson and I will do so in the next few days.
Much good work was done by the sub-committee on obstacles to reconciliation. The work was quite near to completion although things have moved on since then. I will put it to the chairperson that it is the wish of the House to look at the work achieved by the sub-committee and try to finalise it.
Complete the report.
We spent much time on the report. I will tell the chairperson it is the wish of the House to complete the report as it is, and publish it.
Mr. Hayes
When the sub-committee's report on obstacles to reconciliation in the South has been published, what is his view concerning the long-term prospects for the forum? The forum was established as a result of the Downing Street declaration, negotiated by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds. Is it the Taoiseach's view that when the outstanding matters have been published by the forum it should be brought to an end and its work concluded or should it remain in political limbo and await the next crisis when it may be reconvened and be of use to the process?
If matters progress positively and the institutions are established, there will be no need for the forum. The forum was an effort, under the Downing Street declaration and the discussions which emanated from it, to bring as many of the parties as possible together. While not all political parties took part, representatives of churches, communities and cultural groups did so. We attracted a large number of people from loyalist areas, many of whom were making their first visit to the Republic and felt, for the first time, that people in the Republic were interested in their views and in what they were doing. I believe the forum changed their attitudes and views. The participants also made valuable contacts in a range of areas. The forum has served its purpose in that regard. If we were in difficulties the situation would be different but we are not. The parties now see themselves working within the new institutions – the Executive, the Assembly and the North-South bodies.
I have given much time in the past week to finalising the question of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body, which Deputy Quinn continually and correctly raises. We must also pay attention to the parliamentary tier, to which both questions refer. We will deal with that aspect of the matter early in the new year. If we overcome the current difficulties it will be useful to become involved on the parliamentary level.
In relation to the sub-committee on obstacles to reconciliaton and its work to date, is the Taoiseach confident that obstacles will not be put in the way of reconciliation in the future? The report can only deal with what is at present an obstacle and what has been an obstacle in the past. Last weekend's human rights conference was critical of the Government's appointments to the human rights commission. Will the Taoiseach take care not to allow the creation of obstacles which would give the impression to people in Northern Ireland that we have a different rule book in this jurisdiction and are more open to cronyism than would be tolerated north of the Border? Is the Taoiseach confident such obstacles will not be created in the future? Has a modus operandi been established which would avoid the creation of obstacles to reconciliation?
There is a difference of opinion on the issue referred to by Deputy Sargent. The Minister is meeting the organisations involved this week to try to resolve it. It will be important to resolve that matter.
All Ministers and political parties are agreed that we should do whatever we can to be of assistance and to be beneficial and constructive. More often than not we give way to suggestions and initiatives. We often stand back from positions we have held in order to be helpful. That will not go on forever but it is important to do so in these initial years. We are dealing with a new situation. For many of the people involved the political operations are new and different. This applies to parties as well as to those who are moving into party structures for the first time. We try to be accommodating. The particular issue raised by Deputy Sargent is an exception but I hope it can be resolved.
This is the last opportunity the Taoiseach will have to report to the Dáil before the end of January. What are his hopes and expectations in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process between now and the time he will next report to the House on 30 January? What is in prospect and what are the Taoiseach's aspirations for the next six weeks?
I will do my best to answer that question. Needless to say, over the past week or so there has been an enormous amount of dialogue and discussion, so I can give the House a fairly clear idea of the position. Deputy Quinn has stated where we will go if we get nowhere, and perhaps that is where I will start.
If we do not make progress within the next six weeks – let us take the period until we discuss these issues again – the UUP council, and those who do not share the leadership's view, will try to take steps to further their agenda which would be entirely unhelpful to all the pro-Agreement parties and the wishes of the parties in this House. Many small elements have to be resolved to avoid such a scenario.
It is clear to everyone that there are three main elements. The Patten Commission published its report in September 1999. Since then, the legislation has gone through and has received Royal assent. The legislation in its present form is not considered satisfactory by Nationalists or Republicans. I have stated that I do not think it is realistic to amend the legislation in the short-term. The same would be the case with legislation passed by the Oireachtas – if Deputy O'Keeffe asked me on the Order of Business to amend legislation passed two weeks ago we all know what the reply would be. Therefore, I do not see the sense in telephoning Tony Blair to say that.
I emphasise this point because people are suggesting I should be saying so. However, we have to live in the real world. Hopefully, through the implementation plan, we can move a long way towards trying to resolve things which are not there.
I wish to clarify the situation for those who closely study debates on Northern Ireland. I am not saying the implementation plan can undo or do what the legislation did not do in the view of Nationalists or Republicans. However, in the unlikely event of the legislation being amended, perhaps we should go as far as we possibly can in the implementation plan whereby it would at least provide a bridge to the future. If everything is not 100% or perhaps not even 75% – let us not put a percentage on it – then at least there is a way of moving on.
It is my feeling in recent days that, unfortunately, it is unlikely people will fundamentally change their positions on Patten. We have made a lot of progress and moved a long way. Related to Patten, but under the same heading, are the issues of Gough barracks, the amalgamation of the CID and Special Branch, the disbandment of the reserve and a few smaller issues.
The second issue is demilitarisation which is a call, in its entirety, for the British Government. The British Government knows what would be useful in that area. I also appreciate that the British Prime Minister has difficulties. It is easy for me to call on him to do X, Y and Z, but he has a Chief of Staff, a GOC and he has to listen to views. I may perhaps suggest that views are listened to too much, but that is still a problem I have to take into account. However, there are things which can be done on the demilitarisation issue.
This brings us to the third issue which is a fundamental point for Mr. Trimble because it has placed him in his current difficulties – the lack of progress on decommissioning, the next move. Mr. Trimble cannot move until something happens on decommissioning. This is also a fundamental position of the British Government before it does anything on demilitarisation. We all know to some degree what would be helpful on decom missioning. The most satisfactory move would be that the republican movement, and others if necessary – I am not focusing my attention on them, but they should also do so – should engage fully, seriously and in a determined way with the de Chastelain commission.
Mr. Hayes
Hear, hear.
That would not be enough, but I do not want to spell out what I think should happen in those discussions, although I have views on the matter. However, I would be strongly criticised – and I usually am in private when I say what I think should happen – therefore, for the purposes of this debate, I will say that engagement should happen and action of one form or another is necessary to get anywhere. That is not being descriptive about what the action should be.
This is a complex question and I will create more difficulties for myself, and others, if I only answer half of it. In summary, there are three issues – Patten and its full implementation, demilitarisation and movement on the areas where all parties know we need movement and decommissioning. If all three, or at least the bottom two, were to move at least we could make progress. Otherwise we will run into difficulties when we again debate this issue in the House.
Has the Taoiseach heard suggestions to the effect that the observation towers in south Armagh, to which such strong objection is taken by some Republicans, may have been instrumental in detecting, and thereby preventing, a very serious bombing attempt by the Real IRA on Castlewellan?
The Deputy will understand if I do not give a reply about a specific area. However, on many occasions I have heard that the observation towers have been crucial in helping to thwart many acts of terrorism. The other side of this issue, which the Deputy will know from his recent visits and briefings, which I appreciate, is that the area on this island with the heaviest concentration of security, intelligence, armaments and infrastructure is the Real IRA's No. 1 breeding ground. This is the case regarding the newer elements, never mind the older, detached elements. This must also be fed into the equation, not just as regards the towers but overall.
Many other areas were hot spots down the years but having large numbers of army battalions, an enormous security infrastructure, huge numbers of special branch, CID, RUC and RUC Reserve do not stop the problem. This has to be fed into the equation. I am not suggesting for a minute that I would ask the British Prime Minister to ignore all his security advice. I would not do so. However, some remedial measures have to be included in the equation. There are resolutions to this issue which would not undermine the entire security situation. I am not saying so from my information, as I am not a security expert, but from what people tell me.
Would the Taoiseach agree that, over the past eight years, the major beneficiary of President Clinton's term of office has been the republican movement in general, and Sinn Féin in particular? I say this because of the logjam in the State Department regarding access to the US, which Sinn Féin had been denied, and the decision by the Administration of which the Taoiseach and I were members to remove section 31, facilitated that movement in articulating its political point of view. Does the Taoiseach further agree that, in terms of the three areas he has correctly identified as requiring movement, an indication of serious movement on decommissioning – whether engagement with the de Chastelain commission or some other form, and it is not for me to prescribe – would create a facilitation on the other two issues? Will he join me and share the view that Gerry Adams, in particular, and the Sinn Féin leadership in general owe it to President Bill Clinton in the remaining weeks of his presidency to reciprocate the generosity and act of imagination he displayed to them by moving and convincing their IRA colleagues to move on the issue of decommissioning?
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Quinn. Perhaps I always mention President Clinton, but some very dedicated officials have given enormously of their time, one of whom was back here for the past week giving of his time to assist, even though he is long gone from the payroll. That is a service. It is one thing to give a service to the United States of America, but his giving a service to us by coming back here in his own time is much appreciated. It would be of help to all those people involved if matters progressed.
One of the ways in which we have made progress during the past six or seven years has been the way in which these matters are choreographed. It is necessary to choreograph these matters because otherwise nobody moves unless everybody moves. That is the only way we can realistically get work done. People should make a move. It is nearly Christmas, which is an important and peaceful time of the year.
Sometimes I think of the number of hours I spent working on this area this year alone. I am not the only one or the only Leader who has spent hours working in this area. People, including Deputies Bruton, Spring and Reynolds, have done that for several years going back over the same ground. For the past two months I have been saying that these things do not change. We are dealing with the same issues. I cannot change them nor can anyone else.
I wish President Clinton well in his work today. I discussed these issues with him at some length yesterday and on other occasions in recent months. Talking about these issues does not change them. Everyone knows what would help. Everyone knows the areas, and perhaps everyone knows what cannot be done. In reply to the Deputy's question, it seems it would be a good time for people to get on with it.
Why was more use not made of President Clinton's visit to break the logjam on decommissioning, demilitarisation, policing and the North-South bodies? Why was a talks process not put in place in the two weeks leading up to President Clinton's arrival to get politicians in Northern Ireland, who are talking about everything but those four issues, to talk about them face to face across the community divide rather than across the airwaves? If the Taoiseach is not aware, the entire talks process, which was launched originally as a twin-track approach by John Major and myself when I was Taoiseach, was launched literally when President Clinton was in the air setting out for these islands against the deadline of his arrival. Were it not for his arrival, we would not ever have got the twin-track approach launched. We probably would not have the Good Friday Agreement, were it not for the use of that deadline as a means of breaking logjams that were otherwise there in both systems on both sides of the Irish Sea. Will the Taoiseach agree a huge opportunity has been lost in not using President Clinton's third visit to these islands to act as a similar deadline or incentive to move things forward in advance of his arrival, to use it as the occasion for a break through, rather than the occasion for a sentimental retrospective?
No, I would not agree with that because it is not in line with the facts nor is it in line with history. To go back and start saying when things happened, when they did not happen and when they usefully happened is not helpful.
What I said is in accordance with history.
Well, I will not—
On that matter, I am probably a better authority on that than the Taoiseach because I was there.
All initiatives were helpful, but I would have to say the Good Friday Agreement clicked in when Sinn Féin took part in the talks. While the multi-party talks were in place under the twin track approach, they were not going anywhere until then.
There were no talks to take part in other than as a result of the twin-track approach. There would not have been any all-party talks process. George Mitchell's appointment—
George Mitchell's appointment was certainly very important.
Which I was responsible for.
George Mitchell's appointment was very important. I am not trying to take away from anything, but we should not go back and try to present these things again.
Why not, if they teach us a lesson?
The Taoiseach should be allowed to continue. If the Deputy wishes to ask a further supplementary, he will be accommodated.
For the past fortnight the two key officials on this from a long way back, Sandy Berger and Jim Steinberg, have been working extremely hard getting President Clinton an absolutely clear briefing on all the nuances. The President has it absolutely 100% clearly in his mind who, how, where and what can resolve this. All that ground work was done by those two gentlemen in conjunction with the British Government, the Irish Government and all the parties. That work has been done quietly and effectively. Whether the talks can move it on today or whether it will take a bit more time or whether there is a possibility of doing that, I do not know. The President's previous two visits were very helpful and this one is equally so. In the past ten days, the issues have been addressed in a more meaningful way and people have focused on what would be useful and how it could be useful, but at the end of the day neither President Clinton, I nor anybody else can make people do things. President Clinton will also have discussions with the British Government and there are issues on which the British Government will have to move for everything to fall into place. Last night as soon as President Clinton went to Belfast, he immediately got into those talks, which I appreciated, given how tired he was. He had a tough few days, a flight, the day here yesterday and having regard to his programme for the week ahead, he still got straight into those talks late last night. Let us see where it goes from there.
Will the Taoiseach not agree there is a high degree of urgency now affecting the matter in so far as we are up against the Ulster Unionist Council meeting in January? We are also up against the likelihood of a general election in Britain, which, as we know, in 1974 had a distinctly unhelpful effect on institutions at that time and is potentially quite a dangerous event. Will the Taoiseach agree that while commending the work of Mr. Berger and Mr. Steinberg, the ultimate solution is to be found by the politicians themselves on both sides of the divide within Northern Ireland and the truth is that while they are talking to one another about everything, including the details of public finance in Northern Ireland, allocating budgets, operating ministries and health services and all sorts of things, they are not engaging with one another on policing, demilitarisation, decommissioning across the divide, and that what needs to be done is to get them to face these issues together along with the two Governments? Will he agree that President Clinton's imminent arrival would have been an occasion for a focused, short, sharp discussion on these issues with a view to resolving them, if possible?
We are now heading into Christmas, it will soon be January and time is not on our side in resolving these issues. While I say this not to criticise the Taoiseach, as he knows from discussions I have had with him about this matter that I am not saying anything in the House that I have not said directly to him privately, the truth is that time is not on our side, not on anyone's side in this area. While the Taoiseach is doing all he can as an individual, the institutional structures are not there to get the people who need to do so to face the issues with one another. It is now a matter of great urgency that we get the people around the same table to push this thing forward before the first half of next year, which could potentially be a very unproductive time unless the work is done.
I made a number of those points in reply to Deputy O'Keeffe earlier. I know that Deputies Bruton and Quinn are being totally constructive in these areas and I do not assume anything else.
When everyone is around a table to discuss the issues all the parties take different views on the Patten report and the longer they stay at the table the further they get from a common position. On demilitarisation, one section will say there should be strengthening of security in some of the key areas while other sections feel there should be almost no security.
That is why decommissioning is the key.
On decommissioning, practically all the parties say they have nothing to decommission so they have nothing to add to the argument other than that they feel it should happen. The party that might have something to do with that says it is not at the table to do that and that it is the IRA or the loyalists, as the case may be, who have the arms. Constructively speaking, that format does not work. It would be nice if it did but it does not.
Deadlines work.
Deadlines do.
President Clinton's visit was a deadline that was not used.
I gave a long answer on this to Deputy O'Keeffe earlier and I will not repeat it but it would be wrong to think that all the preparatory work to bring the sides to a position where everyone knows what everyone else is doing, was not done. Whether a result comes out of that work is something else.
Mr. Hayes
In the Taoiseach's discussions yesterday with the President, did he raise the ongoing threat to the process from the Real IRA and other dissident republican groups? In that discussion, did he outline other help the US authorities might offer on this issue so that this threat is closed down as soon as possible?
Yes. There are some areas where co-operation might be beneficial and helpful and which would involve the Americans, the British and ourselves. We will have to work out the details before we have any real proposals but I am ready for co-operation in any such area and I made that clear. Anything that helps to defeat ruthless terrorism I am happy to do, and if someone has better technology or techniques I have no hang-up about it.
I said to the British Prime Minister regarding some of the military infrastructure in sensitive Border areas which intimidates ordinary people – that majority who do not and have not ever had any association with violence – that we could have a stronger Garda presence on our side of the Border to curtail these activities.
There is no time for supplementaries for the next grouping of three questions.
I will ask a supplementary on Questions Nos. 1 and 2. What is the position regarding the designation of the so-called Real IRA as a terrorist organisation under US law?
The position is that the RUC Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan, and the Garda Commissioner, Pat Byrne, have reached their conclusions on this and we have agreed that it is now a matter for the American Administration to put the mechanisms in place. It is designated on one list and not on the second list but they are looking at that. We have agreed it is entirely a matter for them.
That concludes Taoiseach's Questions and we move on to Priority Questions.