It is proposed to take Nos. 8 and 10. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 8 shall be decided without debate; Private Members' Business shall be No. 20 and the amendment thereto shall be decided by one question which shall be put from the Chair.
Order of Business.
There are two matters to put to the House. Is the proposal that No. 8 be decided without debate satisfactory and agreed? Agreed. Are the arrangements for dealing with Private Members' Business agreed? Agreed.
Will the Tánaiste agree that it is tragic, following the favourable initial response to the Mitchell report yesterday, that the hope of a breakthrough in the peace process was dashed within a few hours? Will the Tánaiste accept there is intense and widespread anger among Nationalist Ireland this morning at the way in which the Mitchell report was brushed aside by the British Prime Minister yesterday? There is a question of public faith here. The reality is that what the Prime Minister posed yesterday is a false choice between acceptance of the Washington III——
I hesitate to intervene but clearly the matter referred to by the Deputy is not relevant to the Order of Business——
It is a matter of major importance.
——and should be raised at a more appropriate time.
There is no other time.
The Order of Business is not the proper place to raise matters appertaining to Northern Ireland.
I wish to make a brief comment on it and the Tánaiste might wish to reply.
It must be very brief, Deputy. Clearly, it is not appropriate now.
It is certainly not irrelevant. Will the Tánaiste agree that the British Prime Minister has posed a false choice between Washington III and an elected assembly? He should have been doing what we were doing in this House yesterday: urging acceptance of the Mitchell commission report. I think I know the Tánaiste's views on this matter but there are questions that have to be asked. What was the content of the discussion with the Taoiseach——
Sorry, I cannot permit a debate now. Members must appreciate——
Where is the co-ordinated response to the Mitchell commission and what action can we expect to see over the next number of days?
We have the Mitchell report which the House agreed yesterday is a solid and independent assessment. This report should form the basis of discussions on the political track which should take place as quickly as possible. We are seeking to have a range of bilateral and trilateral meetings with the parties to discuss the report and get their detailed responses to it. Yesterday the British Prime Minister expressed his preferences for decommissioning or an elected body. However, he has not given the Government any indications that he wishes to resign from the firm aim which he signed up to in November, that is to have all party talks by the end of February.
There are stated conditions to be met before any elected body can be practicable — there must be broad agreement and a clear mandate and it has to come within the three strands. No one has shown the Government any model which meets those conditions and if someone has such a model then they should come forward with it. If Mr. Trimble or anyone else has a model which meets these conditions then he has a duty to discuss it with the Government and the other parties as quickly as possible.
The type of elected body proposed yesterday does not represent a way out of the impasse and the real danger is that we will send out a message that as soon as we have got over one hurdle we have another one to cross. It is our firm view that any proposals which espouse the position of one community over the other in Northern Ireland are not acceptable. Such proposals have not worked in the past and will not work in the future in Northern Ireland. We will not back such an approach as it is totally at variance with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing Street Declaration. We want to get back into discussions and the summit is arranged for mid-February. At the summit we will seek reassurances from the British Government that it is still on target to have all-party talks by the end of February.
The peace process is fragile and the possibility of all-party talks taking place before the next British election looks very bleak. Given that we do not want to see a return to megaphone diplomacy it is important that the two Governments meet to discuss the Mitchell report. Does the Tánaiste have any plans to meet with the Secretary of State in advance of the summit between the two Prime Ministers?
It is likely that the Secretary of State and I will meet within a matter of days and certainly before the summit.
This issue also involves a question of public faith. I accept what the Tánaiste said this morning but I am concerned at the announcement yesterday by the British Prime Minister that there was contact between him and the Taoiseach. If the Taoiseach knew about these matters why did he say in reply to a question from Deputy Harney that there would have to be co-operation with the British Government? Did he know in advance what the response of the British Prime Minister would be yesterday? May I ask the Tánaiste where the co-ordinated approach by the British and Irish Governments to the Mitchell Commission now stands?
I have to dissuade Members from the tendency to argue or debate the matter now.
I will be brief. There will be discussions between the Irish and British Governments and we will seek reassurances that the firm aim of both Governments as set out in the November communiqué that all-party talks should be held by the end of February is still the position of the British Government. We have had no indication that there has been any resigning from that commitment. Obviously many issues have been raised by both Governments during the discussions in recent months and various proposals have been put forward. It is for the British Government to put forward its views and it is for us to put forward our views. It is most important that meetings now take place and we discuss with the parties the contents of the Mitchell report.
Yesterday I raised with the Taoiseach the possibility of having a comprehensive debate on the escalating crime problem. Has the Government given consideration to that request and will it provide time for a full debate on this issue next week?
The House devoted considerable time yesterday to matters apertaining to crime. I cannot permit a repeat of that discussion.
Answering questions is not the same as a proper debate.
There was a long and useful discussion yesterday on this issue between the Minister for Justice and the spokespersons for the Opposition parties. If Deputies feel that more time is necessary to debate this issue the matter can be discussed by the Whips.
Next week my party will move its Misuse of Drugs Bill. For the final time I ask the Government to look at the legislation with a view to supporting it.
As was said yesterday, the Government Bill will be ready within a matter of weeks.