Mary O'Rourke
Ceist:1 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Taoiseach the matters for discussion at his meeting with the Unionist leader Mr. Trimble. [5529/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with UUP Delegation.
A Government delegation, comprising the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Social Welfare, had a very useful meeting yesterday with a UUP delegation led by the party leader, Mr. David Trimble, MP.
The discussions were open and frank and while conclusions were not reached, the meeting provided a better mutual understanding of our respective positions on the most effective way forward.
The exchanges focused on the relevant key issues to be addressed in the substantive phase of the all-party negotiations commencing on 10 June, including the arrangements for them. Yesterday's meeting between the Government and the UUP has helped to build on the progress already achieved in the intensive consultations with the Northern Ireland parties.
It is bizarre that the person who attended the meeting is sitting in silence while the person answering the question did not attend the meeting. Perhaps that is the way the Government is working these days. Why was there such emphasis on legislation about arms decommissioning?
The Taoiseach offered to postpone this question until his return but the Deputy insisted on it being taken today.
I did not insist. I received a telephone call asking if I wished to have these questions answered and I said I did.
There shall be no arguments now. Let us proceed with questions as arranged.
The question of such legislation and other matters relating to decommissioning are under consideration and no decision has been taken by the Government. I refer the Deputy to paragraph 12 of the communiqué of 28 February.
While the communiqué is interesting. I am talking about the meeting held yesterday in Government Buildings. Irrespective of the Government's housekeeping arrangements, it is odd that the Tánaiste, who attended the meeting, is sitting in silence while the person speaking on the Government's behalf did not attend the meeting. That is out of order.
Repetition is a luxury we can ill afford at Question Time.
What aspects of our legislation are under examination? Will the Minister of State indicate whether it is accepted at Government level that there are deficiencies in our legislation as regards decommissioning?
The matter raised by the Deputy is addressed in paragraph 12 of the communiqué. It states that both Governments recognise that confidence building measures will be necessary and all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and nonviolence.
That is not a response to the question the Deputy asked.
The matter raised by the Deputy is referred to in the communiqué.
It is not.
The matter was touched on only briefly at the meeting and the Government has not made a decision on it. This issue is under consideration.
Let us not dwell unduly long on this question as we should not forget the time factor involved in dealing with questions to the Taoiseach.
We are not delaying on the question but this matter is of primary importance. There is not another matter that is as important as the peace process to the people, and yesterday's meeting was crucial. In the briefing given after the meeting the Taoiseach placed great emphasis on the question of forthcoming legislation. Will the Minister of State emphasise what is involved? Is legislation being introduced? Is this another precondition for Sinn Féin's participation in the talks? Is the electoral process the only way to the table or will further preconditions be set?
Many matters were discussed at yesterday's meeting but no decision was taken on legislation. The question of such legislation and other matters relating to decommissioning are under consideration. As the Deputy is aware, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have done everything in their power not to set preconditions and to bring all parties to the talks. Yesterday's discussions were, in themselves, a major step forward in that regard.
Did discussions take place on whether the Official Unionist Party would take part in the 10 June talks? In the event of this party not participating in the talks and of a ceasefire not being called until after 10 June, is it possible for the parties to resume talks at a later date?
I cannot speak for Mr. Trimble or any of the UUP delegation but the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have stated on numerous occasions — this is also set out in the communiqué of 28 February — that the date of 10 June is fixed and firm. No one can be unclear about the Government's position on this matter.
I asked what would happen in the event of a ceasefire not being called before 10 June.
Was the elective process discussed at the meeting and, if not, when does the Government expect the process to take place given that the so-called proximity talks are nearing an end?
The elective process was not discussed but the issues which were discussed drew attention to the three requirements in regard to the elective process set out in the Mitchell report: first, it would need to be broadly acceptable; second, it would need to have an appropriate mandate and, third, it would have to be within the three strand structure. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have set out the Government's position on these matters. The answer to the Deputy's question is "no".
To what question is that the answer? When will the elective process take place?
Order, please. I want to bring Question No. 1 to finality.
The Minister is supposed to impart information, not withhold it.
Does the legislation in question concern either or both of the following matters: first, the empowerment of an international body to verify the decommissioning of weapons and, second, the granting of an amnesty or immunity from prosecution for those who might surrender their weapons?
A decision has not been reached by the Government on the type of legislation, if any, to be introduced.
Is the Minister of State telling the House the electoral process was not discussed?
That is correct.
Does he not find that strange?
The whole process was not discussed.
In other words, there was no reference to the elections or referenda.
There was a wide-ranging general discussion——
But not on this matter.
——but not on the process.
That is disgraceful.
(Interruptions.)
During my 23 years as a Member of the House this is the first time a Minister or Minister of State needed the benefit of notes from a civil servant when replying to questions. I am not commenting on the efficiency of the civil servant but I have not seen this happen in the House before.
There should not be reference to civil servants.
All Ministers and Ministers of State defend themselves——
The Deputy is being totally unfair.
The Minister of State is responsible and there should not be reference to public servants.
The civil servant is doing an excellent job but he should not be asked to do it during Question Time. It is totally wrong.
The Deputy is milking the situation for all the political advantage he can gain.
Will the Minister of State agree with the views expressed in the editorial in last Monday's edition of the Irish News which was highly critical of the Taoiseach's speech at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis and which stated that a three strand approach is critical to a solution of the problems in the North and must not be jettisoned at the price of having tea with David Trimble and John Taylor?
I was at the Ard Fheis and I assure the House that the Taoiseach made an excellent speech which was consistent with everything he has said to date on the matter.
That is not the view of Nationalists in Northern Ireland. The Tánaiste should be ashamed of having allowed a Minister of State to reply to such serious questions.
The Deputy is being antiNationalist.
That is a ridiculous allegation and the Minister of State should withdraw it.