John Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the legislative and administrative priorities, if any, of his Department in 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22060/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Legislative and Administrative Priorities.
The priorities of the Department of the Taoiseach are set out in the Statement of Strategy published in March 1997 and the Action Programme for the Millennium. The statement was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas on publication.
The priorities extend beyond 1998 but are directly relevant for next year. They include effective participation in the Northern Ireland multi-party talks and implementation of any agreement arising from them; implementation of Partnership 2000 and the further development of the social partnership process; effective Irish input to the work of the European Council on major issues on the EU agenda, including the EMU process and the Agenda 2000 negotiations; deepening and strengthening the SMI process throughout the public and Civil Service; promotion of concerted action in relation to economic and social policy and maximising the contribution of the IFSC to the economy; production of a revised edition of the Government's procedure instructions; facilitation of greater co-operation between the State's legal offices and appropriate commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the 1798 rebellion.
As regards legislation, the respective roles and functions of the National Economic and Social Council and the National Economic and Social Forum are currently being reviewed in conjunction with the social partners, under the terms of Partnership 2000, and the institutional and administrative arrangements that emerge are likely to be given a statutory basis.
As regards the priority, successful participation in the Northern Ireland peace process, will the Taoiseach comment on the failure of the participants to agree an agenda of work before Christmas? How does he expect the remaining difficulties to be overcome and what did he mean when he said he expected some of the parties to "play act" over the Christmas period?
I am disappointed but not overly worried about yesterday's outcome. The important thing is that while it was not possible to reach total agreement on the list of key issues, the discussions in the restricted group have crystallised for further debate. People were not prepared to leave their positions in what they considered a vacuum for three weeks. Although they had agreed the key issues to be put by all parties in relation to what should be discussed in the future, it finally emerged that people wanted to draft the heads of an agreement and discuss the issues on which they would agree. However, that was not what they were trying to do. I talked to people yesterday and to the parties the night before and they were not happy to leave certain issues on which they had agreed for three weeks in what they considered a vacuum. For that reason positions were adopted yesterday which were not in order for discussion over the past week. I understand the different perspective of those involved, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin.
I am concerned that we will not be in a position to move straight back into the smaller subgroups which we set up over the past three to four weeks. We will go back into the strands again and then we must renegotiate the subgroups, which were difficult to set up. I put a lot of time and effort into it, but it was only a fraction of what others did. It was in that context that I mentioned play acting.
Were the parties concerned that if they reached an agreement before Christmas the three week period would be used to unpick it?
Yes.
Does the Taoiseach share my concern that the timeframe between 12 January and the February plenary will be extremely tight given that the talks will probably take place on two to three days each week during that period? Will any special arrangements be made to accelerate the pace of the discussions, including setting more days aside and clearing people's diaries during the January period so that there will not be little progress to report at the February plenary? Is the Taoiseach aware of the great concern that if substantial progress has not been made by the February plenary, there could be serious pressure on some of the participants?
Every day is important, so the February plenary is not the end of the world. One party wants to see progress on a particular issue for that meeting. However, it would not be helpful to discuss that. Apart from that one issue on which the party has stated it needs action by the February plenary, there is no other pressure. However, when we reach January 12 the pressure is on to get back to the subgroups, then to take the useful work done over the past number of weeks and recognise areas of agreement, as well as other issues. I could go into detail on what happened on the inside yesterday, but I would rather not as it is confidential. However, two issues were raised by two parties which I referred to earlier.
It is all in the newspapers today.
Practically all of it is but I am signed up to the confidentiality clause. The Deputy is right, even though one or a few nuances were missed and, unfortunately, that is one of the reasons a move from Castle Buildings now and again would be helpful.
Regarding the Deputy's other question, more days should be set aside. We agreed — even though one party tried to unravel the agreement set down in the document to which it had agreed — about meetings in Dublin and London. However, I take it that both dates are still fixed with the meeting in London first in January and then a meeting here in February. I believe that will help to concentrate minds and I favour at a certain stage moving to a neutral venue where the key participants would make an all out attempt to reach an agreement with support from our international friends and others.
It was interesting yesterday that the key agreements issue was not where delegations had a problem. If the delegations were in the mood for finalising things yesterday, and two parties were not, the key issues would have been all right but the heads of an agreement would not. However, they are two separate issues and yesterday people were moving from what they were trying to do into the heads of agreement.
While that was not helpful to achieve a result yesterday, it is not unhelpful in the context of people focusing on that, but I share Deputy Bruton's view that in any negotiations there is a time when one must participate and we are at that stage. I hope people do so on January 12.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the widespread view that for some reason, which perhaps he could now put on the record, he seems to have given an extraordinary amount of preference to Sinn Féin-IRA to the exclusion of the SDLP and as a consequence has significantly damaged its electoral and political substance and presence in Northern Ireland?
I reject that out of hand. I am in contact practically every day with the SDLP in one form or another, if not with Séamus Mallon or John Hume or other members of the party. I have contacts with Sinn Féin as well but not nearly as many. In terms of the talks, we have been criticised by a number of people for the fact that we check practically everything with the SDLP. That has been a practice of my party for many years and we continue to do that. We tend to hold meetings with whichever groups look for them. The only oversight I have been guilty of over the past four months was with the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. Somewhere along the way communication broke down. They were looking for a meeting to which we did not respond for about a fortnight but I since fixed a date and met them twice.
I did not hear this comment from anybody but if it was said, it was said by somebody who was not very well informed.
The Taoiseach indicated that he felt it might be useful at some point to move the negotiations to a neutral venue. Can I take it that his thinking is along the lines of taking them to somewhere, such as Oslo, for instance, where the Middle East accords were agreed? When does he think it would be appropriate to move to such a venue? It would need to be at a point where everything else had been cleared away and the outstanding matters were those which would bring final agreement, if agreed on.
The early meetings in London and Dublin will help to deal with certain issues and to move things around. The neutral venue is more down the road, probably at the end of what we said would be a ten week working period. An amount of excellent papers have been produced by everybody, some better than others. Some people were more organised and put in more effort, but there is a huge amount of documentation, much of it with very good ideas, while there is some repetition and duplication. I was hoping yesterday that if we had a set of agreements on what the issues were arising from the documentation that had been put forward over the past three months, then we could move towards looking at the heads of agreement.
This started yesterday so at least we have the benefit of knowing those areas. At that stage, one must start filling in the heads of the agreement. Most of that is there frankly, not just from the work done recently but from that done over the past few years, from the time of the Framework Document up to the time of the election this summer. It involves work done in 1991/2, good, independent work carried out by many agencies over the past five or six years, and a spirit of goodwill and compromise to start fleshing that out within the three strands. However, in the tight negotiations of the past few weeks more progress has probably been made than for a long time. The important thing is to get back to that position.
Is it definitively established that all participants are willing to engage seriously in all strands? There was doubt that one participant would not negotiate properly on Strand I and that another would not negotiate properly on Strand II. Is it established clearly and beyond doubt that all participants will negotiate in all strands in a serious way?
Will the Taoiseach reflect on the concern expressed by Deputy Quinn, particularly in light of the arrangements for any visits by him or any Ministers to Northern Ireland, that all political parties and public representatives are adequately involved in any ministerial visits in a way that recognises the comparative importance of each relevant party? The Taoiseach needs no further elaboration to know to what I am alluding.
The Deputy should send him the press cuttings.
Will the Taoiseach reflect on his suggestions in regard to a neutral venue in view of the fact that the more talks are moved around the more problems one has of a logistical nature — as we see with the European Parliament and the different places where it meets — particularly if complex papers are involved? The more one moves to novel venues for meetings, the more risk there is of grandstanding, of people appearing important because they are in a new place and of a discontinuity developing in the negotiating atmosphere necessary for compromise. Will he consider perhaps, while there is an agreement to have sessions in Dublin and London, that there should be limited movement, we should recognise this as a serious negotiation and that the photograph opportunity aspects of it should be kept to the minimum?
The reply to the first question is clearly yes in so far as one can ever be definitively positive about something in Northern Ireland. All parties are prepared to negotiate across three strands. They have put in their provisos and considerations of what they mean by them. I now know where Deputy Bruton is coming from and where Deputy Quinn was. That means I have to answer the question which I would have liked to avoid. In relation to my recent trip to Northern Ireland I had allocated most of the day to a trip to Derry and the remainder to a trip to west Belfast. A few days in advance I was asked not to go to Derry because a certain person was missing, so I did not go. That is the reason it looked slightly imbalanced.
I would remove the word "slightly".
Dr. Joe Hendron spent the greater part of the day with me. Unfortunately I cannot fix everybody's diary. In relation to locations, I agree with what Deputy Bruton has said. All parties agree that a move from Castle Buildings where they have been meeting much of the time might serve to advance progress. That is all they wish to do. In relation to a neutral venue, that would be at a final stage. No particular location was mentioned. The location does not matter so long as the time is given to it. Since it is the season of goodwill, I am going to Derry for a whole day in January.