John Bruton
Ceist:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversations with the British Prime Minister. [1168/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Peace Process:
Supplementary Questions to the Taoiseach in respect of Questions Nos. 7 to 30, inclusive, on the Order Paper of Tuesday, 3 February 1998 in accordance with the Order of Dáil Éireann of Thursday, 29 January 1998.
John Bruton
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has had any further contact with the President of the United States of America since his visit to the USA in December 1997. [1169/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the current state of the Northern Ireland multi-party talks. [1171/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the US Senator, Mr Edward Kennedy. [1207/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the conversations he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the all-party talks in Northern Ireland. [1354/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:12 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his assessment of the current state of the peace process and the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland. [1579/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:13 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland since 19 December 1997, particularly in relation to the terms of the joint documents published by the British and Irish Governments on 12 January 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1581/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:14 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with the British Prime Minister since 19 December 1997; and the plans, if any, he has for a meeting with the British Prime Minister. [1582/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to attend the sessions of the Northern Ireland talks due to be held in London; if he will outline the plans for the sessions of the talks to be held in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1584/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:16 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach his views on further meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation; and if he has discussed the question of further meetings with the forum chairperson. [1587/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:17 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister regarding possible measures to encourage those parties which have left the Northern Ireland talks to re-enter the process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1588/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone conversations with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. [1597/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:19 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with US Senator, Connie Mack. [1598/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:20 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the current state of the all-party talks in Belfast; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1599/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:21s Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach whether he will have bilateral meetings with Northern Ireland party leaders when the all-party talks move to Dublin in February 1998. [1600/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:22s Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams. [1701/98]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:23s Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will give an account of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on 12 December 1997; if he will further outline details on the communiqué issued on conclusion of this meeting, particularly the sections which dealt with areas of co-operation between the Irish and British Governments and in the area of defence. [1802/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:24s Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has for a bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister in the next six weeks [1922/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:25s Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when he received a request to have a meeting with Mr. Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Féin on 16 January 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1923/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:26s Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that all parties currently participating in the all-party talks in Northern Ireland are now prepared to seriously engage in substantive discussions on the basis of the Propositions on Heads of Agreement document issued by the Irish and British Governments [1924/98]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:27s Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress of negotiations at Stormont since 18 December 1997. [1930/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:28s Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the status of the Ulster Democratic Party's participation in the all-party talks in Northern Ireland. [2364/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:29s Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the outcome of the talks at Lancaster Gate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2571/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:30s Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the way in which the UDP can be readmitted to the all-party talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2572/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 30, inclusive together.
I take this opportunity to condemn all acts of violence and express my sympathy, and that of the House, to all the families and friends of victims of the recent appalling violence. I already indicated this in my recent speech in Belfast to the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I commend the Newsletter and the Irish News on their initiative in launching their pledge for peace campaign. I also mention the STOP campaign, whose members are also involved here in organising a campaign for peace. It is important that we all make clear our rejection of violence in all its forms and that we will not be deflected by such violence from the search for a fair and balanced settlement that would bring an end to the conflict which remains at the root of recent violence. These killings are a grim reminder to us all why these talks must succeed.
Discussion on the most inclusive basis possible, consistent with compliance with the Mitchell Principles, is the way forward. As the House will know, the UFF issued a statement on 23 January admitting it had broken its ceasefire for a period but that it had now been restored. The Chief Constable of the RUC has indicated that during the suspension of its ceasefire, the UFF was involved in the sectarian murder of at least three civilians. The claim by the UFF that its actions represented a measured military response is outrageous, unsustainable and deeply offensive to the families and friends of its innocent victims.
Against that background, there was a heavy responsibility on the two Governments to ensure that when the negotiation participants met in London last Monday the Mitchell Principles and the integrity of the talks process were upheld. The issue of the UFF statement and its implications was accordingly raised at the commencement of the proceedings by the two Governments and a plenary session was convened at which the UDP made a statement. All the participants gave their views and the UDP responded to these. The two Governments then, under Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure, considered the question of appropriate action in light of all the material available to them and having due regard to the views of the participants.
In view of the importance of the issue, I consider it appropriate that I read into the record of the House the conclusions section of the determination made by the two Governments and issued on Monday last. It states:
11. The Governments regard the UFF involvement in sectarian murders, which has been well attested by information in the security forces' possession, to be admitted in their statement. The statement itself asserts that these murders were a "measured military response" to "Republican aggression". If this was the motivation of the perpetrators it is all the clearer that the murders constitute a manifest breach of the first Mitchell principle of democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues. We find the UFF's use in this context of terms like "military response" outrageous, unsustainable and deeply offensive to the families and friends of their innocent victims.
12. The Governments accept that the Ulster Democratic Party may have sought to use its influence to oppose the violence of the UFF, and take full account of the acknowledgement by other participants of the UDP's efforts.
13. But there is also no doubt in the Governments' mind that there are close links between the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the UDP, and that the question whether the party has demonstrably dishonoured its commitment to the Mitchell principles has to be considered in the light of that.
14. The Governments are obliged to conclude that by reason of the UFF murders, there has been the clearest breach of the UDP's commitment to the Mitchell principles. The UDP is therefore no longer entitled to participate in the negotiations. The UDP has now withdrawn from the talks, which in view of the course of events seems to the Governments an appropriate gesture.
15. The UFF statement indicates that its involvement in killings has for the present come to an end, in that what it terms its military response is now concluded. The statement leaves room for doubt, however, as to how unequivocal the restored ceasefire is. The ambiguity here must be resolved.
16. If over a period of weeks a complete, unequivocal and unqualified UFF ceasefire were demonstrated, and established through word and deed to have been fully and continuously observed, the Governments would consider the possibility of the UDP rejoining the negotiations. The Governments would welcome the prospect in such circumstances. With that possibility in mind, they, with their advisers, will keep the situation under the most careful review. The Governments will, of course, do nothing incompatible with the integrity of the process, which depends on the total and absolute commitment of all participants to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues required by the Mitchell principles.
The events on which I have reported raised difficult issues, given the attachment of the Government to the most inclusive participation possible, consistent with compliance with the Mitchell Principles. However, I have no doubt but that the decision taken was the correct one. It was absolutely essential that we upheld the integrity of the process. At the same time, we have made clear that if over a period of weeks there is a complete and unqualified ceasefire established by word and deed, the Governments would consider the possibility of the UDP rejoining the negotiations. The Government would welcome the prospect in such circumstances and, in that connection, I welcome the fact that the UDP indicated that the outcome on last Monday week does not mean the UDP is withdrawing from the political process.
Following intensive discussions after the adjournment of the talks before Christmas, the two Governments presented a paper to other participants at the talks which set out propositions on heads of agreement. It was and is imperative to ensure that the talks remain the sole focus. For the first time in this difficult process we have identified a way to proceed to real negotiations on issues of substance. These are not detailed proposals or a draft agreement but they are a good basis on which all the participating parties, whose responsibility and prerogative it is to do so, can work towards a widely acceptable agreement.
While the propositions were presented in the name of the two Governments, they were developed as an aid to discussion from the views expressed by all parties during the discussions in recent months. The best judgment of the two Governments as to the form of an acceptable and balanced settlement remains as set out in the Joint Framework Document, published in February 1995. The firm commitment of the two Governments to the position set out in that document as being their best assessment of where agreement might be found in the negotiations, and to the positions in the Joint Declaration, was restated in the joint paper tabled last week by the two Governments to facilitate discussion in strand two. The three day talks session at Lancaster House in London ended on a positive note with an agreement by delegations to pursue detailed negotiations on the basis of the papers tabled by the two Governments in strands two and three.
The issues are now on the table and the participants are beginning to engage in discussion on the detail.
We know that there will be difficult issues to be resolved for everyone before real agreement can be achieved and both Governments are determined to press ahead to find a settlement which will give a firm foundation for peace. I believe that all parties currently participating in the talks are prepared to seriously engage in substantive discussions. I will continue to avail of every opportunity, including while the talks are in Dublin, to meet the talks participants both on a bilateral basis and a multilateral basis and to inject momentum into the talks to ensure that they continue to move forward. Planning for the talks session in Dublin is being undertaken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With regard to those parties who have taken the decision not to participate in the talks, I continue to hope that they will reconsider their position. They know the talks are constituted on an all-inclusive basis in respect of parties that are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means and the door is always open to such parties.
Before the heads of agreement were tabled at the talks, all my contacts with the British Government, Northern Ireland parties and US representatives were designed to help us prepare a paper that would provide a map leading towards a future settlement. I have had intensive contacts with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and the leaders of the Northern parties, including Sinn Féin, and I do not believe it is helpful or constructive to report on these contacts in detail on a regular basis. I have already reported extensively on my meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, in Luxembourg in December and the communiqué and report which we issued on east-west co-operation, when I made a statement in the House on 17 December last.
I have not been in direct personal contact with President Clinton since 19 December. While close contacts at diplomatic and official level have continued, as reflected in a number of supportive statements issued from the White House, I have had some helpful and informative meetings with a number of US representatives including Senator Connie Mack on 15 January, Senator Edward Kennedy on 10 January, and Congressman Patrick Kennedy on 20 January. At these meetings, they continued to offer their support and assistance for the peace process and I was glad to have the opportunity to inform them of current developments. I also used the opportunity to express our appreciation of their efforts on behalf of Ireland, and the input of all in the USA who have taken such a great interest in Ireland.
In relation to meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, it was agreed at the last meeting in December that contacts would be made with all the parties to explore their views in this regard. I understand that this is now being done.
Deputy Currie is in possession.
I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise two questions I did not get the opportunity to raise yesterday. While I welcome the assurance of the Taoiseach that on every occasion he meets delegations from Sinn Féin he raises the question of the disappeared, those whose bodies have not been returned, a matter I have raised on a number of occasions, does he share my increasing frustration and anger about this matter?
Many people will remember a well publicised "Late Late Show" when I had a confrontation with Gerry Adams. He promised on that programme in 1994 that he would look into this matter. Will the Taoiseach agree it is time we had answers to those questions, particularly in circumstances where at least some members of the leadership of Sinn Féin have personal knowledge of the location of those bodies?
It is necessary to remind ourselves on occasions that we in this House and the SDLP in the North represent the great majority of Nationalists on this island. There are occasions when we feel we are being held to ransom. Will the Taoiseach agree that there are certain matters, such as the matter of consent and the matter of an institution in Northern Ireland, without which there can be no North-South body, on which the views of the great majority of people on this island represented by our parties ought to be taken into consideration? Will he further agree that it may be appropriate at some stage to remind the Unionists, and for the British Government in particular to remind the Unionists, that while they, the Unionists, claim to be British and say that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom that there are certain rules and conditions for membership of the United Kingdom club that they, too, ought to take into consideration? Will the Taoiseach agree that at an appropriate time — I welcome the indications yesterday that there was the beginning of an engagement at the Stormont talks — it might be worthwhile reminding some of the parties involved that such engagement is not only a matter for themselves but that the rest of us have a particular interest in making sure that engagement increases and that agreement is reached?
On the Deputy's last question, it is clear it would be useful if all the parties and individuals engaged in the discussions and if as much progress as possible could be made. I welcome the events of yesterday and last week. Even though it sounds odd, it is true to say there was more talk through the Chair in the past few days than there has been for 18 months. I am thankful there has been some progress in that regard and I hope we can continue to move in that direction.
In relation to those people who have disappeared and are on the list of people who are believed to be dead or have not been traced over many years, I have continually raised this matter in Opposition, as Taoiseach and it has been raised by people before me and we will continue to raise it. It falls within that category of issues that are genuinely confidence building measures. As Deputy Currie said, this issue relates to both sides of the community and yesterday I replied to a question on this matter in relation to one side. Some people believe missing persons come from only one side of the community. That is not the case. Many have disappeared from both sides of the community over the years and their where-abouts are unknown. On each occasion I answer this question I call on those, whoever they are, who may know something about this matter to use their influence to try to assist those families who have suffered enough torture over the years.
In relation to progress on a body or institution in the North, as I stated yesterday and there is no need to repeat it, my view and that envisaged in the Framework Document and the document published on the same day by the British Government, is that we are talking about an institution. That institution can only be successful in the context of the three strands. I have continually reiterated that is what we are talking about. We are talking about three interlocking strands. Whatever happens in Northern Ireland cannot be part of an internal settlement but part of the three stranded approach.
I thank the Taoiseach for his assurance on certain matters. However, the next time he meets the leadership of Sinn Féin will he point out to them that some of those bodies are within this jurisdiction? Will he bear in mind that some of the people about whom he is talking have personal knowledge of where some of those bodies are located and the circumstances surrounding that. Will he point out to those people once again that even in pagan times when a conflict ended bodies were returned and that is the least we expect so that something can be done to assuage the grief of the relatives of those people who have suffered enough? Regarding the talks, the important element to keep emphasising is that none of the Members of this House wants a partitionist settlement. The fact that there are three stranded talks is a good indication of that.
I find the contribution of the previous questioner most objectionable.
A question, please, Deputy to the Taoiseach.
I only note Deputy Currie seems to have personal knowledge. That is certainly not the case in regard to members of the national leadership of my party. I and several members of my party have time and again urged members of the public to provide any particular information to those families, as Deputy Currie knows.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Currie, please allow Deputy Ó Caoláin to ask his question.
Will the Taoiseach assure the House the Government stands by its stated position that an internal solution, a return to Stormont, is not an option and cannot form the basis of a democratic settlement? What is needed is a dynamic settlement that has the potential to develop and grow and leave behind us all the failures of partition and the sectarian State that we have known for decades. On a clearly related matter, will the Taoiseach acknowledge that Sinn Féin has deplored sectarian death threats from whatever source and expresses solidarity with all who may have received them? Can he tell the House if he has sought from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Garda an assessment of the source of such threats as there is a widespread belief they are either the work of cranks or those who seek to make political capital from such a climate and they are being deliberately hyped to provide cover for the very real threat from the Loyalist Volunteer Force who, with others, has carried on a reprehensible campaign of sectarian slaughter over the past 18 months and before that?
As I said yesterday, there can be no internal settlement. We are endeavouring to work with the three interlocking strands to achieve a fair, balanced and just settlement. I do not accept any arguments that the proposition documents stated any differently. They represent a broad map which will lead to a fair and just settlement. There is no question of an institution in Northern Ireland which will represent a return to Stormont. I have not heard anyone say that is what they are trying to achieve.
I have received no information from the security forces, North or South, that any known groups are involved in issuing death threats. The one letter last week was not from any ad hoc organisation. I responded to Deputy John Bruton's question yesterday in relation to the Unionist politicians in Derry. There are two sides to that story. A particular group may have targeted the individual involved but I have no definite information.
Will the Taoiseach ask all the parties involved in the talks to deplore the unwillingness of those who know the location of the disappeared to give the information to their families? While not suggesting that any individual has the information, will all the parties ask paramilitary organisations who have information to disclose it now?
Will the North-South bodies have their own staff or will they rely solely on seconded staff from both Administrations? Is the Taoiseach aware that it is impossible to operate a proper cross-Border health service, whereby, for example, Dundalk Hospital might service needs north of the Border? It is impossible to appoint and pay staff, such as hospital consultants, on a joint North-South basis, under existing legal arrangements. There must be legal arrangements for joint appointment of staff if the North-South bodies are to work. Staff would then have a joint employer operating across the Border. Does the Taoiseach agree that this legal requirement must be provided? How will this work under existing finance sanctions and legislation for the expenditure of moneys and the authorisation of the payment of salaries?
I will reiterate to all the parties the importance of disclosing information on the disappeared.
Much thought has been given to the administration of staff who will work directly for a North-South body. Regulations will have to be changed as there is no mechanism to deal with it at present. Apart from the staff directly employed, it will be possible to appoint staff on a co-operative basis. To take the example mentioned by the Deputy, Comhairle na n-Ospidéal could appoint someone whose remit would be contracted. The same could apply to the areas of education and the arts. A change in legislation will not be required for cases where there is co-operation. There will have to be changes to appoint staff who work directly for a body, to allow for accountancy practice.
Who would be the accounting officer of the North-South body or bodies and to whom would he or she account — the Comptroller and Auditor General in Dublin, Belfast or London? Would a separate system of financial control have to be established?
How would the North-South body work regarding budgetary authority for its annual expenditure? Would it have to seek sanction from the Department of Finance in Merrion Street, the Department of Finance in Belfast, the Treasury in London or would there be a joint arrangement where one Minister of Finance would, on an agreed basis, consent to a financial issue? Does the Taoiseach agree it is on the basis of these practical, day-to-day issues of authorising proper and legal expenditure that the institutions will succeed or fail?
I agree. I would like to think everyone will engage in that small detail.
It is not small if one cannot get sanction.
Officials on both sides have thought about those matters although the parties are not involved. There will have to be a separate allocation and an agreed mechanism where bodies will get their powers from the Oireachtas and whatever body will be in Northern Ireland. There will have to be an agreed system involving the Treasury and the Department of Finance for administrative purposes. It is being discussed that rather than each heading going through a bureaucratic system, it would be more administratively effective and accountable to have a separate accounting officer to which money would be allocated.
Does the Taoiseach have any information on the numbers of people classified as disappeared? For how many do the security forces believe different paramilitary organisations are responsible? The approximate figure is 20, many of which are the responsibility of the IRA and UVF. There is an attempt being made to shift responsibility to a broad, amorphous mass of unseen generality of paramilitaries, while the major responsibility lies with the IRA. It is not good enough for them to seek to get off the hook.
Can the Taoiseach explain what he believes Sinn Féin means when it says "no return to Stormont"? I have never heard, or seen in any documentation, an explanation of what this means. Does Sinn Féin not want a democratically elected assembly in Northern Ireland which will give power back to the people of Northern Ireland and end direct British rule?
I hope I am not doing Sinn Féin question time, as I would prefer other people to answer those questions. I have seen the list of disappeared people but I do not want to guess figures off the top of my head. I have seen a note on this and I could get information for the Deputy if he so wishes. I would like to repeat what I have said rather than seek to clarify anybody else's argument. Our negotiating position — as it was in the Framework Document, as it is in the Propositions Paper and as it is outlined in the strand two and strand three papers — is to try to achieve a fair and balanced settlement with the necessary constitutional change to have North-South bodies with real executive powers that can administer Departments in the North in a meaningful way, and that there will be no internal settlement.
Nobody is arguing the case that an old kind of Stormont is what we are talking about. I have not heard that case put by anybody in the talks.
In relation to Question No. 15, may I ask the Taoiseach where the sessions of the talks are to be held in Dublin in the near future? Will he explain to the House what arrangements are being made to facilitate those talks? Will he bear in mind the particularly bad history of the talks when they came to Dublin on a previous occasion? It was effectively the beginning of the end because of a certain intransigence, which I do not particularly want to go into here.
The same crowd is involved.
Bearing in mind the dynamics that could be created by talks taking place in Dublin, they need to be very carefully handled.
I appreciate that point. The talks will be confined to Dublin Castle and all the activities will be confined there as well. Most of the talks in that week will be on strand two, although I am trying to get people to move away from just one strand, as we discussed here yesterday. Most of the talks will be trying to work on the strand two paper and I hope there will be no difficulties. I repeat what I am continually saying to the British Government and to the parties at the talks — the quicker the better we get to a position where we can meaningfully negotiate without continual analysis and people having major press conferences every three hours. Most of the time is spent preparing what spin to put on the next matter, but if we continually go down that road the talks will never get anywhere. I have been trying to get people to have longer working sessions that are not necessarily followed by major press conferences.
I heartily agree with the Taoiseach in saying it is important to get away from the phenomenon where every document is analysed in public as to whether it is slightly greener or more orange than the last one. According to some commentaries, the colour of the paper seems almost to be more important than the content of the documents. Some of the most trenchant comments are made by people who apparently have not read the documents at all.
Is the Taoiseach aware that in the arrangements for the talks in London, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition parties were involved in some informal aspects of the talks? Will similar procedures be followed here to allow Opposition Parties access to the participants, particularly in view of the fact that some of the issues in strands two and three directly affect the prerogatives of this House and the role of Members of the House, both in Government and Opposition?
In the Propositions Document the Taoiseach has committed us to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time this has been done. Will that convention be incorporated in our Constitution, thereby overriding or having equivalent effect to the existing constitutional provisions, or will it simply be incorporated in our domestic law, in which case our Constitution will remain superior to the European Convention on Human Rights?
Will the Taoiseach indicate the areas where, in his belief, there is a current conflict between the provisions of the European Convention and our Constitution? Is he aware of the view that there are some areas in which there is a difference? Has the Taoiseach any indication of the laws that will need to be changed if the European Convention is to be incorporated into our domestic law and made superior to it?
Will the Intergovernmental Council, involving the devolved assemblies to apply between Britain and the whole island of Ireland, North and South, have its own secretariat, financial allocation and executive functions, similar to the North-South body? If not, in what respect will it differ from the Anglo-Irish Council which has already been established by the agreement of 1980 between the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, and the then British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher? In other words, is the Intergovernmental Council contained in the Propositions Document a new body?
It has not been worked out yet what contact we will have with the parties, but I will certainly bear that in mind. We will try to abide by whatever arrangements were made for the previous sessions.
As regards the European Convention on Human Rights, Deputy Bruton is wrong. The Government has given no such commitment and has been careful to avoid doing so in any of the discussions.
What does the Propositions Document mean, then?
It is not a case of what it means, but of what the Deputy is trying to read into it.
Will the Taoiseach tell me what it means?
I will tell the Deputy what it means. The last line refers to "appropriate steps to ensure an equivalent level of protection in the Republic", which is precisely the same language used when the Deputy negotiated the Framework Document, to make sure that we did not get ourselves into the issue the Deputy has outlined, where there are difficulties and differences with our position. This is a difficult and complex area but one we have to deal with. Soon we will be the only country that has not incorporated the European Convention into its domestic legislation. Many of the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights are already covered by the rights established under the Constitution — both those explicitly set out in the Constitution and those that have been declared to be implicit. However, there are major difficulties in that. There are still areas of conflict and that is why they have not been dealt with.
On 12 November 1997 when this was discussed in one of the sessions of the talks, I asked the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to re-examine their reports dating from a few years ago when this matter was examined at the time of the completion of the Framework Document. At that stage, as Deputy Bruton will recall, they had grave reservations about going down that road. Difficulties can arise in regard to issues where our case law, in cases that have been either explicitly or implicitly dealt with in the Constitution or by the courts, would be at variance with the European Court of Human Rights. We have to deal with these issues in terms of a full agreement, but I have not moved from the position as set out over the years by my predecessors.
I asked the Taoiseach another question about the Intergovernmental Council, but may I push the Taoiseach a little bit on the European Convention on Human Rights? The Taoiseach cannot disagree he has stated that appropriate steps will be taken to give an equivalent level of protection in the Republic to that provided for in the Convention. That statement implies that an equivalent level of protection is not currently being provided and that things need to be done which have not been done so far. May I ask the Taoiseach what those things are?
In the joint Framework Document the Government did not give explicit commitments to incorporate the Convention. We did, however, commit ourselves to include in a final agreement an undertaking to ensure in the island of Ireland the systematic and effective protection of common specified political, social and cultural rights in accordance with our constitutional arrangements. That is what we are committed to and what we will have to be committed to in the finalisation of the talks.
What does that mean?
It means that we have to address areas where there are either equality or social issues which are not in accordance with the European Convention. They have been raised in a number of cases over the years. We will have to deal with those issues either in our own legislation or in any final settlement.
(Dublin West): Lest I am labelled by Deputy Currie's earlier comment, I am asking this question not as a Nationalist or a Unionist but as a democratic socialist. Will the Taoiseach agree the mass rally organised by the trade union movement in Belfast last Friday, which I attended, and similar rallies throughout the North are important developments in allowing working class communities across the divide, who have suffered most from the violence and sectarianism, to state clearly that the sectarian killers on all sides do not act for the majority of people in our society? Although the media exaggerated one incident where a small number of banners, which were out of order, were displayed, that element did not dominate the rally. Will he also agree it is highly significant that more than 10,000 workers left their workplaces to take part in such a demonstration against sectarian killings? Will he join in urging the trade union movement to continue to develop this protest across the sectarian divide in the knowledge that action by working class communities can isolate such sectarianism, because self-appointed paramilitaries or sectarian groups on any side do not have the right to attempt to drag working class people and their communities back to the days of sectarianism and killings?
I publicly urged people the week before the rallies in Belfast to support the efforts of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I support it and all those people who are working in various groups and organisations in Belfast and in the STOP campaign in the South to highlight the sectarian killings and to show that those engaged in such activities do not have any support in the community. I urge people to support the STOP campaign when it organises its events next week.