John Bruton
Ceist:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London on 26 February 1998 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair. [5396/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in London with the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble. [5397/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the official engagements he undertook on his visit to London on 26 and 27 February 1998. [5398/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the president of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams. [5399/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume. [5400/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and the conclusions, if any, reached in his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; if he discussed plans for the relocation of the talks abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5533/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with representatives of Sinn Féin on 24 February 1998. [5534/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the Irish and British Governments will have finalised their proposed joint document on a settlement between the parties in Northern Ireland and the two Governments. [5551/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting last week with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5557/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the issues other than Northern Ireland he discussed with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5558/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting last week with the president of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5559/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the leader of the Social Democratic Labour Party, Mr. John Hume; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5560/98]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:13 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent discussions with the principals and parties to the Northern Ireland talks. [5736/98]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:14 D'fhiafraigh Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin den Taoiseach an dtabharfaidh sé tuairisc ar a chruinniú le Príomh-Aire na Breataine i Sráid Downing ar 26 Feabhra 1998. [5774/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 14, inclusive, together.
I had a very positive meetings with the SDLP and Sinn Féin in Government Buildings last week. Both meetings were very helpful. We comprehensively discussed a number of issues involved in the talks process. In my meetings with both parties I stressed that we should all hold steadily on course and the importance of continuing to work towards reaching agreement by Easter, with the participation of all the parties. Paramilitary extremists on all sides should not be allowed to dictate the pace — and in this regard I would like to congratulate the Garda for its success recently, including yesterday in Louth, in preventing further attacks. What we need is for all of the parties to focus on the issues and work to achieve the necessary compromise and agreement.
My meeting with Prime Minister Blair last Thursday in London was also constructive and helpful. We discussed the best way to move forward to secure an agreement. It was agreed that further intensive discussions will take place with the parties in an effort to secure agreement on an issue by issue basis, focusing immediately on constitutional, security, policing and equality issues. We both agreed that there was a need to intensify efforts to complete work by Easter and I am optimistic that we will meet this target.
With regard to the suggestion that the talks should move to a venue abroad, no decision one way or the other has been taken about moving the talks. We will of course continue to examine every option which we believe could help move the talks forward, and in this situation all suggestions will be kept under review. As I indicated here on 17 February, the general practice in the negotiations has been for the two Governments to act jointly, including in the presentation of any papers. Whether and when to present a paper to the participants or the independent chairmen bringing together the results of the work with the parties under way and envisaged will be determined by the Governments in the light of progress in the three strands.
I also had a meeting with David Trimble last Friday while I was in London. We discussed recent developments and how best to make progress. As in all my meetings, I emphasised the need to stay focused on the prize of an agreement and not to allow ourselves to be put off course.
While in London I attended a reception for the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy at the Savoy Hotel. I also attended a gala evening at the Copthorne Hotel, which has strong Irish links, to mark the 25th anniversary of its opening. I also attended the launch of Business '98 last Friday, a publication by the Irish Post newspaper, in conjunction with Bank of Ireland and IDA Ireland. This publication reflects the growing contribution and influence of people of Irish origin in business life in Britain and is aimed at improving business links and communications between Irish business people in Britain and between the business communities in Britain and Ireland.
I take this opportunity to welcome the announcement yesterday by EU Commission President, Jacques Santer, of new economic aid to support the peace process. The allocation of a further £88 million by the European Commission and its approval by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament is a recognition of the success of the programme to date in reaching those communities affected most by the years of violence. I agree with President Santer that we can learn from the European Union in terms of overcoming division and reconciling our past.
What are the Government's proposals for amending Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in the context of a settlement? When does the Government intend making the wording of the proposed amendment available? Will it be made available to the talks participants or, in the first instance, to this House? What would be the likely date for the holding of a referendum to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution as part of an overall settlement?
The publication of all of these matters will occur if we can reach agreement. I will not outline the issues involved at this stage, but they have not moved much further from what was discussed some time ago. There have been many discussions and many internal papers from the British and Irish Governments on the constitutional issues. We have now decided to consider the constitutional, institutional and equality issues as separate agenda items and in separate papers. I hope to reach agreement on these aspects with the British Government and with the parties individually and collectively. If we have a referendum in May, which is the target we are working towards, I hope it will be held in the later part of the month.
How much time would that give the House to consider the wording of the amendment to the Constitution? Will the wording be negotiated at the talks or will the Government state its position on it in the hope that it will command agreement among the other parties? If the latter is the case, when will the Dáil be brought into the Government's confidence regarding its intentions?
I want the Dáil to be brought into the Government's confidence as soon as possible after agreement has been reached. The 30 day rule will be used to ensure there is adequate time for the House to debate the issue. The British Government mentioned 8 May, but I explained in terms of timing that late May appears a more realistic date to allow for the 30 day rule.
The Government put forward its view on all the issues, including the constitutional aspects. There have been a number of discussions with the British Government, including one this morning on the constitutional issues. The British Government put forward some internal papers; these are not the first papers and they are unlikely to be the last. It put forward several papers since the beginning of the year. It is a case of trying to fine tune the contents and I am anxious to sign off on as many aspects as possible to lessen the number of working papers.
Does the Taoiseach not consider it somewhat anomalous that the Government is discussing the wording of the Constitution with the British Government when parties in the House are not being consulted about the wording of an amendment on which the Government hopes to have agreement in the House? It will be one of the biggest amendments ever made to the Constitution.
The heading on constitutional issues is not the only way forward. As the Deputy is aware from the Framework Document negotiations, a wording has been discussed by the two Governments. Discussions have moved on and there have been some changes, although there have been no major changes in substance. The House will be informed in plenty of time, but ultimately the people make the decisions on changes to the Constitution. I will be anxious to keep the House informed about all parts of the agreement, not only the constitutional aspects, when it is possible to do so.
The Taoiseach's reply to the effect that the wording of Articles 2 and 3 discussed during the Framework Document negotiations is still being debated and has not been changed substantially worries me. Will the Taoiseach find a mechanism to consult the leaders of the Opposition parties about the issue of Articles 2 and 3? It is critical to ensure there is complete support in the House for changes to the Constitution given that they will be part of an agreement between the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties.
Regarding his meetings with Sinn Féin, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, and the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. Trimble, the Taoiseach said the meetings with Sinn Féin and Mr. Blair were successful. However, he did not use the word "successful" in relation to his meeting with Mr. Trimble. In what way did the Taoiseach find the meeting with Sinn Féin successful as against his meeting with Mr. Trimble?
Deputy De Rossa should not be concerned about the first matter and he should not read too much into his second point. In terms of the constitutional issues, the Deputy knows what was presented at the time of the Framework Document. Much work has been done on that wording and also on section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. We will certainly be anxious to discuss this with all parties in the House when there is some progress on the constitutional agenda.
Can I take it from that reply that we will not face a fait accompli with regard to Articles 2 and 3?
I will certainly want to discuss those Articles. They are a major part of the agreement that will go before the people. I hope the agreement in the House over 20 to 25 years on these issues will hold if we get to a final settlement.
My discussions with the SDLP and Sinn Féin were very detailed and lasted two to three hours. I endeavoured to look at all the working papers put forward by the Governments and the parties to see what elements among the many issues raised in those papers might lead to agreement and what would lead to differences. I tried to narrow down areas of disagreement and see what they might mean. I sought to achieve a clear picture, not agreement, and those meetings were very useful. There was a follow-up meeting with the SDLP that I did not attend.
When I met Mr. Trimble, we discussed the ongoing talks process and how we might reach a conclusion on the papers. I was particularly interested in exploring Strand 1 issues with him with a view to hearing his opinion of how that was progressing.
With regard to any timetable relating to a referendum on constitutional change, is it the intention of both Governments to have a referendum on or around 8 May? If so, the 30 day rule referred to by the Taoiseach means the Dáil would have to have the text of such a Bill, notwithstanding bilateral agreements with party leaders. Therefore, could we discuss changes to Articles 2 and 3 before the final talks reached agreement? Have I misread the Taoiseach's comments?
It is unlikely that 8 May will be the day because of the 30 day rule. The UK Parliament's procedures mean it is even less likely. A later date in May might be appropriate. We would have to have a separate referendum Bill in this House, and if its wording is agreed by the other parties, it would be appropriate to debate it in the House.
Does the Taoiseach envisage the House being possibly asked to give its assent to changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in advance of any final settlement being negotiated among the parties at the Northern Ireland talks?
I hope the agreement is completed within the talks with the British Government. There will have to be an overall agreement and the main part of that would be our constitutional change, which would have to be discussed in this House. It would certainly have to be discussed informally, although I am not ruling out a formal discussion on the matter. I would like to conclude this matter, if I could get agreement from all sides. We have spent a great deal of time in recent months discussing constitutional, institutional and equality matters. We are trying to bring them to a conclusion, but we must get the agreement of the parties. With the exception of policing, other matters will not change very much. Rather than placing the whole agreement before the parties and then discovering there are enormous differences to be resolved, we are trying to narrow down matters into different sections, such as constitutional, institutional, policing and equality matters. Those are the four main areas where we are trying to narrow the differences between the parties.
(Dublin West): Unfortunately, disputed marches and parades have contributed significantly to polarisation among the communities in Northern Ireland. They have been a big factor in increasing sectarianism and bitterness. Is the Taoiseach concerned, therefore, about the controversy surrounding the Parades Commission and the likelihood that it may not now command universal respect? Has the Taoiseach discussed this matter and the difficulties that may arise in the forthcoming so-called marching season with any of the parties he met in recent times? Does he agree it is crucial that communities at local level begin to engage in genuine dialogue across the divide with a necessary measure of compromise on both sides so that the right to march and express one's opinion is balanced with sensitivity and respect for the other side, irrespective of which side that is? Will the Taoiseach undertake to use his influence, with any of the parties in Northern Ireland with whom he has influence, to urge them to work towards achieving such agreement and thereby avoid the tension and brinkmanship that have resulted from disputes over parades in recent years?
I have always tried to support the Parades Commission because the principle of an independent assessment and authoritative judgment made in a neutral and fair fashion is the correct way to proceed. I discussed this issue with everybody I met in recent times. I am concerned about this matter, particularly having regard to the concerns emanating from all levels of the Nationalist community at the perceived lack of balance within the commission because of the latest appointments. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will raise this matter at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference next Thursday. Regardless of the individuals involved, some of whom I know very well, the public perception is vitally important to the work of the commission in the future. Its role this summer and in the years ahead in getting public acceptance for the decisions it makes as a commission will be vital. The sensitivity and emotion that surrounds the marches must also be considered. It has to be balanced and fair. Ultimately, the fairness of the commission — I have stated this to some of the members — can only be interpreted by the decisions it makes. On the question of urging communities to get together, to work together and to operate together, the commission is meeting some of the communities. Meetings have been sought by some of the communities with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I would like to see many more meetings. There is not a great deal of evidence to show that across community lines they are endeavouring to put in a great deal of effort at meeting. I take this opportunity to urge them to do so.
Has the wording of a possible amendment to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution been discussed by the Taoiseach with any of the parties he met, namely, the SDLP, the Unionist Party and Sinn Fein? Has any of the parties had sight of any wordings the Government may be contemplating for amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution? I join the Taoiseach in congratulating the security forces who put their lives at risk in detecting and defusing the bomb at Hackballscross, County Louth. Was this bomb intended for use on this side of the Border or on the other side and who does the Taoiseach believe was responsible for preparing it?
I have had discussions on the principles of constitutional change and constitutional issues but not on a possible wording for Articles 2 and 3, although I think a suggested form of wording has been put forward in some of the documents by some of the groupings but not by the Government.
I have no particular information on the events of last night except to say that the Garda and the security forces in the North have been active in monitoring the activities of the Continuity IRA.
How does the Taoiseach think it will be possible to get the parties to sign up to an agreement, part of which is contingent on change in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, without actually discussing the wording of the constitutional change with them, given that in matters of the Constitution the wording is everything? The intentions and the principles are of comparatively little importance in comparison with the actual words that go into the Constitution. Is it his intention to discuss the wording of the changes to Articles 2 and 3 with the parties in the talks at any stage between now and the agreement being signed off?
I do not want to get into the fine art of what we are trying to do in the negotiations. I do not believe any party will sign off without being clear on the wording. Before I would ask them to sign off they would be clear on the wording.
In relation to the Parades Commission where he indicated there were some concerns in regard to a lack of balance, will the Taoiseach confirm that the balance being sought is not numerical or a token presence of particular representatives of the community but people who have an understanding of the mindset of the various conflicting parties and a willingness to seek ways of overcoming those conflicts? It would be disastrous if people were appointed to the Parades Commission simply to create a perception of equality or balance.
That is correct but the Deputy will agree that the perception of this issue is vitally important and will play a key role in relation to whether the public will accept the decisions taken by the commission. It is regrettable that in Northern communities judgments that create the public perception are based on people's backgrounds. The judgment of one of the appointees, with whom I have had many dealings during the years and who does not come from the Nationalist tradition, on these issues is fairly good. Other Members know the individual I am talking about but it is difficult to convince people in Nationalist communities of this.
I accept the point that it is essential that the perception is such but it is not sufficient to appoint token Taigues or Prods to the commission to satisfy that perception. There must also be people with a good insight into the mindsets of the people in conflict over these parades.
The Taoiseach mentioned the formidable agenda of discussions he is having on the issues of equality, constitutional change and so on. Has he considered the issue of intimidation in the context of an election which might be held to new institutions which might be established following a settlement? Is he aware of the extent to which punishment beatings are being used to dominate particular areas and of the fear among some parties in Northern Ireland that these tactics will continue to be used, perhaps in an oblique way, following a settlement with a view to levering more power for particular political parties which happen to be associated with paramilitaries? Does he consider that we will still need to have a means of applying the Mitchell principles following a settlement in the context of its operation? Does he have proposals for ensuring that guarantees of compliance with the Mitchell principles will be sought from those seeking to participate in institutions to be established following a settlement?
That is a bit down the road. I have always spoken out against punishment beatings which are used to a frightening degree in both communities to enforce the will of certain paramilitary groups. How all these issues can be dealt with brings us back to the major issue of policing. In normal society these matters would be considered unacceptable by everybody, except by a small group which supports the use of violence. Unfortunately, the issue of policing has not been dealt with adequately in many communities. This is acknowledged in the recent report of the Chief Constable of the RUC. The SDLP has been stating for the past 30 years that the policing and equality issues are bigger than others. They have to be dealt with adequately. There have been discussions recently on how we can move to a position where both communities can have confidence on the issue of policing.
It is not that far down the road.
Once the settlement is agreed in May I presume the institutions will be established quickly thereafter. Before they can be established there has to be an election which I presume will take place later this year. Will the Taoiseach agree that any arrangements that need to be made to ensure parties and paramilitaries associated with parties do not use paramilitary tactics to influence political outcomes will have to be agreed as part of the settlement in addition to and complemented by any agreements that will be reached on policing which will take a while to put into effect? As it is unlikely any new policing arrangement will be fully in operation on the day the first election takes place for the new institutions, will the Taoiseach agree this is a matter that ought to be settled beforehand as part of the process? Does he consider it ought to be agreed as part of any settlement that the Mitchell principles will continue to apply and will not be simply cast aside once a settlement has been agreed initially?
I hope the Mitchell principles will continue to apply forever more in all circumstances. That would be the wish of this House. There would be quite an amount of time from the time of an agreement to elections under strand one to when strand two implementation bodies would be set up with executive powers. Setting up new arrangements for policing would also involve quite some time. In all that period the Mitchell principles would have to apply.
In Question No. 10, I asked the Taoiseach if he discussed other matters not related to questions on Northern Ireland but he did not refer to that in his comprehensive reply to Questions Nos. 1 to 14 inclusive. In the course of his discussions with the British Prime Minister did he raise the issue of the UK's European Union Presidency and whether in that context the UK is prepared to support requests that the European Commission undertakes a study to examine the employment impact that will result from the abolition of duty free sales in June next year?
I raised the issue of the European Presidency and the priorities and agenda Prime Minister Blair is following and I also raised duty free sales. I discussed the UK's attitude to it and the fact that it had not included it as an initiative during its Presidency. I informed the Prime Minister that the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, will shortly publish a report on it. I asked that he and his ministerial colleagues try to support changes and movements in this regard. He listened to what I said and reiterated what he and a number of British Ministers stated previously, that they will take their lead from what a number of countries are doing and will take note of our position and what we are doing. We are urging them to take that lead during their Presidency. The Prime Minister will reflect on those issues, but we will have to get more than one country and, perhaps, more than two or three to push this issue.
During its Presidency of the European Union the UK has the right to formally and informally put items on the agenda. Did the Prime Minister indicate, in response to the Taoiseach's request, that in the short period between now and the expiry of the UK Presidency at the end of June that this matter would be listed as an item for discussion at the ECOFIN Council or at the Transport Council?
I believe the UK, in its bilaterals with other countries, will assess the level of support for action on this and, if there is a level of support for it, it will do something about this. If there is not a level of support for it or if we are the only ones who support it, it will not do anything about it.
Greece is prepared to support this.
That is why the Minister for Public Enterprise will be talking to her French and German colleagues, if not today, in the next few days.
I welcome what the Taoiseach had to say about policing. Will he agree it is still the case that the most likely Achilles' heel of any settlement is the lack of an acceptable police force? That must be borne in mind and worked towards consistently. Even if we had acceptable institutions in the three tiers, if we do not have an acceptable police force, there will be great difficulty in having an agreement that will last. Given that it appears we will have a referendum in May or soon after, is the Taoiseach aware that in recent elections in Northern Ireland there has been an increasing tendency towards malpractice in electoral affairs——
Never.
——and there will be a serious temptation for some parties involved in the referendum to be involved in electoral abuse, particularly personation.
Hear, hear.
Has the Taoiseach raised the question of safeguards with the British Government because I know from experience how difficult this matter is? From the earliest day, serious consideration should be given to ensure these abuses do not occur in what will probably be the most important referendum ever held here.
Policing is the main issue in trying to get confidence in the communities——
It is central.
——and it must be developed.
Séamus Mallon is probably the only person who has prepared a blueprint on that issue over the years and I continuously use and quote from it because there is no other on policing matters in Northern Ireland. Few of the reforms he outlined in the four separate pieces of work he has done on this over the past ten to 15 years have been considered in terms of the chief constables of the RUC taking on board what he has said. Electoral abuse has gone on for years and the British Government and the parties are aware of it. People will do all they can to avoid it, although that is easier said than done.
Some weeks ago I raised with the Taoiseach the question of the referendum which will be held on the changes to our Constitution. I asked him if he had considered the arrangements necessary to put a question to the people to approve the agreement as distinct from approving a change in the territorial claim in our Constitution. Has he considered that question and whether two questions will be put to the electorate? Will the agreement, which is separate from the issue of changing our Constitution as regards the territorial claim, become part of our Constitution or will it be simply the approval of an international agreement with the British Government?
We had a fairly extensive debate on that issue two to three weeks ago and I have put the views of all parties to the working group looking at the implementation of constitutional issues. I have nothing further to add at this stage as the matter has not really progressed further.
Does the Taoiseach agree this is imminent and that he should have a view as to whether——
I stated my view three weeks ago.
What the Taoiseach was going to do was not clear three weeks ago.
It was very clear because all of the parties' leaders picked up on my comments and understood precisely what I said.
Given that this is clear, will the Taoiseach indicate if it is the intention to put two questions to the people or one only?
It is still too early to say but as I stated on the last occasion, I believe two questions will be put to the people.
I wish to return to unanswered Question No. 10 and ask the Taoiseach about a matter which may or may not have been the subject of a discussion with the British Prime Minister in No. 10 Downing Street. Did the British Prime Minister or the Taoiseach raise with the UK authorities their attitude to the appointment of directors to the board of the European Central Bank and the request that perhaps not all the six slots would be filled, so as to leave space for the anticipated entry of the United Kingdom into the single currency after the year 2002?
I did not discuss that issue.