John Bruton
Ceist:29 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Mallon. [18717/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Matters.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 29, inclusive, together.
The visit of President and Mrs. Clinton to Ireland earlier this month was extremely successful. I was delighted the President and First Lady, who are true friends of Ireland, were able to pay a second visit here. Their visit in particular helped the efforts of the two Governments to give an added momentum to the political process in Northern Ireland. It also had an important economic dimension.
At our meeting on Friday, 4 September, the President and I focused primarily on Northern Ireland and the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement. I took the opportunity to thank him for his commitment, restated in Belfast, to continue his support for the implementation of the Agreement. I also reiterated to him our appreciation of his tremendous positive input to the process. The President renewed his commitment to do whatever he could to advance the cause of peace and assured me of his continued support in maintaining the momentum.
I took the opportunity at our meeting to raise with him the issue of the military strikes on targets in Sudan and Afghanistan. The President explained the security and intelligence basis on which the decisions had been taken.
Following our meeting, President Clinton and I attended a reception and lunch at the Royal College of Surgeons, celebrating social partnership in Ireland, attended by a large number of participants in such partnership, at national and local level, throughout the State.
The President and I paid tribute to the social partnership model which over the past decade has helped to transform our economy. The President went on to cite Ireland as an example in building bridges to other nations as an open economy and by facilitating and encouraging business ventures from around the world. He also cited the British-Irish Agreement as a model for conflict resolution in other parts of the world.
Later on Friday, the President and I visited Gateway in Clonshaugh, Dublin. The visit provided an excellent opportunity to showcase to the rest of the world, particularly to potential investors, some of the latest high technology now typical of Ireland. It was also an opportunity for us to make a significant piece of history by becoming the first two leaders to sign an international communiqué electronically using technology pioneered by an Irish company, Baltimore Technologies. This event highlighted Ireland as being at the forefront of information technology development. It highlights too our willingness and ability to develop an environment in which electronic commerce will flourish. President Clinton remarked that "Ireland is fast becoming the technological capital of Europe".
On Saturday, 5 September, President Clinton visited Limerick, where I was very happy to introduce him to a large and very enthusiastic gathering at a civic reception in O'Connell Street at which he was awarded the freedom of the city in recognition of his outstanding contribution to peace. The President gave an inspiring address in which he urged the people of Ireland to press forward with the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement and to resist the efforts of those few who would seek to undermine it.
In the course of his visit the President and I paid tribute to the dedication and achievements of Senator George Mitchell, Ambassador Jean Kennedy-Smith and other members of the delegation accompanying the President, who have worked so hard to bring us to the present positive situation where we are moving towards the full implementation of the British-Irish Agreement.
It is the Government's firm determination that all paramilitary violence should cease forthwith and that was the main purpose of the legislation passed by this House, post-Omagh. Since the House met in early September the INLA and the so-called Real IRA have declared ceasefires. In the INLA's case, this was in train prior to Omagh. Only the Continuity IRA has still not responded to the will of the people.
Regarding the announcement by the so-called Real IRA of a complete cessation of violence, I have already made known my views on this in a statement I issued on 8 September. I made clear that, on the basis that its statement was put fully into effect and was final, it represented a positive development. I made clear also that, irrespective of that statement of cessation, the determination of the two Governments to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Omagh atrocity will not be diminished. Ultimately, it remains to be demonstrated how real this ceasefire will prove to be. I do not have any indications that it is other than real. However, we will continue to monitor the situation closely.
There have been no direct contacts between my Department and the so-called Real IRA or with the 32 County Sovereignty Committee since Omagh. At the same time since the British-Irish Agreement, I have sought to ensure publicly and through those whose pastoral work brings them into contact with every section of the community that the Government's and the people's total opposition to any attempt to continue a terrorist campaign or even to justify one is clearly understood and acted upon. The Government's firm and decisive response post-Omagh with the support of the Dáil helped achieve a suspension, then a ceasefire and also minimised pressure on other ceasefires.
I have been meeting and liaising intensively over the summer, particularly after Omagh, with the parties and others, including the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, First Minister, Mr. Trimble, Deputy First Minister, Mr. Mallon, SDLP leader, Mr. Hume, Sinn Féin leader, Mr. Gerry Adams, and Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam. There have also been a number of meetings over the past ten days.
I do not propose to report in detail on each meeting or telephone conversation I have relating to Northern Ireland. However, most recently, we have been focusing, as I will continue to do in future meetings when required, on progressing the implementation of the provisions of the British-Irish Agreement. We all recognise that there are many difficult issues to be faced, but all our efforts must be focused on maintaining the momentum towards the full implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects without new preconditions. With vision and leadership on all sides, we will succeed in turning into reality what people voted for on 22 May.
Two aspects need to be borne in mind. The entire spirit of the Agreement is inclusive and implementation can only be on that basis, but, equally, it is not open to any party or associated organisation to say that a certain part of the Agreement will not happen. Good faith has to be demonstrated all round. Implementation of the Agreement does not, as its critics on all sides spuriously pretend, constitute surrender on anyone's part.
Every party should do willingly what is asked of it in the Agreement as early as it can and not hold back, waiting for others. If everyone acts in a forthcoming way, the two Governments will act to ensure that all commitments are fulfilled and that no-one's interests suffer from them being too forward. In any dispute that arises, we must ensure that the broader public interest prevails. Necessary preparatory work in my Department and others has been pressed forward in recent weeks to ensure that the timetable for implementation envisaged when the Agreement was reached is respected.
I recently met the chairman of the Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, Mr. Chris Patten. I wished him well in his very important undertaking and assured him the Government would assist and facilitate him in any way he thought appropriate.
I met Archbishop Desmond Tutu last Wednesday. During our meeting we reviewed current developments and the implementation to date of the British-Irish Agreement. The Archbishop and I agreed on the importance of accommodation and dialogue in resolving conflict. I conveyed to the Archbishop our view that the South African experience provided a model for negotiation, agreement and conflict resolution.
On the issue of further meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, whether a meeting of the forum is to be convened is not a matter for me or the Government, but the chairperson and all the participating parties. As Deputies are aware, meetings of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation were suspended as a result of the breakdown of the Provisional IRA ceasefire in February 1996. The forum was reconvened in December 1997, some time after the restoration of the Provisional IRA ceasefire, with the broad intention that it should meet at intervals of two to three months.
I understand that on the two occasions some time ago when inquiries were made of the participating parties as to their views on further meetings, a range of responses were received. However, the preponderant view was against holding a meeting. It was clear from the responses that this essentially reflected the preoccupation of the parties with the intensive work of the multi-party negotiations leading to the British-Irish Agreement. While I understand further inquiries as to parties' views have not been made since then, it was abundantly clear that the time and energies of the parties were entirely focused on, successively, the referenda campaigns, North and South, the election campaign in the North, the Drumcree crisis, the Northern Ireland Bill, the Omagh atrocity and, now, the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement with some brief periods for holidays.
It may be that the preponderant view among the parties would be that they would prefer to concentrate on the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement. It is best to wait a little longer until the overall political situation clarifies further before initiating further inquiries as to the wishes of parties participating in the forum. I will be happy to adhere to the preponderant view of the parties overall, whatever that may prove to be.
The British-Irish Agreement under Strand Two, paragraph 18, envisages that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas would consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, bringing together equal numbers from both institutions for discussions of matters of mutual interest and concern. Perhaps it is in that direction that we should look for the future.
The Taoiseach has given a comprehensive reply to 29 questions and I wish to ask a number of supplementary questions. He referred to his discussion with the President of the United States. Regarding the military attack by the United States on Sudan and Afghanistan, the Taoiseach indicated that President Clinton gave him a briefing on the security information that was available. The Taoiseach did not go further in his response. Did the Taoiseach ask him the legal basis on which the United States justified its attacks on Khartoum and Afghanistan and, if so, what was his response?
When I raised these issues with the President he outlined the background to the events in Sudan and Afghanistan and the security intelligence they had received. I outlined the European Union's response and asked if he would be willing to co-operate with the inquiry which had been announced. He said that he would and would make all the security intelligence available. I also asked about the civilian casualties and highlighted what we said at the time. The President explained at some length when we met privately and as part of a delegation that the United States was at war with certain terrorist movements and highlighted the efforts they were making to defeat them.
Did the Taoiseach ask him the legal basis which enabled the United States to engage in an act of war against two countries which are not at war with the United States?
It was not a question of trying to determine the legal basis. The European Union has announced an inquiry into the matter.
It was illegal.
The United States will defend itself at that inquiry. I outlined our view. In one case it believed there were extremely strong grounds but in the other, Sudan, it will be strongly challenged.
Does the Taoiseach regard it as odd that the European Union is conducting the inquiry and not the United Nations? The United States is not a member of the European Union and there are no sanctions that the European Union can impose if the United States is found to have acted illegally under the United Nations charter. Does the Taoiseach agree that the United Nations should be asked to conduct the inquiry in line with the statement made by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, who agreed that this would be a legitimate request? Does the Taoiseach consider that the information provided by President Clinton justified the bombing of Sudan in view of information in the international media that the factory bombed and the people injured had nothing to do with chemical bomb making, the alleged excuse for the bombing?
To my knowledge the European Union inquiry is the only inquiry being conducted — I do not think the UN is conducting an inquiry.
Will the Taoiseach request one?
We support the European Union inquiry. The President had available to him strong information about an event——
It was wrong information.
The Deputy asked me the question and I am simply giving him the facts. The President had strong information about a gathering that was to take place that weekend and it was on that basis the action was taken. He also gave me an insight into the kind of data available to him. In regard to the rights or wrongs of this action, I am sure the subsequent EU investigation will indicate what does and does not stand up.
Does the Taoiseach believe the bombing of Sudan was justified based on the information the President gave him and the information he knows is available about that information being wrong? Does he not consider that the action taken by the United States in this instance threatens to destabilise the whole region?
The inquiry into this matter is ongoing——
By the EU.
——and I will not take issue with the intelligence available to the United States which it believes justified the action taken.
Was it legal?
The United States accepts that other countries, including Ireland, took issue with some of these matters and that they would be investigated fully by the EU. That is where the matter rests.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with President Clinton the then ongoing genocidal aggression by the Serbs in Kosovo, and does he see some contrast between the reticence of the reaction of the west to the genocidal policies being pursued against Muslims in Kosovo and the more prompt approach of the United States to attacks on targets in Afghanistan and Khartoum? Will he endorse the suggestion recently made to overcome the difficulties that have arisen in the formation of the shadow Executive and in relation to decommissioning, that the IRA, of its own accord, would put out of commission some of its aggressive weaponry such as semtex which does not have any defensive purpose?
On the first matter raised by Deputy Bruton, at that time we spoke about issues concerning various trouble spots around the world. That issue was raised but we did not have any detailed discussion on it. I take the Deputy's point, however, and I said last week at another forum that in some locations throughout the world action seems to take place very quickly while in other areas such as Kosovo it seems to take a great deal of time before anything useful happens. The President's reply to me at the time was that they were keeping their senior people involved in that difficulty which has escalated since those meetings in early September to the current dangerous level.
On the second matter, I have had a number of meetings with Mr. John Hume over the summer. I agree with him on the need to make progress on this issue. I particularly agree with him that if the IRA were to make its position absolutely clear in relation to the British-Irish Agreement, especially the decommissioning aspects, that would restore trust and confidence and help us get around this dilemma. Equally, if the IRA were to bring forward either a timetable or action in regard to the abandonment of their weapons, that would be an even greater help. I understand the difficulties of all parties and have listened to them all at length. Unionists are not convinced and they have a legitimate point in that they have seen no arms disposed of, though all those arms are to be disposed of, not as a precondition but over the next 18 months. They would like to see that happen; they want deeds rather than words. On the other hand, Sinn Féin believes that this is not a precondition and that they should not have to put further pressure on the IRA at this stage because they have already stated that they will do all they can over the period of the Agreement to make sure decommissioning happens. Sinn Féin feels it should not have to do anything further now.
I believe that both sides must move to the centre. There is legitimacy in both sides' core concerns, but it would be helpful in moving matters if people moved sooner rather than later and if obstacles were not created.
Has Sinn Féin told the Taoiseach, in any of its many meetings with him, that it believes categorically that the IRA will decommission its weapons within the two year period?
It is the stated Sinn Féin position, both in the Agreement and in every meeting I have had with it, that it supports decommissioning arms within the two year period, and while Sinn Féin has no arms, it will do everything it can to see that the organisation over which it has influence, the IRA, will decommission its arms. That has been Sinn Féin's stated position and it is the position that both Governments accept.
I appreciate that that is Sinn Féin's view, but what I am asking the Taoiseach is slightly different. It is not a question of what Sinn Féin would like the IRA to do. Has Sinn Féin told the Taoiseach that it believes the IRA will decommission within the two years?
There is no doubt about that. Sinn Féin signed the Agreement on the basis that all bodies which have arms would decommission within the two year period, and that those political groups which have paramilitary groups associated with them——
Illegally held weapons.
——would do all they could to remove those arms from the streets. I have always interpreted Sinn Féin's policy as accepting that there will be decommissioning in real terms.
That is not what I asked. I did not ask what Sinn Féin's view was. Has Sinn Féin told the Taoiseach that it believes that the IRA will disarm within the two year period?
Sinn Féin cannot tell what the IRA will do, because it will say that it does not control the IRA.
It is four in seven.
It is Sinn Féin's belief that everybody associated with it will decommission. That is what Sinn Féin believes and what it has always believed. Whether that happens is something Sinn Féin would say it cannot control.
(Dublin West): It seems that Deputy Bruton has taken over the Chamber today.
I lead slightly more Deputies than Deputy Higgins.
(Dublin West): The seat I hold is as valuable as those of Deputy Bruton's Deputies.
Deputy Higgins should proceed with his supplementary question.
(Dublin West): I protest that the Taoiseach lumped so many issues into one response. It is quite unrealistic and impossible to elucidate information on matters relating to the US attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan as well as the serious situation in the North. It was wrong of the Taoiseach. He should have separated them so that each issue could be pursued separately.
Regarding the Taoiseach's discussions with President Clinton, is it the case that he swallowed entirely the American intelligence story concerning the cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan? In the former case, the bombing was carried out without a shred of evidence. In the latter case, there was evidence of where the camps were because the United States intelligence forces built them for a campaign of terror against the previous Afghan Government. Did the Taoiseach at least protest to President Clinton about the risk to life and limb of innocent people in launching these irresponsible flying bombs?
Regarding Northern Ireland, did the Taoiseach raise with the Prime Minister in this or previous discussions the situation of Danny McNamee and his appeal, which will be heard on 9 November? He was convicted in 1987 for the horrific Hyde Park bombing of 1982. The evidence presented was derisory and there is a strong body of opinion that he is——
The Deputy should not comment on the case but ask a question instead.
(Dublin West): The evidence points to him being framed. Has the Taoiseach discussed his case with the British Prime Minister and does the Government intend to send an observer to his appeal which begins on 9 November in London?
Regarding the first matter, I spend about three hours a week in the Dáil trying to answer questions, which is more than is usual in larger parliaments. If I were to take each question individually at a time when 70 to 80 have been tabled, very little progress would be made. We completed three questions last week in 55 minutes. The grouping is not unfair in that 95 per cent of the questions concerned relate to the North.
I raised with President Clinton the concern of the Irish public about the atrocities in Sudan and Afghanistan and gave him an opportunity to explain his position. I did not take issue with him about them but I put the point of view of many Irish people, both inside and outside the House, concerning these actions.
Regarding the case of Danny McNamee and others, we will continue, through the secretariat and the liaison committee, to raise the issue of such cases and to monitor what is happening in them.
(Dublin West): Will the Government have observers present at the appeal?
I am not sure about observers. We sometimes have them. Someone from the Department of Foreign Affairs regularly attends cases.
(Dublin West): Will the Government send an observer to the appeal hearing from 9 November on to underline the concern in this country about the conviction of Danny McNamee?
The Department of Foreign Affairs always observes cases but does not always send someone. I will raise the issue with the Department. In many cases and probably in most in recent times, it has had an observer present.
I asked in Question No. 25 whether the Taoiseach condemned the US missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan. Can I take it from his reply that he did not condemn these attacks? Why did he not take issue with President Clinton and state clearly that this was a serious breach of international law? The Taoiseach said he put the concerns of the Irish people. Does he agree that there is a double standard at work in that, while we rightly condemn the bombing of Omagh, we should also unequivocally condemn the bombing of Sudan?
I stated that I raised the concerns of people. I did not get into the business of condemning the President of the United States. I raised the concerns on the basis of representations I received. I do not draw the analogy, as the Deputy's party has done in public statements on Omagh, between that bombing and these ones.
Why did the Taoiseach not condemn the bombings?
I agree with Deputy Higgins that bundling questions together does not allow for a comprehensive reply. Is the Taoiseach concerned that the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement is far behind schedule given that the Agreement states a work programme for the Executive and the all-Ireland ministerial council must be ready by 31 October? Does he acknowledge that decommissioning has been comprehensively dealt with in the agreement to which all parties have committed themselves? Does he also acknowledge that Sinn Féin has fulfilled its obligations to the letter and that there cannot be any rewriting of the agreement?
There are delays. The Irish and British Governments are firmly of the view that the agreement must be implemented in all its aspects. We recognise the tight timeframe. We also recognise that the Executive should be meeting by now and that the North-South ministerial body should be meeting before the end of October to discuss the aspects of the implementation bodies agreed. That process is falling behind and is likely to fall further behind as some of the key players are on economic business and there are conferences. It will take some time.
The priority for the Governments is to continue to work on all aspects of the agreement and to find ways to resolve obstacles and logjams. Deputy Ó Caoláin is correct that there is no precondition in the British-Irish Agreement on decommissioning taking place before the Executive meets. However, I have to deal with a situation in which others, mainly the Ulster Unionist Party, ask me if I am absolutely sure there will be no difficulties with decommissioning down the road and that the arms will be taken out of the equation. The Ulster Unionist Party is quick to point out that while Sinn Féin states there will be decommissioning, the IRA has said the opposite on two occasions.
Exactly.
That is a difficulty I have to try to explain to the other side. I must endeavour to continually move both sides to achieve common ground and to deal with this issue. That is why there are delays. Prior decommissioning is not strictly in the terms of the Agreement but it creates a real obstacle and a real difficulty. As Taoiseach I have to try to find a way around these issues. I accept that there is good faith and that people want to have confidence in the Agreement. However, we have to convince people on both sides on different issues. Decommissioning is a problem for the Unionists. As far as Sinn Féin is concerned there are issues such as the North-South bodies and demilitarisation on which we are moving ahead.
When Deputy John Bruton recently asked me why people in the republican movement would not have confidence, I answered that it was because there had been no demilitarisation. That is not the current situation. Soldiers have been withdrawn and some army checkpoints have been removed. Other activities are taking place. There has to be confidence on all sides. While prior decommissioning is not strictly in the terms of the agreement, it is the reality with which I have to deal.
The Taoiseach has stated that he has to try to balance concerns. There is recognition that the British-Irish Agreement was negotiated by all parties and both Governments. There is an abiding responsibility on both Governments and on the Taoiseach to ensure the terms of the Agreement are pursued to the letter. Is the Taoiseach, in conjunction with the British Prime Minister, using both offices to ensure the Agreement is pressed ahead with, for implementation in advance of the due date of 31 October?
Yes, I am applying all possible pressure on every aspect of the Agreement with a view to moving it forward. All sides have to be carried together in this process. When I press for further prison releases, fewer soldiers on the streets, more military installations to be taken down etc., it is legitimate for others to ask about a timescale and what is happening on another issue. It is not an unreasonable position in which to be put, and I have to try to balance these concerns. It is not a question of everything being implemented on one side and nobody doing anything on the other side. That is the difficulty.
It is obvious from the Taoiseach's replies to supplementaries that he has met the Sinn Féin leadership on a number of occasions this autumn. On a previous occasion in the House he said as far as he was concerned Sinn Féin and the IRA were two sides of the one coin. Does he still hold that view and, if so, will he agree that the Sinn Féin leadership has an obligation to deliver on that aspect of the Agreement, alongside all its other components?
I imagine that is in conformity with what Sinn Féin endeavours to do. To give the opposite side of the argument——
Are they still two sides of the one coin?
I still hold that view. Sinn Féin would rightly say when this matter was discussed in the negotiations there was not a reference to a timetable except that Sinn Féin would do its utmost to convince the IRA to decommission its arms in the two year period.
It is not the IRA?
On the opposite sides of the one coin there are differing individuals. It is not easy for them to convince people. The IRA and Sinn Féin issue their own statements which are not always in conformity. If Sinn Féin has moved substantially this summer to say that the war is over——
It should be over, I did not say it was.
It has instructed its senior negotiator, Mr. Martin McGuinness, to work with General John de Chastelain in a meaningful way. I understand those talks are constructive and meaningful and that Sinn Féin is honouring the Agreement to achieve a method of dealing with these issues. There has been progress in those areas. It comes back to the legitimate core issue of trust on both sides. While arms are still in circulation the Unionists ask whether there will ever be decommissioning and if people will return to the troubles.
On the other side Sinn Féin nationalist republicans are concerned that Sinn Féin would make all the moves and not achieve establishment of the Executive. If it succeeds in getting the Executive established it wonders whether another wall will be erected before the setting up of the North-South ministerial bodies. If it succeeds in getting the North-South ministerial bodies established it fears the implementation bodes may be blocked. They have seen a leaked paper put forward by the Unionists which says they will not take these issues seriously. Therefore there is still a basic lack of trust on both sides. We should not be surprised by this, but we must try to manage it and convince both sides. I am not in the business of condemning either side but rather of convincing both sides that they must move to understand their respective positions in terms of the legitimate core issues. It would be dangerous not to do this and we are still engaged in the process of convincing them to do so.
Decommissioning is important, something acknowledged in the Agreement by virtue of the time limit on when decommissioning should take place. Sinn Féin has signed up to this. Given the importance of keeping all sides on board in terms of the Agreement, a declaration of intent at the very least from Sinn Féin that decommissioning will begin and take place is not too much to ask for, to ensure that one of the key pillars to the Agreement, the Ulster Unionist Party, can be retained within the process. Given that Gerry Adams made a statement that as far as he is concerned the war is over — he did not say it as clearly as that, but we all read the statement to mean this — and that he could not have made such a statement without at least the acquiescence of the IRA, will the Taoiseach indicate whether during his meeting with Mr. Adams next week he will impress upon him the urgency of a declaration of intent at the very least regarding decommissioning of weapons and ensure that Sinn Féin is doing everything it can to persuade the IRA to carry out decommissioning? On previous occasions Sinn Féin claimed to be persuaders in terms of the IRA.
Sinn Féin is already doing its utmost to act as a persuader.
The party has not said so.
It has said so, as in signing the Agreement it undertook to do all in its power to ensure decommissioning happens within two years. I and others are now asking Sinn Féin to try to overcome the understandable political obstacle which exists concerning trust on the Unionist side, something which is admittedly and clearly not in the Agreement. We are asking the party to go further than what is in the Agreement. There has been progress in that Martin McGuinness and General John de Chastelain are working successfully in moving things forward. I have said before and repeat now that a more proximate view of how this programme will operate would be extremely helpful and I do not see the difficulty with this suggestion. However, the Deputy is aware that my suggestion did not receive much support in terms of a timetable. Nonetheless, I still think it provides one way of getting around the issue and I am not sure whether there is another way around it.
Is the Taoiseach aware that in the last fortnight a man had his second leg amputated as a result of a punishment shooting by a paramilitary organisation and that such an occurrence is quite common? Have there been significant numbers of punishment shootings and beatings by loyalist and republican paramilitaries since the British-Irish Agreement? Is the Taoiseach aware that the paramilitaries involved are adopting a "no claim, no blame" tactic in regard to such acts, but that they are responsible for them? Is he aware that one requirement of the pledge of office of a Minister is a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and that, therefore, there is a difficulty for Ministers who are part of an organisation — one side of a coin to use the Taoiseach's phrase — which is carrying out punishment beatings such as that to which I have referred?
Regrettably, punishment beatings still occur, although not on the same scale as in the past. However, some very serious attacks have been carried out from which fatalities have resulted. The House will recall a person being left to die in a lift following a shooting some time ago.
Deputy Bruton is correct in saying it is not as easy as it previously was to identify the people involved in these attacks. With the assistance of the British Government, the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam, and pastoral leaders, we are trying to ensure punishment beatings cease entirely. Some progress has been made in that regard with models of community policing being developed in conjunction with the authorities. Communities are attempting to deal with these matters in a non-threatening and non-violent way. Quite frankly, I believe it will prove difficult to eliminate punishment beatings entirely. Nobody knows what some of these groups stand for and we must await the outcome of the conclusions of the policing commission on that, a view shared by Chris Patten. Anyone involved in punishment beatings and similar activities is in breach of the Mitchell Principles, the British-Irish Agreement and the ground rules document.
As the time for Taoiseach's questions has expired, I can only allow a brief supplementary question.
The current pussyfooting must cease in regard to two matters in particular. First, when the Taoiseach next meets representatives of the republican movement, will he demand — I use the word ‘demand' advisedly as the Taoiseach speaks for the majority of Nationalists on this island and is representative of them, together with the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. John Hume of the SDLP — that the republican movement contribute to decommissioning by voluntarily destroying semtex under the supervision of the International Body on Decommissioning? Second, will he also demand that the promise made four years ago in regard to the bodies of the disappeared be finally honoured? The Taoiseach should not accept any excuses for failure to deliver on both of these issues.
In regard to the first matter, I have sought and will continue to seek action on it. On the second matter, much useful progress has been made by more than one paramilitary organisation and that will hopefully bring some relief to the families involved.
The time for Taoiseach's questions has expired and we now come to questions nominated for priority.
On a point of order, it would be helpful to the House if, when a Deputy seeks to intervene, the Ceann Comhairle would at least acknowledge him or her.
Prior to calling Deputy Currie, I indicated that his question would be the final supplementary. The Deputy should resume his seat and let us proceed.
Members of this House deserve some respect.
The Deputy should respect the Chair.
I do respect the Chair but I expect that respect to be reciprocated.