Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the plans for the visit to Dublin of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in November 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22553/98]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Official Engagements.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his visit to Belfast on 6 November 1998. [22554/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for further visits to Stormont in relation to the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement. [22555/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visits to Northern Ireland; the meetings and engagements he undertook; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22558/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the schedule of engagements he is likely to fulfil with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, when he visits Ireland in November 1998. [22562/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings in Belfast; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22594/98]
Austin Currie
Ceist:11 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach the progress, if any, there has been on the return of bodies of the disappeared following recent contacts with representatives of the Republican movement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22716/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 11, inclusive, together.
Full details of Prime Minister Blair's forthcoming visit will be announced at the appropriate time. The focus of the visit will, of course, be his address to the Joint Houses of the Oireachtas on 26 November. Other engagements which the Prime Minister might undertake are currently under consideration. The Government is looking forward to the Prime Minister's visit which will symbolise the close ties between Ireland and Britain and the unprecedented levels of co-operation we currently enjoy.
I visited Belfast on Friday, 6 November. My visit was a community-focused one. I attended the launch of the West Belfast Partnership's strategy for regenerating west Belfast. I have arranged for a copy of my speech on that occasion to be placed in the Oireachtas Library. Lord Dubbs, the junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office and Gerry Adams were present. I availed of the opportunity to compliment all of the individuals and groups involved in researching and formulating the strategy. I noted the objectives they have set out accord closely with the provisions of the British-Irish Agreement. I commented that those involved in developing and implementing the strategy are working to advance the potential and prosperity of the community, building on the foundations laid by the Agreement. I also highlighted the importance and potential of the new North-South structures which we are working to bring into existence and which will create new opportunities for increased prosperity for all of us.
I also took up invitations from two colleges — Wallace High School in Lisburn and St. Malachy's College in Belfast. In both cases, I met and addressed the students and participated in question and answer sessions. I was delighted to avail of the opportunity to interact with these young people of both traditions whose energy and enthusiasm will be essential to the successful implementation of the British-Irish Agreement.
It is my intention to visit Northern Ireland again as and when it may be appropriate to do so, including when we are in a position to progress to agreement stage on the North-South arrangements under Strand Two. I hope this will be the case in the near future.
In discussions with Republican representatives, I have continued to raise the issue of the disappeared. Like everyone else in the House, I hope there will be a positive outcome and that this will happen sooner rather than later. I believe progress in this regard would rightly be viewed as a constructive development in keeping with the spirit of the British-Irish Agreement.
Does the Taoiseach intend to seek to expand the list of items with which North-South bodies will deal? A sample list of such topics is provided in the Agreement. Are there proposals to expand that list and have there been any responses to attempts to expand it? The UUP indicated after the meeting that it felt there had been a generalised discussion but that it did not proceed very far. Was that the Taoiseach's impression of the meeting or is he satisfied actual progress was made?
I did not refer in my reply to any meeting with the UUP although I answered questions on that last week. In terms of the implementation bodies, we are working to the Agreement on that. The broader discussion has moved on. Many issues have been highlighted in the discussion on the implementation bodies. When the North-South ministerial council is set up in spring, I hope it will be able to deal with many areas of co-operation. From discussions which have been held on the non-implementation bodies, I detect that people would be happy to include most Government Departments and other areas in which co-operation could be enhanced. We have moved away from a position of limiting areas in the general discussion on the implementation bodies. We are seeking to outline precisely what the bodies' functions will be and how they will interact with existing agencies and Departments. The bodies should have a focus and a useful purpose. Rather than having an implementation body in a broad undefined area, we are being forced to spell out the modus operandi precisely. That has been a useful exercise and the UUP has been very active in this area. If anything, we are trying to carry the Northern Ireland Office with us in these discussions.
In terms of the legislative requirements in relation to the implementation bodies, what timeframe does the Taoiseach envisage in regard to the introduction of legislation on the matter in this House? I understand it will be necessary to have such legislation in place by the end of February. The Dáil will probably be in recess by 20 December and return some time in mid-January. The timeframe will be tight.
The Deputy is right. I emphasised the difficulties that will arise in this regard last Monday week. My officials have held a number of meetings since then and held conversations with the British Prime Minister over the weekend. We need to agree measures now so that we can proceed with legislation. While a certain amount of preparatory work has been carried out and is ongoing, we need to achieve agreement prior to the legislative stage. Ideally, I would like to have legislation drawn up before the end of February.
In relation to implementation of the British-Irish Agreement, what are the Taoiseach's views on the statement made yesterday by Sinn Féin's chief negotiator when asked why there would be no gesture of decommissioning by the IRA? Mr. McGuinness said "I'll give you a good reason, the IRA will not do it. That is the reason". Is this the Taoiseach's interpretation of the IRA's intentions and what are his views in relation to the intentions of loyalist paramilitaries in regard to decommissioning of their weapons?
Loyalists and republicans have the same line on this matter. Even the wording at times in meetings is similar. Both groups stick to the terms of the British-Irish Agreement. They say that in the course of the Agreement they will honour it — I am speaking about what Sinn Féin and the PUP says, not the paramilitary groups themselves. I hope, as Martin McGuinness said yesterday, the groups will put their energies into working closely with the chairman of the decommissioning body, something I have been urging them to do and which they have been doing. However, work in this regard could be stepped up apace.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the fundamental problem with decommissioning is not so much the weaponry or the threat it poses from a military point of view, but the fact that Unionists do not believe republicans do not intend to threaten to use the weapons at some time in the future and that republicans do not believe that Unionists at some time in the future may not try to renege on some of the commitments they entered into in the British-Irish Agreement, and that the deep mutual distrust of each other's intentions is elevating decommissioning from a necessary consequence of any genuine agreement to a barrier to progress? Does the Taoiseach agree that an engagement between the Unionist and republican leadership is necessary so that some mutual understanding of their intentions can be arrived at, rather than having the sort of megaphone discussion which is now filling the ever-widening gap between their respective positions?
I have urged both sides publicly and privately to try to refrain from megaphone discussion as it is unhelpful to all of us who are in the middle trying to move things forward. Both sides set out their positions very clearly. The republican side and the Progressive Unionist Party say they signed the Agreement on the basis that the executive and the North/South Ministerial Council would be set up and that any precondition on anything, not least decommissioning, was not part of it. In the round table meeting last week they told me they should move forward, that the executive should be established, that ten departments should be designated, that the North-South and implementation bodies should be established and that the other areas of co-operation should be developed. At the same time the ongoing work of the decommissioning body would continue and the groups would intensify their efforts — I think they should be doing this now — and honour their commitment over the two year period. This is what the republican and loyalist parties have said.
The UUP says this is in line with what the Agreement states, but that there should be some incremental movement, that movement should not all be in one direction, although provision for such is not in the Agreement. They say there should be movement on decommissioning over the period and that some of it should happen before the establishment of the executive. This is not in the Agreement but they say this is the reality. Even if there was decommissioning other Unionist parties would say it means nothing, that not all material had been decommissioned. Even if everything was decommissioned, they would say something else.
Clearly this continues to be an area where we must try to make progress. I have been endeavouring with some success to convince the British Government, the NIO, the UUP and in particular Mr. Trimble and Mr. Mallon of the necessity of moving forward the work, that we cannot wait, a point made by Deputy De Rossa. Things do not "go live", as they like to say, until late February but we should be undertaking the other work, something I am currently endeavouring to do. This will not remove the psychological block on both sides. Deputy Bruton is correct when he says there is a fundamental difference and mistrust between the sides, with one group not preparing to move for fear of being caught by the other side. We must continue to build confidence in every possible way.
In this session we have had numerous meetings between Mr. Trimble and Mr. Mallon which have been useful. However, this has not led to any progression of the matter. There have been three meetings between the British Prime Minister and Sinn Féin, two with Mr. Adams and one with Mr. McGuinness, which equally have not progressed the situation. In addition, I have been involved in endless meetings. We have not found a way forward, but we must continue to keep trying.
I wish to refer to the psychological block and bring to the attention of the Taoiseach a newspaper report which speaks of his recent visit to Northern Ireland being an attempt to bring a fresh momentum to the peace process. Accepting — though not excusing — the reluctance of Unionists to move towards the formation of the executive and of Sinn Féin and the IRA to give some concession or movement on decommissioning, does the Taoiseach agree that the onus to try to break the psychological block now rests substantially upon his shoulders? Does he agree that one contribution towards breaking that block would be to signal unilaterally what the Government would be prepared to do in relation to cross-Border bodies?
Does he share the view that unilaterally suggesting the IDA and the IDB should be merged into one body with its headquarters in Belfast and not Dublin would send two very strong complementary signals, one to the Unionist community and one to Sinn Féin and the IRA that would perhaps contribute to a removal of distrust from both sides of the spectrum and enable the other components of the Agreement to fall into place? Has the Government formulated any clear view about cross-Border co-operation of some significance or substance as opposed to the much quoted Foyle fisheries commission which does not get people all that excited?
What Deputy Quinn said is simplistic in the context of what is happening.
We are not all party to what is happening.
I accept that and am not accusing the Deputy. However, the Deputy has offered a simplistic view. He is correct in saying the Foyle fisheries commission will not change anything. The detail of the North-South bodies and what is contained in the Agreement regarding implementation bodies and North-South bodies has been fairly well fleshed through. It has been talked through with the parties which have all given their views. I think and hope they have exhausted their interpretation and views on how it could be worked and what they would agree to. The areas mentioned by the Deputy are very serious and have been discussed at some length.
Does the Government have a position on the matter?
The Deputy will be aware that Seamus Mallon made a point on the issue he raised and that I have been supportive of Mr. Mallon in that regard. We have presented position papers on how we envisage it working in terms of marketing, development, etc. This is very useful and important work but unfortunately it has no effect on the parties when it comes to the other issue as the mindset changes onto another track. The Deputy can take my word that if we were to agree a range of issues today, it would not move forward the other issue one iota. There would be an immediate clampdown as soon as it was raised. I have made various efforts but unfortunately when we raise the issue both the republican and PUP sides say that the Agreement is specific, that there are no preconditions, that they have signed up to a certain course of events, that this is not one of them but they will continue to work with the International Commission on Decommissioning. Mr. Trimble and his colleagues will say that is fine but they want to see gestures being made. Regardless of what happens we always come back to that position.
Will the Taoiseach accept it is now four years since the President of Sinn Féin promised action on this matter? Will he agree that the Republican movement cannot blame the Unionists or the British for this outrageous injustice, that they have only themselves to blame for this injustice which, in some instances, has gone on for more than 25 years? More than 200 prisoners have been released in Northern Ireland, some of whom were responsible for the most awful crimes, and even Gerry Kelly admits that the pace of release of prisoners is acceptable. The British Government has indicated that the Maze will close down next year. Is it not now time that those relatives, who have been prisoners for so long in terms of waiting to know where their relatives are buried so they can give them a Christian burial, were released?
Hear, hear.
I agree with Deputy Currie on this issue. I have made everybody aware of the sentiments he has expressed here on many occasions over the years and my response to those sentiments, both in Government and in Opposition. I am aware there has been some communication and contact with some of the families and that people have been trying to make progress on this issue. I have to report that there has been no movement in recent months.
What response do they give the Taoiseach when he asks the question? What does the Leader of Sinn Féin say?
The Leader of Sinn Féin, on behalf of a number of the relatives of those who disappeared, has endeavoured to make a case to those who may have information with a view to having their bodies — regrettably we are talking about bodies in these cases — returned. I understand contact was made with many of the families in early summer, some of whom did not want the bodies returned, and I have also met a number of the relatives. I passed on the information I received from them to the republican movement. As has been stated here before, any assistance the State or the Garda can give to assist in this process will be given. I urge the members of the republican movement who can assist in bringing an end to the trauma being experienced by the families and allow them give their loved ones a Christian burial to do so. We are talking about at least ten people——
Thirteen.
——and somebody has to know where these people are. My belief is that the location of the graves of some of these people is well known.
The Taoiseach referred to the hopes raised some weeks ago. Will he agree that headlines such as "IRA Poised to Identify Graves of Victims for Families" raised hopes? We have heard more about those who disappeared in Chile in the past few weeks than we have about those who disappeared in our own country. Does the Taoiseach suspect, as Monsignor Faul suggested recently in a letter to the papers, that the IRA response to this issue is a charade?
I do not know why there is silence on the more positive information that came out in early summer. People must know where these graves are——
Of course they do.
-and the sooner that information is given and families are allowed bury their relatives, the better. I will continue to raise the matter whenever I can, although I have almost exhausted the Sinn Féin sources.
So it may be a charade? They have no real intention of doing it.
Will the Taoiseach urge the Sinn Féin leadership and the republican movement in general to take a more generous approach to the process currently under way? There is a pattern of resistance by the republican movement to normalisation in Northern Ireland. That is reflected in the failure to identify the location of the bodies of those who disappeared, their refusal to move on the decommissioning issue, their efforts to stop a football match going ahead between an RUC team and Donegal Celtic and the refusal of Gerry Adams to accept an invitation from the Chief Constable of the RUC, Ronnie Flanagan, to meet him. This is a man who has complained for years about this and that person refusing to meet him. It is clear to everybody that there has been a grudge by the republican movement and that more generosity and forgiveness is needed on their part.
All sides could show more generosity, but I do not understand why people refuse invitations to meetings that could lead to at least some progress.
They were looking for meetings for long enough.
Such meetings would be helpful and people should take up the opportunity. Members of the House can be assured I will not lose any opportunity to urge people to talk to each other with a view to making progress. It is not too long ago since pressure was on me to find circumstances in which people would arrange to communicate with each other but unfortunately I cannot announce much progress from at least three or four of those meetings.
Is it any wonder the Unionists have doubts?
During the British Prime Minister's visit, does the Taoiseach intend to clarify any misunderstanding there may have been with respect to the refusal or otherwise of the Army No. 1 Band to play at the ceremony in Belgium yesterday?
That is a separate question.
I raise it in respect of the Prime Minister's visit.
Because of the day that is in it, I would be appalled if there were any sour notes over this issue. A request was made some time ago that the Army No. 1 Band would participate in the ceremony, which they have done today. In regard to the other event, to the best of my knowledge no invitation was received so I am at a loss to know who gave this information. Neither I, the Army nor the Minister for Defence have any knowledge of it.
It was not my intention to sound a sour note——
I was merely thanking the Deputy.
The Taoiseach is not accusing the band of playing sour notes.
I understand the Taoiseach to have said that the British Prime Minister will address a joint session of this House and the other House. Is this the first time a Head of Government, who is not the Head of State, will address a joint session? Is it not the case that all previous addresses by Heads of Government who are not Heads of State were to sessions of the Dáil and not a joint session of the two Houses?
As Deputy Bruton said, that is the normal position. I am not too sure if this is the first time. When this was discussed by the Committee on Procedures and Privileges that was the invitation issued.
Is there any significance in respect of another person not being issued an invitation, given that there are precedents?
In view of his intention to reform the House of Lords——
The significance is that both Houses of the Oireachtas were anxious to participate in this, and the Committee on Procedures and Privileges wanted to make this a unique day. That is the significance.
It is a first.
Questions to the Taoiseach must conclude now as the time has expired. We will proceed to questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Defence.