John Bruton
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with United States Senator, Connie Mack. [24481/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Official Engagements.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he will have in relation to the impasse over Northern Ireland in the next week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24613/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the issues he intends to raise, other than those related to Northern Ireland, with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24621/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the First Minister of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24632/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and any conclusions reached at his meeting on 20 November 1998 with Mr. David Trimble. [24635/98]
John Bruton
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the First Minister of Northern Ireland in Dublin on 20 November 1998. [24651/98]
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, together.
On Friday last I met David Trimble at Government Buildings. It was a very positive meeting. We focused primarily on North-South matters and made substantial progress. We are hopeful that over the next ten days to two weeks we should be able to conclude these matters so that all the institutions envisaged in the British-Irish Agreement can be up and running by next February, as originally intended.
I will be meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair over the next two days during his historic visit here, in the course of which he will address a joint sitting of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In addition to matters relating to Northern Ireland, I also propose to raise with Prime Minister Blair the likely issues to be discussed at the Vienna European Council. Prime Minister Blair will be meeting with Federal Chancellor Viktor Klima of Austria on Wednesday morning just before travelling to Ireland and I hope he will be in a position to brief me on the outcome of that meeting. The issues most likely to arise for discussion in this respect are Agenda 2000, employment, institutional reform and enlargement. I will be meeting with Federal Chancellor Klima on Friday morning.
In my meeting last week with United States Senator Connie Mack, we had a general discussion on the current situation in Northern Ireland and the Senator's visit there.
Has there been any progress on the decommissioning issue?
Not to a positive extent, no. While there has been a good deal of background work in this regard, I cannot report anything positive from it. The International Body on Decommissioning has endeavoured to move ahead with its workload. It has talked to the parties involved in detail, but I cannot report to the House on the way they are trying to construct their work in this regard. I do not have that information. I purposely did not contact the chairman in the past few weeks, but he is actively trying to talk to all the parties involved. It would be wrong to give the impression I have information from those talks that is leading somewhere.
Does the Taoiseach consider the episode concerning the cancellation of the Donegal Celtic match, where there seemed to be a degree of intimidation of a community and a soccer club that had taken a democratic decision, creates problems in regard to the perception of the way power might be used and, therefore, causes additional fears to centre around the availability of arms to organisations that might want to use power in a selective way?
As Deputy Bruton said, it is unfortunate that club was put under pressure and it created a difficulty for it. The club was aware of the fixture and had qualified for the next round of a knock-out competition. It was aware of the sensitivities involved. It held a democratic meeting and made a decision on what it wanted to do. I am concerned about the question of intimidation, about which there is no doubt. Everyone must be allowed freedom of action to make their own choices, but that did not happen in this case. It is unfortunate that a sporting occasion has given rise to such difficulty. We all recognise the tensions and difficulties in Northern Ireland will take time to resolve and there are sensitivities on all sides, but that reinforces the need for us all to work together to realise the vision at the heart of the British-Irish Agreement. I was glad a club was able to return to its homeground after 29 years to play the Cliftonville-Linfield match this weekend. That was more positive than what we heard the previous weekend.
In the course of the Taoiseach's meeting with the First Minister designate, David Trimble, last Friday, did he inform David Trimble that it was his view that the movement towards a united Ireland has an irresistible dynamic and, if so, did Mr. Trimble express any views on the longevity of the life expectancy of the Taoiseach in office or on that dynamic?
I did not discuss that with him last Friday, but I gave him my view on this several times and he gave me his. Needless to say we do not share the same view. I stated that many times. During the debate on the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution I stated:
The new position is more in keeping with our dignity as a people. The people of Northern Ireland have the freedom to choose. A majority may, indeed, some time in the future decide to become part of a united Ireland. None of us can pre-empt what decisions will be taken by the people in the future and it is they, not us, who will decide if the present Agreement is to be a transition to a united Ireland on the basis of a continuation of the Union. For our part, we can work to make such unity as attractive a proposition as possible by developing our economy, improving our society in every way, including its pluralism and respect of diversity of identities and traditions on the island.
I have repeated that many times and it is a longer-term view. It is not the issue of the day and during his visits to Northern Ireland Prime Minister Blair states clearly his view on the Union and its longevity. I state my views on it when I am asked. I try not to do it too often but when I am asked I do and will never apologise for it.
The Taoiseach quoted from his contribution to the debate on the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Does he consider that the quotation, which is elegantly phrased prose, constitutes an "irresistible dynamic"? If it does so in his own words, does he believe that perhaps that poses a threat to the principle of consent written into the constitutional amendment that was signed off in the British-Irish Agreement on 22 May?
Of course, the words "irresistible dynamic" were not mine. As the Deputy is aware, I did not say that. The principle of consent governs everything. Constitutional change or a continuation of the status quo established by the Agreement will depend on consent and peaceful persuasion. I also said that last Sunday. I say every time that we have accepted a new situation where the driving force for the future is consent and that will never change.
The future is in the hands of the people and there will be no imposition, coercion or double dealing in that. The fear is gone and I believe that in a rapidly changing world the barriers are coming down. Many of the reasons for maintaining partition in the past no longer exist and that will grow as time goes on. However, I accept that other people have different views and we do not need to dwell too much on this now. The important factor is that the Agreement works properly and for its own sake and to a large extent the future will take care of itself.
Do I take it, given that the Taoiseach said the words were not his, that he disagrees with them and does not believe that there is an "irresistible dynamic" but, on the contrary, there is the principle of consent which will take its own time and place?
I did not say that either.
But the Taoiseach said the words "irresistible dynamic" were not his words.
They were not my words.
Has the Taoiseach an alternative set of words or is he repudiating them?
Deputy Quinn, allow the Taoiseach to answer.
I am giving the Deputy an explanation, as I did last weekend when I was asked my view several times. Regarding Northern Ireland I am regularly asked my view locally and internationally on the long-term prospects of a united Ireland, which is my political party's long-term ambition. Of course the principle of consent governs everything in future. There is no longer any issue of threats. In the spirit of the last number of years, in the fundamental working of the entire peace process whether it is the Downing Street Declaration, the Framework Document or the British-Irish Agreement, Nationalists and republicans are as entitled as Unionists to express freely their long-term constitutional aspirations. I am sure the Deputy would allow people to hold that view.
When did they become an "irresistible dynamic"?
Those were not my words. I can only answer in this House for what I said. I cannot answer for other people's words and when I am asked a question I put it in the context of the reply. The reply is as I have given today but I defend very staunchly in this House the claim that the Nationalist viewpoint cannot be suppressed.
I do not believe anybody in this House would argue for any point of view to be suppressed. Would the Taoiseach agree that it is desirable for the Taoiseach of the day to be conscious of the process in which he is engaged on behalf of the people of this State in trying to ensure that the British-Irish Agreement is implemented in full, and that he must bear in mind that there is an alternative Nationalist view, Unionist Nationalists, who currently are extremely nervous about what they perceive to be a possible dynamic within the agreement towards a united Ireland, and that words the Taoiseach might use which might reinforce that fear ought to be avoided? Would he agree, therefore, that the British-Irish Agreement is neutral as to the outcome in the present or in the future as regards a united Ireland or the maintenance of the union with Britain?
Of course I would. The principle of consent governs everything. What people will do in 15 or 20 years' time is a good question, and we should not be too bothered about it. Equally, Deputy De Rossa would agree that when the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, on at least three or four occasions this year came to Northern Ireland and stated his position very strongly on the Union, I did not get too excited about it. However, when I am asked in an interview to speak not only as Taoiseach but as leader of Fianna Fáil, I am entitled to state the long-term aspiration of my party in the mild terms in which I did. I do not see that as standing on anyone's corns.
Would the Taoiseach agree that one of the big problems in Northern Ireland is that of suspicion and a fear that there is a hidden agenda? Does he believe that referring to an irresistible dynamic and to what might happen in ten or 15 years' time, while it may go down well among the audience the Taoiseach is addressing at the time, feeds the suspicion that there is a hidden agenda behind the British-Irish Agreement — which there is not — and that notwithstanding the natural obligations the Taoiseach has as a party leader it might be better if he avoided engaging in speculation which could fuel unjustified suspicions in the minds of people who are not yet convinced that the British-Irish Agreement is as good an agreement as it is?
I do not wish to repeat myself. There is no doubt that what Deputy Bruton says about fears and suspicions makes sense, but that works two ways. Members of this House could get exercised every day of the week when reading the letters columns of the newspapers where people express annoyance with us as political leaders because we do not always respond to things that are being said about reforming the RUC and so on. It is right not to get too excited about these things. However, when I am asked a question I try to give an intelligent answer to it. The answer I gave the other day, for which I make no apology, was that the whole agreement is based on the principle of consent and if there are people who traditionally felt that the way to achieve things was through the barrel of a gun, that should all be left behind and people should use their energies in a constructive way to pursue their agenda and maybe in time people will see things their way. That will not happen overnight. I put a period of 15 to 20 years on it. I cannot say what will happen in 15 to 20 years, but I appreciate that people can have an aspiration. People have held that aspiration for several hundred years. One thing I have learned about people in Northern Ireland in my political life is that they like people to be straight. They do not like people to be underhand or to dodge questions. However, in this case, the principle of consent governs everything. That is the Agreement for which I sought support and that is how it will be in the future.
In that case there is no dynamic.
That is why the Taoiseach has done so well.
I thank the Taoiseach for clarifying the point that the British-Irish Agreement does not contain a dynamic which irresistibly leads to a united Ireland or cements the union for all time. It is left to the people of Northern Ireland to make a choice in that regard.
Does the Taoiseach agree that much, if not all, of the Agreement is in the process of being implemented, including the issues of policing, North-South bodies and ministerial positions, and that the only obstacle to these matters coming to fruition is the question of decommissioning? Does the Taoiseach foresee an early resolution of this issue given that the letter which the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, gave to the leader of the Ulster Unionists Party indicated a six month deadline in relation to dealing with the matter? Does the Taoiseach foresee this as the period in which the issue will be brought to a conclusion?
I hope that before Christmas we will have reached a position where the assembly is up and running. The various administrative arrangements for it are almost finalised. A number of details remain to be finalised but work is ongoing in that regard. The Government is not directly involved in this matter but I am kept informed of developments.
The executive will move to a composition which will allow proper participation under the d'Hondt system. This is a matter for Mr. Trimble and Mr. Mallon but I am aware that substantial progress is being made in that area regarding numbers and designations. Under the d'Hondt system, it is easy for parties to work out their positions. I hope the implementation bodies will agree. Some work remains to be done, but I hope meetings will take place later tonight and matters will be finalised over the next week. In addition, the general areas of co-operation will be specified.
In terms of legislation, I hope the human rights Bill will be before the House soon. Other measures, including the legislation relating to the British-Irish Agreement itself, will be enacted shortly. Most of the other mechanisms are progressing. It is hoped that the implementation bodies and the legislation surrounding them will be operational by late February. This is a tight deadline because we have lost time in reaching this stage. However, they should be ready for use by the institutions at that time. Another aspect is the east-west arrangements. This aspect has not been dealt with, but I do not foresee any difficulties in that regard.
I agree with Deputy De Rossa that everything has been incrementally moved forward with the exception of one issue, decommissioning. I hope people in the cool light of day will realise that is the case. Substantive progress has been made arising from the work of General de Chastelain with the parties, particularly the Progressive Unionist Party and Sinn Féin. I hope they will realise that this is the only matter, assuming nothing goes wrong with the other areas I mentioned, holding up the implementation of all the other aspects and stopping people taking up their positions in the executive and their ministerial positions, or whatever title is agreed for them. Something must happen or some measure must be taken to give confidence and allow those issues to proceed. It would be an entirely unreasonable position for people not to give way and allow the blockage to be removed.
It is accepted that decommissioning is not a precondition but does the Taoiseach agree that, given the timescales set, it is expected a start will be made at some stage during the two year period? Is he aware that exports and imports between Northern Ireland and the Republic are higher than those between England and Scotland? Does he agree that these are being put in jeopardy because of the constant roadblocks which are derailing the timescales set by the two Governments and the major parties in Northern Ireland? Does he anticipate any initiative which will result in a start being made on decommissioning before or during the Christmas period?
The British Prime Minister and I will continue our efforts to find some mechanism but I would be misleading the House if I were to say that I was aware of any such initiative.
When asked in a radio interview in the aftermath of the Sunningdale Agreement if equality and their participation in government would lead Nationalists to be satisfied with their situation within the Six Counties or would encourage them to think in terms of a united Ireland, the late Cardinal Conway replied that he was prepared to leave the answer to that question to history. Does the Taoiseach agree that that was a wise comment which perhaps he could use whenever difficult questions are asked?
The late Cardinal Conway was an excellent Church leader.
And a Falls Road man.
I hope I am a reasonably good political leader.