John Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, when he visited Dublin recently. [25434/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Visit of British Prime Minister.
John Bruton
Ceist:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit Northern Ireland in December 1998. [25532/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, last week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25564/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25571/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.
The visit of the Prime Minister Mr. Blair and Mrs. Blair to Ireland last week was both historic and extremely successful. The centrepiece of the visit was the Prime Minister's address to a joint sitting of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The House will agree that his speech was a fitting reflection of the new departure in relations between our two countries represented by the British-Irish Agreement.
At our meeting last Thursday, the Prime Minister and I had a valuable exchange on the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement. We focused on Strand Two issues and the setting up of the North-South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies. We were at one on the need for accelerated progress in implementing the Agreement. We must now — Governments and parties alike — make a concerted and intensive effort to bring the current discussions to a conclusion and to reach agreement on the areas for enhanced North-South co-operation, including for all-island implementation bodies, and on the configuration of the Northern Ireland Executive and Departments. It should be possible to do so this week.
The Prime Minister and I also discussed the forthcoming Vienna Council. I repeated to him our concerns about the current proposals for CAP reform and I raised our concerns about Structural and Cohesion Funds. We discussed the issue of co-ordination of taxation policies within the EU and also touched upon the prospects for EU enlargement.
Following our meeting, the Prime Minister and I signed an Agreement relating to co-operation between Ireland and Britain in the fight against crime. We also announced a joint research project involving co-operation in the area of education for those with special needs, including children with autism. These two initiatives represent a fitting and welcome development of existing co-operation in these areas, foreshadowing the fuller development of enhanced relations in the framework of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, towards which both of us looked forward with enthusiasm.
I had an opportunity last weekend to meet Senator George Mitchell in Cork, where he was awarded the freedom of the city and an honorary degree from UCC. I was delighted to see what a wonderful welcome the Senator received from the people of Cork. At our meeting we discussed the current situation with regard to the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement and I informed the Senator that the Government's proposed legislation to establish the scholarships named in his honour had been published.
I was also glad to have the opportunity, this morning, to review the situation with former Prime Minister Harri Holkeri, who played such a pivotal role in the negotiations which led to the British-Irish Agreement.
As I said in reply to previous questions, 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 soon.
The Taoiseach has the full support of the House in seeking to have the details of the implementation bodies and the distribution of executive responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Executive agreed at the earliest possible moment. Is the Taoiseach of the view that it is possible to bring those agreed arrangements into effect with the formation of a functioning Executive without some progress on decommissioning by the paramilitary organisations?
Once again, I thank Deputy Bruton for his support in these matters. I and the Government appreciate it.
The short and direct reply is that it will be difficult to do that. I do not see Mr. Trimble being able to deliver on that without a positive sign from the paramilitary organisations. I doubt that it is within his call.
The Taoiseach's frank reply is helpful. Has he reflected on the fact that the republican movement stated on many occasions that there would not be decommissioning until there were talks and, after the talks started, that there would not be decommissioning until there was a settlement?
Now that there is, in effect, a settlement, it still seems unwilling to agree to decommissioning. Will the Taoiseach agree that decommissioning at this stage by the republican movement would be consistent with and a logical development of its previous statements and something which it had indicated in previous statements would happen? Therefore, in no way could it be construed as a surrender but as a logical development of its previous positions.
At this stage it is good to look back over the past period to see where this issue has moved from. There are a number of aspects to this matter. The key issues are that during 1998 the republican movement has stuck firmly to its ceasefire with the exception of one rather serious breach — which involved an internal issue — when an individual was shot and murdered. Other than that and some punishment beatings which have been on the decline, but are still a cause of concern, the ceasefire has held. That is acknowledged by the security forces, as outlined by the head of the RUC about ten days ago. We are still left with a position that it has issued two statements making it clear it does not intend to decommission ever. That is the difficulty. Both the April and September statements are in the negative. Perhaps if they were never made people could look positively in the direction we are trying to move towards.
In looking back over the period there have been three positions. Prior to the negotiations, Sir Patrick Mayhew made his statements which were listed as helpful but turned out to be the opposite. His position was to set out conditions that would try to achieve prior decommissioning. That was moved away from in the international group's report in February or March 1996 which stated parallel decommissioning was the issue and if the multi-party talks moved on there would be parallel decommissioning. If I recall correctly, that was contained in paragraphs 31 to 34 of the report. Parallel decommissioning did not happen during the talks. We are now at the third stage, the implementation phase, and we are no further on regarding the issue of decommissioning. When I raised this with republican sources they said that was the intention and that my assessment was correct. They were against prior decommissioning, there was agreement to parallel decommissioning but that was superseded by the British-Irish Agreement. I still think that makes life more difficult for those who have consistently argued all along. Having moved away from prior decommissioning and parallel decommissioning it is hard to drop the issue altogether. There lies the crux. If that was not bad enough, the other position is there are two negative statements. It is not even silent on——
The republican movement did not use the word "never". It said it would not disarm.
It would not disarm but the interpretation is that those two statements of April and September are in the negative. The reality is that nobody is asking the republican movement to surrender. It is not being asked to give up its arms in any formal way to the RUC or to the British army, which it has no intention of doing one way or the other. It is being asked to make some unspecified gesture to allow it room to co-operate with an international commission on decommissioning under an international agreement.
Therefore, the IRA will be well removed from any threat. A gesture of that nature would not be entirely unhelpful and the IRA must be urged to make it. There is a consistency in arguing that such a gesture should be made and contrary to what might have been stated last weekend, that view is held by all of the other parties involved in the talks.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive original reply and his comprehensive if somewhat depressing supplementary reply.
In light of everyone's desire to move this process forward, does the Taoiseach agree it is necessary, if not essential, to try to make progress on those areas of the Agreement where progress can be made? I am not referring to decommissioning in that regard. Will he indicate the nature of the difficulties surrounding the establishment of cross-Border bodies? Will he confirm that there is no truth to the rumours that the Department of Agriculture and Food is refusing to fully co-operate with Northern Ireland in respect of establishing a body to monitor and assist agriculture on an all-Ireland basis? Will he further confirm whether the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has adamantly refused to contemplate the idea that the IDA and the IDB might be merged or whether the Unionists oppose this proposal? In the context of those two bodies, will the Taoiseach bear in mind that only five months remain before the decision of the electorate to change Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution will lapse and we will be required to introduce legislation to obtain an extension? Does he believe this situation to be entirely unsatisfactory and does he accept that the Government could move forward, particularly in terms of its being generous in the area of cross-Border bodies?
I thank Deputy Quinn for his questions because they will allow me to respond to rumours which emanated from outside the House. At a time when negotiations are approaching a conclusion, it is unhelpful for people outside the House to raise the matters under discussion in a way which tries to attribute blame to those involved in the talks. From our point of view, all of those conducting negotiations on the Government's behalf and all of the officials involved from the parties concerned have carried out their work in a thoroughly committed and professional manner. Government Departments have shown great enthusiasm for North-South co-operation and have taken forward positions in their respective areas. The Government is completely satisfied with the commitment they have given and I am confident that at the conclusion of the process we will have identified implementation bodies of real substance. The Government looks forward to participating in the North-South Ministerial Council when it comes into operation.
Deputy Quinn asked me to confirm whether rumours about the two bodies to which he referred and those involving Government Departments and agencies are untrue. There is no truth in the rumour concerning the Department of Agriculture and Food. With regard to the IDB and the IDA, Mr. Trimble and his colleagues have great difficulty with that proposal.
Because of the necessity to put in place confidence building measures which might assuage the fears of the IRA in respect of decommissioning, the substance of cross-Border bodies is regarded by everyone on this side of the Border as being significant. Do I understand that the Taoiseach stated that the Government has offered substantial incentives in respect of the establishment of cross-Border bodies on agricultural and economic development — specifically by means of foreign direct investment — and that those offers have not been accepted by people in Northern Ireland?
That is the position.
What reasons did the republican movement convey to the Government for its unwillingness to even offer a gesture on decommissioning? Given the history of the Agreement and the enormous progress which has been made, from which the republican movement in particular has benefited enormously, why does it believe it is incumbent on it to deny everybody else the advantage of a gesture at least on decommissioning? Does the Taoiseach agree with the assessment of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs who was deeply involved in its development and negotiation that the unstoppable Agreement has stopped because of the IRA's refusal to fulfil its part of bargain?
On where the republican movement stands on the issue — I will be as balanced as I can — once the election was over the Executive should have been established under the D'Hondt mechanism without regard to any other issue. For Sinn Féin to have two seats, the Executive would have to comprise ten seats. As of today, the figure stands at six. If I were to ask Sinn Féin to convince its republican colleagues to move forward, it would say to me that under the Agreement it was to have an inclusive role, including Cabinet seats, but I cannot guarantee this. All Mr. Trimble will say is that there should be six seats, although there has been movement in recent days. For the past five or six months I have been asking Sinn Féin to participate in an Executive in which it would have no seats. The ministerial positions have yet to be agreed. I have not accepted the other part of Sinn Féin's reply. Although it may not have been in the big print, it was the reality.
I read a report of the interview given by Deputy Spring. It is incorrect to say that the matter is stalled. In the same week there was finality on the Agreement at Westminster, there was movement on the legislation dealing with human rights, the release of prisoners, important meetings of the Patten commission and the British Prime Minister visited here. Removing one line is not always the best thing to do as it can lead to misrepresentation.
Does the Taoiseach agree a possible or likely way out of the current impasse would be for the Ulster Unionist Party to agree to a hypothetical agreement, the hypothesis being that there is an acceptable level of disarmament?
In that hypothetical agreement they would also agree to a ten member executive which would allow two places for Sinn Féin, and two implementation bodies. Perhaps that approach of agreeing a hypothesis which would be brought into effect by disarmament may be the way out of the current impasse, rather than not concluding any agreement, even in hypothetical form, because the disarmament issue has not been settled.
It is four weeks from yesterday since we had the round table meetings in Stormont. We have been endeavouring to conclude all of the matters involving the executive which strictly is not my domain. However, it is important to discuss the numbers in the executive, the departmental structure, the remit of the implementation bodies, their content, terms and as much detail as we possibly can. I am anxious we complete the discussion of as much detail as possible so we do not encounter further difficulties when we try to move from implementation bodies to the working of North-South ministerial bodies. It is important we have clarity on these issues which is why we are taking more time than would otherwise be necessary, though that is the only reason for the delay on our side.
We also have to try to agree the areas of co-operation as regards the North-South ministerial bodies. It is clear that if we do not achieve finality on these issues prior to Christmas we will create enormous difficulties for ourselves. I have emphasised that and persuaded people that is the case in recent weeks. I hope these matters will be resolved prior to Christmas, if they are not we will have made a terrible mistake. If we can resolve them, it will not move the other issue on but it will bring it into focus and remove the problem to which I referred earlier — it has not been within my call in trying to deal with the other issue to be able to say that that position exists.
Does the Taoiseach agree that he will only get all the parties to agree to a hypothetical arrangement as regards North-South bodies and the executive if they are convinced that if that is done by the end of this year, in January there will be no attempt to fudge the decommissioning issue, but that it will be dealt with honestly and there will be no attempt to say it does not matter or that some verbal formula will be found? Decommissioning must be dealt with in the same detail as the executive arrangements. It cannot be shunted aside by the endless ransacking of the dictionary to find evasive words to cover up a lack of political will.
I do not know whether we can reach agreement without achieving finality on the issue of decommissioning. Perhaps we can achieve finality on the basis that we will make progress on it. The issue will not go away — it has not gone away since 7 March, 1995 and it will not go away now.
I welcome the amount of progress that has been made on this issue but I would like to discuss it at greater length outside Question Time. Did the Taoiseach raise a matter to which he referred as a "fight against crime", a crime which relates to the discharges from Sellafield, with the Prime Minister? The levels in the Irish Sea are now shown to be higher than those which would result from a nuclear disaster. Was that raised as a matter of common concern and will the Taoiseach continue to raise it, particularly the expansion of MOX which awaits the granting of a licence from the British Government? Is that matter on the agenda?
It is. I raised it when I met the Prime Minister last Thursday as I always do, except when we are only discussing matters relating to Northern Ireland. I raised the extension and licensing of the MOX plant and strongly stated our views on the issue.
I will take two brief final supplementaries together from Deputies De Rossa and Quinn who submitted questions and a final reply from the Taoiseach.
What about my question? I indicated at an early stage——
Deputies Quinn and De Rossa submitted questions.
Is there an understanding between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister that the issue of joining the Commonwealth is to be a matter for debate by the Government and the Parliament here? Did that matter arise within his discussions with the Prime Minister? Will he indicate if he has any concerns with regard to the reference by the Prime Minister in his speech here that he looks forward to a closer alignment between Ireland and Britain within the European Union? There are clearly serious disadvantages for Ireland in adopting a British-Irish axis within the European Union.
In the course of his discussions and meetings with the British Prime Minister did the Taoiseach raise the question of the extradition of General Pinochet? Did he express any view to the British Prime Minister about the desirability or otherwise of acceding to the Spanish magistrate's request for the extradition to Spain of that former dictator and murderer?
Two other Deputies, Deputy Currie and Deputy Allen, are offering.
I thank the Taoiseach for his denial of the weekend report in relation to alleged lack of co-operation by the Department of Agriculture and Food. Will he refresh his memory of what happened in 1974 and will he agree that vigilance is much required in this matter?
Does the Taoiseach share my concern at the growing evidence that confrontations are being engineered with the RUC in a number of places in the North. underlining what is already obvious to everyone, that there is a difficulty with acceptance of the RUC? Four years after a commitment was given by the Republican movement in relation to the disappeared, does the Taoiseach have any progress to report on that matter?
I refer the Taoiseach to the statement of the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation at Broadway — I do not know if it was before or after Dancing at Lughnasa— about the North-South bodies in relation to tourism development and marketing. The Minister indicated that agreement was at an advanced stage. What is the up-to-date position regarding the North-South body in relation to tourism?
Needless to say, on the issue of the Commonwealth the views of the British Prime Minister and I have not been stated to any great degree. It is an issue which need not be resolved today or tomorrow. It is an issue for discussion. In so far as people want to put their views on it, I have said that they should. However, it is a strong issue about which many of the parties in the North feel strongly. I did not raise the issue of General Pinochet although it was discussed.
Who discussed it if you did not raise it?
It was raised at the dinner and the Prime Minister gave his views on the present position but I did not press him.
Did the Minister, Deputy Martin——
The Taoiseach without interruption.
I did not press him on one side or the other but he did give his views on the issue.
In terms of the RUC, there are disputes about those issues not only from Sinn Féin but from others. It is hard for me to make a judgment on who is wrong and who is right on these issues.
I have seen it.
I appreciate that. In terms of the disappeared, we have tried to move on that. We have some information from some of the former paramilitary bodies which have been helpful on this issue. We have not had great success on it but there has been some useful information from one of the paramilitary bodies which is being followed up.
On agriculture, Deputy Currie put his finger on it. There are people who remember 1974 and recall that time in the absence of something useful to say. However, this case is different.
On the tourism body, we are not experiencing difficulties. It is an area where we have agreement.