Vol. 498 No. 2
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if, further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 3 to 15 of 4 November 1998, he will provide details of the major role played by his Department in the extensive programme of work being undertaken under the aegis of the interdepartmental steering group which is co-ordinating implementation of all aspects of the British-Irish Agreement. [26633/98]
It is not normal or appropriate to give details of a Department's role in policy formulation in regard to the ongoing negotiations. If the Deputy wishes to ask a specific question on the implementation of the North-South aspects of the British-Irish Agreement he should address it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, whose Department chairs the interdepartmental steering group which oversees implementation of the Agreement and on which my Department is represented.
Will the Taoiseach give me information on the present state of the discussions on North-South bodies, which involve his Department and is within his own competence? Is it correct, as stated in today's newspapers, that matters have taken a step backwards, even in the past 24 hours, which would surprise me? Is there any truth in these indications?
There have been no new discussions in the past 24 hours, other than what I reported to the House yesterday. However, a number of statements were made earlier in the week which are now being analysed more closely. A number of points have been made in those discussions. I would hope that we can make progress over the next few days, but I cannot be certain about that. The difficulty is that most of the main players are involved in other business. Those who are here are involved in the debate in Westminster today and tomorrow they will go on to other meetings. It looks as though any real negotiations this week will be impossible.
What is the Taoiseach's view as to the impact of today's motion in the House of Commons on prisoners and on creating a linkage between prisoner releases and decommissioning? What is the Taoiseach's view of the effect that is having on the negotiating position of some of the parties? Does he agree that the introduction of this new apparent conditionality is making a difficult situation even more difficult? Does he agree that, while one completely understands the feelings people have when they see, for example, the release of the murderers of the two soldiers who were killed at a funeral in Belfast some years ago, at the same time one must realise that these releases are essential to create the atmosphere in which crimes of this kind will never occur again?
I agree with Deputy Bruton on this. Dealing with some of these aspects is one of the things I do not have a great deal of stomach for, but it is the only way we can go forward. Over recent years successive Governments have been releasing prisoners. The numbers remaining are down to a handful and there is a commitment to release those as well. There are ongoing discussions about the transfer of prisoners. There is only a very small number of prisoners left in our jurisdiction. The Secretary of State, Dr. Mo Mowlam has released a large number of prisoners. To enter preconditions now would be entirely unhelpful. We are making mistakes in this area. We should keep the focus on resolving the matters we have been trying to resolve for the past four to six weeks, and we should then focus on the other obstacles. I accept that there are obstacles. Decommissioning and other issues are obstacles around which we have to work. Bringing in new preconditions is unhelpful.
I am sure Members of the House who watch the international scene will have noted the difficulties in the Middle East peace process which have arisen entirely because new preconditions are being brought in. The Middle East peace process is on the verge of breaking down for that reason. Many of us have had the opportunity of looking at the South African situation and of talking to Mr. Mandela, Mr. De Klerk and others when they addressed the forum. They stated that what was agreed has to be followed through. Reading back over what Mr. De Klerk said when he addressed the forum, that was one of the things he warned against. Deputy Bruton is correct in saying that what has happened today is entirely unhelpful.
Does the Taoiseach recall that one of the others things Mr. De Klerk said was that in a successful negotiation the first thing one must do is put oneself in the shoes of one's antagonist and, rather than think about the needs of one's own community, start by thinking about the needs of the other community? Is there anything that can be done now to assist a coming together of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party which in recent days seems to have had some divergent experiences in regard to what was happening? Is there any possibility, on the basis of the advice of Mr. De Klerk, that the two parties could be brought together to resolve what I believe is a potentially easily resolved issue?
If these matters were easily resolved, they would be resolved. However, people take up difficult negotiating positions, when they negotiate at all. Regarding Mr. De Klerk's advice, I understand why people find it difficult to understand the other side, that some people take the view that certain events happened in circumstances of war while others do not accept that there was ever a war but take the view that what happened was terrorism. These are different perceptions. That leads to people being upset and that, in turn, leads to the impossibility of compromise. In regard to what has been happening in the past few days, I do not want to say anything unhelpful, but people have gone back to old positions to state analogies about the past which are incorrect and do not stand up. If there are efforts to hold ground, it might be helpful if everybody, including myself, were to say nothing for the next few days until everybody is back.
Does the Taoiseach agree that we have got ourselves into a rather dangerous if not farcical situation where we are, so to speak, giving out the medals at half time? We have the awards in Washington, the awards in Oslo and the reality in Ulster, and the reality in Ulster is not great? Accordingly, is the Taoiseach now in a position to indicate, bearing in mind the questions I raised on the Order of Business, that we will have a debate in this House next week on Northern Ireland? Such a debate would provide this House and this Republic with a platform which could be supportive and helpful in moving the process forward. As a pre-requirement for such a debate — I am aware that the Government Chief Whip will be meeting later this evening with the party Whips to discuss this matter — the Taoiseach should provide briefing to the leaders of the Opposition parties, collectively or individually, to ensure that the debate is well informed. The Taoiseach has our full support in the difficult task he is undertaking.
I thank Deputies Bruton and Quinn for having been always constructive on these matters during this session. I have already made arrangements with my officials to make contact with the Opposition party leaders to give them a full briefing. A short debate next week would be useful if it can be worked out between the Whips. Although it would be easy to jump to the bait and agree with Deputy Quinn——
Sometimes matches are decided at half time.
——it would not be a good idea to do so. Deputies will appreciate the sense of frustration when a fairly well planned schedule which looked good at 2 a.m. turns out to be worth nothing at 2.30 a.m.
The Taoiseach has been there before.
Unfortunately I cannot resume discussions for almost ten days. In my other existence I was usually able to give a break and start again 24 hours later. In this case all of the people to whom I wish to talk are elsewhere, which makes things difficult.
To put the matter in proportion, does the Taoiseach agree that even when all the bodies are set up there will still be crises every so often in operating them and that we should not become overly imbued with a sense of doom and gloom just because these current difficulties have arisen. Let us keep them in proportion. Of course there will be differences and difficulties from time to time, even when everything is in place. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with an area where there has been deep-seated division for 300 years and that this is not going to be resolved in three years. However, at least what we are talking about now is not a crisis in the peace process as much as a crisis in the political process, and that qualitative difference is a very important step forward. We are not talking now about the threat of violence so much as the threat of political differences. That is a qualitative improvement of great importance for which all in this House can take credit.
That is true, but neither do I want to let people off the hook because last year when things were going very well, everybody took off in an acrimonious state on 12 December and straight away the political vacuum during the pre-Christmas period led to a very difficult situation on the streets, difficulties in Derry on the last march of the year, to the murder in the Maze prison of Billy Wright and to a terrible two or three weeks. A political vacuum is not a good idea. I would love to take the view that there is no risk for example, in everybody, taking a few weeks holidays, but I do not. Perhaps I talk too much to people associated with the paramilitaries, but somebody must. While they want to move forward they continually tell me the political process must move forward. I can do nothing other than say to the political leadership that they must not allow a vacuum to develop. My judgment is that what is being done is not a good idea and I and others are prepared to find way out.
How can we help?
I hope on Monday when people return we can move forward. To lose so many days in a difficult situation is not a good idea.
On the other hand is it not the case that those who have used or supported the use of violence in the past have only done so because they have a level of impatience which those involved in conventional politics have learned not to have, that the process of politicising the differences and removing violence from them is naturally and inherently painful, that we must ensure that while maintaining the proper sense of urgency — I agree with the Taoiseach in this regard — we keep a sense or proportion and not elevate differences into crises and crises into a deadlock and that we must recognise these issues can be worked through patiently? Perhaps, as the Taoiseach has implied, it is sometimes better to work through these issues out of the reach of the ubiquitous microphones.
I agree with what the Deputy said and I assure Members that prior to the debate next week we will continue to do that. However, sometimes there is an awful tendency in the North for everybody to want to have the last word every day. I hope we can avoid this until at least next Monday.
