John Bruton
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 23 March 1999 with Mr. Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8761/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
John Bruton
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report in his meeting on 23 March 1999 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8762/99]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister at the Berlin summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8917/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting last week with the President of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8995/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his talks with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the fringes of the Berlin summit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8996/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit Northern Ireland this week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9003/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he had in the past week with the leaders of the Northern political parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9004/99]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the discussions he had at the Berlin summit with the British Prime Minister in relation to the role of the Chief Constable of Kent in the investigation into the murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9006/99]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:18 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in relation to the investigation into the murder of Mrs. Rosemary Nelson. [9170/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 18, inclusive, together.
In addition to the meetings referred to in the questions, I have had a series of other meetings and contacts over the past few days. All of them have been aimed at advancing the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in all aspects and, in particular, the activation of the institutions provided for in the Agreement. I held meetings, mostly jointly with Prime Minister Blair, with the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Women's Coalition, the Alliance Party, the PUP and UDP. Jointly with the Prime Minister, I also met representatives of the Garvaghy Road Residents' Association and of the Lower Ormeau Concerned Citizens. I also met Mr. Paul Nelson, the tragically bereaved widower of the late Mrs. Rosemary Nelson. In an intensive process of interaction, there were numerous further meetings and contacts last evening and this morning. After completing my business in the House, I shall be returning to Belfast this afternoon.
As part of the wider efforts in the activation of the Agreement, there has been a strong focus on efforts to resolve the continuing difficulties in Drumcree and the situation generally in Porta down, where a number of people have lost their lives in recent years – most recently Rosemary Nelson – and where the tensions, if unresolved before July, hold the potential to destabilise the Agreement. The meeting with Garvaghy Road residents was in this context. Prime Minister Blair met the Portadown District of the Orange Order and Mr. Frank Blair, the Scottish facilitator commissioned by the Prime Minister to promote dialogue and accommodation, met senior Orangemen from Portadown.
In the main discussions it again clearly emerged that there is a very strong desire on the part of all parties to ensure that the promise of the Good Friday Agreement for the future of all the people of this island is fully realised and that the major gains and achievements of the past five years are preserved and built upon. While very difficult issues remain to be resolved, there was a sense that parties, while naturally seeking to retain the support of their own constituencies, are seeking to make some political space available in which the other parties involved would be able to manoeuvre. There was serious engagement on crunch issues and some degree of progress was made, although this fell short of what is needed to bridge the significant remaining gap.
More serious work needs to be done and the Prime Minister and I will return to Belfast this evening after our respective parliamentary business has been concluded. We are determined that the current historic opportunity to bring peace to this island is not missed and, however long it takes, we will not flag in our efforts.
As previously indicated, I had the opportunity yesterday to meet Mr. Paul Nelson, husband of the late Rosemary Nelson, and to reaffirm to him the condemnation I expressed in the US, and subsequently in this House, of that shocking act of violence and my profound sympathy for Mr. Nelson and his three young children on their terrible loss. Mr. Nelson is bearing that loss with dignity but also with a determination that the killers of his wife be brought to justice and that the truth as to the circumstances of her murder is established through an investigation that is thorough, independent and transparent, and fully seen to be such. That, in the view of the Government, is absolutely essential. Our deep concern about this case has been emphasised in ongoing discussions with the British authorities on all aspects of it, including at my meeting with the Prime Minister on 23 March. The position is that the Chief Constable of the RUC has invited the Chief Constable of Kent, Mr. David Phillips, with the assistance of the FBI, to head the investigation into the murder. On 17 March, the British Prime Minister said in the House of Commons that the Phillips investigation would be independent and that its remit would be very wide. On 29 March 1999, it was announced that the Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk, Mr. Colin Port, is to assume responsibility for the day-to-day control, direction and command of the investigation. Our concerns in regard to the investigation will continue to be pressed rigorously at all levels and we will continue to maintain the closest contact with the British authorities on the matter.
I wish the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair every success in this, the end game of the problem in Northern Ireland, and I am sure every other Member of the House does likewise as we approach the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. We all want to see the situation resolved so the Executive can be set up.
Will the Taoiseach comment on the expectations he had yesterday about a statement the IRA was to publish? Now that we have seen the statement, will he comment on the fact it does not mention decommissioning? It may be that comfort is being taken from the fact that it does not state there will not be decommissioning. As was expected neither did the Unionists mention decommissioning and the IRA placing itself under the care of General John de Chastelain. Lest the Taoiseach says he does not comment on IRA statements, I remind him that he commented on the IRA statement earlier this week about the disclosure of the whereabouts of many people who were killed by the IRA; the Taoiseach welcomed that.
The Deputy is right, I do not comment on such statements. I was very careful to say earlier this week that I would not comment. I did, however, comment on the letter written by my ministerial colleague regarding the matter.
The parties with which I am dealing, which may be influenced by the actions of other parties in the North and by what they say, would say it is probably useful that the decommissioning matter is not mentioned at all in any of these reports. The commitment to keep guns silent and the other commitments made by parties in the talks – be they PUP or Sinn Féin – are useful and commitment to the democratic system is useful.
In terms of trying to help resolve the difficulty which Mr. Blair and I face, I am afraid nothing has been said today or last night that has helped that position. We are still in a dilemma.
The Deputy will understand that I will not comment on the statement because I hate to comment on statements by people with whom I am not in negotiation. Sometimes, with my desire to resolve matters, I would like to negotiate with the people who can resolve these issues. It can be frustrating that it cannot be resolved by people who do not have it within their call but that is the way it is. I have to work through the democratic system, I must work on the people who have it within their call to do these things. That is the difficulty and it is shared by the PUP, the UDP and Sinn Féin. We have to continue to try to find a resolution of this matter.
For the information of the House, I mentioned the issues of the Garvaghy Road and Portadown. Having talked to so many people from that area and to the security forces, I could bring a sense to this House that this really is an enormous problem which is wider than the Garvaghy Road or Portadown. It feeds into all of the communities in the North, even more widely than the Nationalist community. No one is happy with the situation in the area and it has an effect on all of this. I have heard harrowing reports about what was said to Rosemary Nelson. Other Members will be aware of what was said before she was killed, when she was killed and what was said the night of her wake. All of these make things difficult.
On the positive side, I can report to the House that all of the parties with which I am negotiating want the Agreement to work and want to move on to the next stage. I am conscious that others have an influence on such matters, but I can only report on those parties. They understand what is in the Agreement and what is not, they understand what is a precondition and what is not. The difficulty is that the gap between the Ulster Unionist position and the Sinn Féin position is still very wide. We continue to try to move on. I am not being critical of either team of negotiators, they are fully committed and determined to resolve the issue. Whether we can do that remains the question.
On behalf of the Labour Party, I wish the Taoiseach and all the participants to the process in Northern Ireland every success on this, the verge of the anniversary of the first Good Friday Agreement. I hope it will be consolidated with a second Good Friday agreement.
I will respond to a point made by the Taoiseach in his supplementary reply. Notwithstanding that the IRA statement issued today did not refer to decommissioning – and that could be construed in some quarters as a degree of progress – the Taoiseach said he regrets he is not negotiating directly with the people responsible for this statement. Is the Taoiseach not on record in this House as saying that he regards Sinn Féin and the IRA as two sides of the same coin? If his view has not changed, does he accept that he is negotiating with one side of that coin which is inextricably linked with the other side of the coin? Is he saying that the people who are linked to the IRA, the leadership of Sinn Féin, are not able to go any further in persuading the other side to make progress in finding a lasting settlement for peace in Northern Ireland? Does he understand the concerns of the broader Unionist population about this apparent contradiction, where Sinn Féin's leadership is attempting to distance itself from an organisation to which it is still inextricably linked as far as he concerned?
My party supports an independent international inquiry into the murder of Rosemary Nelson. In the light of the impasse on Garvaghy Road and the inextricable linking of that murdered person to the Garvaghy Road residents, such an inquiry, at the scale and level of indepen dence with an international dimension, is the minimum that would meet the requirements of that section of the community in Northern Ireland for them to be satisfied with the results, bearing in mind the sad legacy of Stalker and others. Will the Taoiseach clearly express whether his Government supports a full and independent internationally supervised inquiry, and does he believe that what is being offered by the British Government meets that rigorous standard?
To reply briefly on the second question, following a number of meetings yesterday, the views of the political parties and the ongoing view of the Irish Government – I mentioned last week in my meeting with Mr. Blair the unanimous view of this House on the Rosemary Nelson murder – the Prime Minister is trying to ensure that the tribunal will be transparent and independent and will be to the satisfaction of everybody involved. I know he was very impressed with the case put by Rosemary's husband yesterday and he is still examining it with a view to making it work. Until that is finished we are certainly satisfied.
Is the Taoiseach's view the same as that of Mr. Blair with regard to independence?
While there has to be RUC involvement, the people involved to whom I spoke yesterday, including Rosemary's husband, agree that the way the investigation is run and who does the interviewing is important. The people involved in this who have evidence will not talk to the RUC so there is little use in the RUC trying to talk to them. That is the position. It has to be done in a different way. How the Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk, Colin Port, can deal with that from a broader international level is still being discussed in London. These people will only talk to somebody from outside in whom they have complete confidence – an independent police force. They may be happy with these arrangements when they see Mr. Blair's response to yesterday's meetings and I will wait to see how they propose to do it but the position remains as it was yesterday. It will not work because the co-operation will not be forthcoming and, therefore, we will not have an independent tribunal. Mr. Blair put his point of view yesterday. He spent some time listening to the alternative view, as I did. I supported the alternative view and now we must wait to see what happens.
To answer Deputy Quinn's first question, the one positive aspect of recent times is the level of understanding developing between Sinn Féin and the UUP. That point should not be missed. I have been at meetings in recent days that would not have been possible a few months ago. It is a pity they did not take place a few months ago. The pressures and the sensitivities in terms of what was negotiated are far better understood now than ever before. That does not resolve them but it certainly helps to reach an understanding. Ongoing pressures about pre-conditions and trying to make those pre-conditions work, whether it is Sinn Féin or the UUP, will not get the work done. The reverse will be the case. Repeating the same line all the time, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, will not work. The dilemma is that the parties who signed up and are committed to the Agreement know that the issue of decommissioning has to be dealt with. The circumstances of that are clearly not agreed. I am on record as saying that Sinn Féin and the IRA are the opposite sides of the one coin. That does not mean the people in the PUP, with their paramilitary links, can influence those outside the process. That is not the case all the time. I do not know the extent of that. One can only form a judgment when dealing directly with people across a table. In these circumstances I cannot form a judgment because—
The PUP does not support the so-called armed struggle.
The PUP people were clearly involved with paramilitary groups.
Is the Taoiseach's view the same as it was before, that Sinn Fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin?
I have not changed my view but it does not follow that those people who negotiate on behalf of Sinn Féin can influence the political negotiating position of others. That is the reality.
That is some coin.
In terms of fully answering Deputy Quinn's question, I can tell him in a few days.
I would remind the House that the time for Taoiseach's questions has expired. I will allow brief supplementaries from Deputies Sargent, Ó Caoláin and Flanagan.
On behalf of the Green Party I wish the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister and all the parties in the North well in bringing these negotiations to a successful conclusion. The Green Party supports the internationally independent supervised inquiry into Rosemary Nelson's murder. In light of the difficulties surrounding this sensitive political situation, particularly on the Garvaghy Road, and the need to achieve justice, will interviews be recorded on video in this investigation? If that is not to be the case, will the Taoiseach make it known that interviews ought to be recorded on video? Further to the matter raised this morning, will there be an investigation into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in the light of further information that seems to be available to the people investigating this matter on behalf of the families involved? Will the Taoiseach make a statement on that?
I have not seen it yet but I believe information has been passed to me which will be examined. This inquiry must be thorough, independent and transparent. That is what people want. If that requires the videotaping of interviews I have no difficulty with that. It is important that the people who have information that could lead to the conviction of those who murdered Rosemary Nelson come forward. If the process fails, and Rosemary's husband said this to me yesterday, at least proper efforts will have been made. The quicker that is done, the better. It is important that this matter does not drag on for ten years like the Finucane case or other cases. Yesterday I also met some of the lawyers and others involved in this. I hope the Prime Minister Mr. Blair realised the importance of that from yesterday's meeting. I believe he did. There can be no doubt that the Garvaghy Road residents and others have suffered enormously. The 4 July march down Garvaghy Road was stopped last year but there have been 180 marches since then. There are 60 more listed, including a build up during April and May, and 32 marches listed for the 30 days of June. It is not unreasonable for these people to expect serious action to be taken to resolve what is an impossible situation for the community in that area.
In his response to the questions tabled the Taoiseach used the words "thorough, independent and transparent" in terms of the type of inquiry he would like to see established in the Rosemary Nelson case. Given the position articulated by her widower, Paul Nelson, and the widespread support for an independent international inquiry, including that of Archbishop Brady, does the Taoiseach recognise when he speaks of an inquiry with the involvement of the RUC that this does not balance with the view of independence? It is not an issue of the RUC being involved in such an investigation, but its being subservient and subject to an international independent inquiry. This is critically important as there is more than a simple fine tuning required in the responses we are hearing in the House to questions on this issue.
I tabled a question at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body plenary meeting on Monday concerning the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. In terms of considering an independent judicial inquiry into these atrocities which took place on 17 May 1974, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, indicated that the file on this matter would be left open for consideration in the event of new evidence coming to light. Substantial new evidence has come to light within the past 24 hours. This evidence was presented to the Taoiseach yesterday and to the public at a press conference.
The Deputy appears to be giving more information than he is seeking.
Will the Taoiseach indicate positively that he and his Cabinet will follow through on the commitment given by the Minister on Monday to initiate such an inquiry which is already 25 years too late?
The Deputy is aware that any inquiry must be based on substantial information. I will look at the documentation. As with all Members of the House, I have always taken a keen interest in those terrible bombings, particularly as some of them exploded in my constituency. However, successive Governments have not initiated such an inquiry as there has been no substantial evidence. The Minister stated that there would be an inquiry if the situation changed. I have not seen the information but I will study it.
Last week I said to the Deputy that it is the view of lawyers, Paul Nelson and the community concerned that what is necessary is that the tribunal is independent, thorough and transparent. That is what we must seek to achieve. I have stated that the Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk, Colin Port, is to assume responsibility for the day-to-day control, direction and command of the investigation. It was put to the British Prime Minister yesterday that the form of the investigation must be such that people have confidence in those to whom they give evidence. I support that request and we have to make sure that happens, otherwise people will not give evidence.
The reality is that the RUC has the information and so it will have to play a part. However, it is clear that it will not supervise or control the investigation. The investigation will not be complete if that happens.
Paul Nelson and others put other points which are being looked at by the Prime Minister. We should await his reply to ensure that the investigation is as independent as possible so that it receives the support of the people. I support that position.
I join with other speakers in wishing the Taoiseach well in his current deliberations. We are heading for the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. Does the Taoiseach accept that there will be no progress on actual decommissioning between now and the triggering of the d'Hondt system by the Secretary of State?
The stalling of the Agreement weakens the parties involved and plays into the hands of anti-Agreement elements. Does the Taoiseach agree that it was hypocritical in the extreme of the IRA, in its statement, to talk about wishing to see a lasting peace on the one hand while not giving a scintilla of evidence as to how it might contribute to such a lasting peace? In wishing the Taoiseach well for tonight and tomorrow, will he provide the House with details of his plans for the rest of the week?
In his discussions with the republican leadership, did the Taoiseach get an opportunity of discussing the statement on the return of the bodies of the disappeared? If so, did he express the widespread scepticism of relatives and others as to the intentions of the IRA in this regard? In any further such discussions, will the Taoiseach insist that there are at least nine other bodies which ought to be returned about which the IRA can provide necessary information? The IRA knows where the nine bodies are located. Will the Taoiseach assure the House that the necessary information which will enable the relatives to exhume and give these bodies a Christian burial will not be held up by legislation which has to go through this House? If there is a chance that this would be held up will he give an assurance that the House will be recalled over the Easter recess to pass that legislation?
I wish to return to the original question concerning the attitude of the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Féin, to commencing a process which would build confidence in the entire Agreement, namely, making some statement or progress in regard to decommissioning. This is the net point with which the Taoiseach is trying to grapple. Is the Taoiseach aware of comments on this matter made by two journalists during the past 48 hours? On "Questions & Answers" on Monday night one journalist referred to the fact that some form of decommissioning was tantamount to the emasculation of Sinn Féin. In an article in The Irish Times another journalist stated that the object of this exercise was the neutralising of the IRA, if I have the quote correct. Will the Taoiseach again state that the process of decommissioning is not a process of surrender or humiliation but, on the contrary, a declaration of self-confidence in the democratic spirit which should pervade the entire island?
I have answered questions about the independent tribunal. We will do our utmost to make sure that happens. I will convey Deputy Currie's comments on missing persons. There has been progress. I am not sure about another nine names. Five of the names with which I have been dealing are included on the list.
There are two from Andersonstown, two from south Armagh and Captain Nairac – we know what happened him.
That has been included in what has been stated. I agree with Deputy Flanagan and have continued to make the point, perhaps to the extent of boring many people, that anyone who stalls the Agreement is playing into the hands of those who protested outside Hillsborough Castle last night and who do not want the Agreement to work. Worse still, it plays into the hands of those involved in violence such as the Omagh bombing and the murder of Rosemary Nelson. These people win whenever there is uncertainty or when vacuums are created. Pro-Agreement parties and even those elected to the Assembly who are not openly pro-Agreement do not want to see that happen. They want to see movement. We have carefully and painstakingly, over a long period of time, gone through all the issues we thought would create confidence in the agreement in all its aspects. When we set up institutions, whether they were the North-South bodies, the British-Irish Council or whatever, we sought clarification on every point we could. I accept that everything did not work out to everybody's satisfaction but the two Governments endeavoured to do that.
It is down to a crucial point at this stage. I think I have got everybody to say – although some people might disagree – that decommissioning was not a precondition in the Good Friday Agreement. Equally, however, everybody says it is an obligation under the Good Friday Agreement and one of the things that annoys me when the Agreement runs into difficulties is that a number of people – nobody in this House – express the view that that is not the case. They are the same people who say that George Mitchell is right.
George Mitchell, correctly, gets world credit for brokering this Agreement. He worked extremely hard on it. It is his interpretation – forget the Taoiseach's or anybody else's interpretation – that decommissioning is an obligation of the Agreement. I am afraid that is game, set and match. If people want to give him that credit they cannot argue with his key point. That is his conclusion and I support it. Therefore, we must find a way of dealing with it. There are a number of ways of dealing with it. I was asked if it would be dealt with up front but, as a journalist said on the radio this morning, it is unlikely that the arms will be delivered to the local RUC station. That was never a possibility; nobody ever spoke about it and I never heard a Unionist member suggest it. We were talking about some way that, with a clear definition, I could at least negotiate on the terms of some date, some time within the terms of the Agreement when we would have decommissioning. That is what we have been talking about. However, there must be some certainty.
It would be impossible for me, no matter how many hours I stayed in Hillsborough or Stormont, to broker an agreement that does not give certainty on the issue. That is the difficulty. One can argue about dates, times, preconditions, post-conditions and so forth but, at the end of the day, decommissioning was part of the Agreement. Senator George Mitchell, who negotiated it, said that is the case and I never heard anybody contradict him until the past few days. Of course, they do not contradict him: they say that this is their understanding. That is what we are trying to negotiate.
I can only negotiate in the same way as Deputies Quinn, Owen and others who have conducted negotiations. One cannot take a central part of an Agreement and say it means something else. One must try to negotiate around what is the central meaning of something. One can per haps make timings and other matters different but one cannot change the principle. In this case, I cannot change the principle either.
The IRA statement does not help.