Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:1 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had since 6 October 1999 with the British Prime Minister. [19643/99]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the leadership of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19704/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, when he attended the special European Council on Justice and Home Affairs in Finland on 15 and 16 October 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20333/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the written or oral communications, if any, he has had with the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Mandelson; the plans, if any, he has to meet with him; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20336/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has met or plans to meet the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Mandelson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20456/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the report, if any, he has received of progress made in the two days of talks in London, chaired by Senator Mitchell, involving the Northern Ireland parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20458/99]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had with the new British Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Mandelson. [20508/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 19 October 1999 with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Mandelson; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21221/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his views on the current state of talks between the parties in Northern Ireland. [21596/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent telephone discussions with Mr. Séamus Mallon of the SDLP; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21597/99]
John Bruton
Ceist:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit Northern Ireland before the end of 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21600/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the report, if any, he has received from Senator George Mitchell on the outcome of the review of the Good Friday Agreement; if he has met or plans to meet Senator Mitchell to discuss the outcome of the review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21669/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the principal reforms which need to be carried out in Northern Ireland in view of his speech at Bodenstown on 17 October 1999, even if the institutions envisaged under the Good Friday Agreement are not established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21671/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if the Government is in a position to notify the British Government of the completion, as far as it is concerned, of the requirements for entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on 10 April 1998; if not, the further steps, if any, required to be taken by the Government; his views on whether the British Government is in a position to provide this notification; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21674/99]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:15 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Mandelson. [21717/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, together.
I have been in constant contact, both directly and on the telephone, with Prime Minister Blair and Northern Ireland's political leaders right through from the end of the summer when agreement was reached on the review of the Good Friday Agreement by Senator George Mitchell.
As the House will be aware, Senator Mitchell has this morning issued a statement. Let me quote what he has said about the point he has reached:
On the basis of these intensive discussions, conducted over a period of nine weeks, I am convinced that these parties are sincere and acting in good faith in seeking the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They want devolution and decommissioning. The problem, of course, is that there are differences among the parties on how those objectives can be achieved.
My meetings with the parties are well advanced. Consultation with them is the most important but not the only part of the review. Before advancing it further I must meet with the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, since they initiated the review. In addition, I must obtain the assessment of the independent International Commission on Decommissioning, since two of the three principles agreed on June 25 relate to decommissioning; one of them refers specifically to the Commission. Accordingly, I have asked the Commission for its assessment.
I will meet the Taoiseach in Dublin later today, with the Prime Minister in London tomorrow and with President Clinton later in the week. I will renew my meetings with the parties in Belfast on Monday. I expect to have my report ready shortly thereafter.
I will listen clearly to what Senator Mitchell has to say when I meet him this evening. I have previously set out the Government's view on the importance of Senator Mitchell's review. He is working in a dedicated and determined way and is doing an excellent job in still difficult circumstances. I do not believe it correct to speculate in any way ahead of my meeting him. I simply reiterate at this time the Government's wish for a successful outcome to the review.
I wish to address the Taoiseach on an issue which arose recently and is relevant to these questions. Will the Taoiseach raise with the British Prime Minister and Mr. Mandelson the disgraceful decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Six Counties not to prosecute in the case of the four men implicated in the murder of Séamus Ludlow? In light of the failure to prosecute, will the Taoiseach revisit the decision to hold a private inquiry into the Ludlow case and will he acknowledge that, in line with the recommendations of the former Tánaiste, Mr. Wilson, the report of such an inquiry must be published in the absence of prosecutions? The argument for a public inquiry is now, due to the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, greatly strengthened.
When the former Tánaiste, Mr. Wilson, acting as commissioner, issued his report he said he believed the review should be in private at that stage. It is probably a fair assessment that he also believed the Director of Public Prosecutions was proceeding with the case. I am not certain of that but that is how I would have interpreted his remarks at the time. I have seen the statement by the Director of Public Pros ecutions and we are examining the matter. I will raise it with the British Government again. As the Deputy knows, I have met the family and the people who have campaigned about this case over the last 20 years. We will reassess what to do next.
Does the Taoiseach agree that at this juncture it is possible that the least said the better and that the more space left to the participants to reach agreements, without having questions put to them in a stark way that creates a difficulty for some of their supporters, the better? Subject to that general consideration, will the Taoiseach indicate how the Government sees the situation evolving in the event that Senator Mitchell is unable to come up with a complete solution to all the problems? What process does he envisage for solving such problems, if any, that may remain thereafter?
With regard to the first part of Deputy Bruton's question, he is correct and that consideration applies to me as well. The less I say the better—
I accept that.
—and I appreciate the Deputy raising it. It was an intensive and exhaustive weekend, particularly for the parties and those close to the process. However, there are still difficult issues. The next few days will allow the dialogue to continue. It resumes again next Monday in full form. It is difficult. I do not wish to predetermine what might or might not happen. Needless to say, I hope Senator Mitchell, with the help of the three Governments, can bring this across the line. I do not know if that is possible yet. There are still a few weeks, at least, in that process and I do not want to contemplate what we will do at the other side of it. If that happens, we must pick it up very quickly and I assure the Deputy we will do that. As I said over the weekend on the question of not being over optimistic or over pessimistic, I am heartened that Senator Mitchell, who was to leave in mid-October, is staying – I think he will stay until he completes his work in the next few weeks. Other than that, I cannot say any more on the matter.
Will the Taoiseach agree we should maintain a sense of proportion in this regard – I compliment the media who report on these matters for maintaining one – in the sense that a huge amount has already been achieved? An important amount remains to be achieved, but the simple passage of time, in many respects, is assisting a process of healing in any event. We should not set ourselves deadlines, however enthusiastic we may be to achieve them, that create artificial disappointment when they are not achieved, rather we should see the whole forest, which is a forest of achievement against a background of a few trees that have yet to be properly cultivated.
Yes, that is a fair way of putting it. It is 14 months today since we were engaged in trying to get the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Leader of Sinn Féin to have their first meeting, which at the time was seen as an extraordinary achievement because of the past. Hours and hours of intensive dialogue have taken place between the parties, particularly during the past ten days. They have moved forward an enormous amount and made an enormous amount of progress, but they have not resolved all the difficulties. Some of the key issues, which some people tire of hearing but they should not because they are major difficulties, are still barriers that have to be addressed, but the intensity and friendliness of the discussions, the extent of the assistance parties are giving to each other and the personal relationships that have been built up are quite unbelievable. That does not, however, solve the problems. We still have to achieve the last part, but as I said, certainly they are trying – the last day we dealt with questions on Northern Ireland, I was asked if I was convinced people were anxious to try to achieve this on their party's behalf.
Everybody involved – I include all the pro-Agreement parties – is doing everything he or she possibly can to resolve the outstanding issues. Those involved have put in a huge amount of work since the bank holiday weekend, which was not a bank holiday weekend in the North. Neither we nor the parties' supporters could have asked them to do any more than they have done. There is no point in going into the details and the effects of all these matters because they are very fluid.
I am aware the Taoiseach does not want to say anything that might be construed as being less than constructive, and I share the view expressed by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party in that respect, but I want him to clarify two points. First, from the point of view of this Administration, will he indicate to the House and to those involved in the negotiations taking place in Belfast what will be the timeframe that will result in the transformation of the Constitution to give effect to the referendum that took place last May, in other words, the change in respect of Articles 2 and 3? Can he give an assurance to the negotiators in Northern Ireland that as soon as an executive is established and agreement is reached there will be no delay in this Administration giving effect to the referendum to change the Constitution? Will he outline what will be the timetable for that to become a reality in the South so that some comfort could be derived by the negotiators in respect of that matter?
Second, will he agree that while it appeared in the past ten to 12 days that there are only two parties to the negotiations, the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin, in reality, they are negotiating a platform carefully constructed by the SDLP, and that it would be a mistake to forget the extraordinary contribution the SDLP has made over many years and the contribution it has yet to make once this agreement is finally reached?
As regards Articles 2 and 3, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and I have said we will move on that immediately and if it is possible to have the Cabinet meeting on the same day, we will do so. I have made that clear in recent discussions with members of the UUP and other parties.
On the second issue, I purposely mentioned the pro-Agreement parties because of the direct negotiations. While the main workload is on two parties, all the pro-Agreement parties are needed to achieve this goal. An enormous amount of work has been done. While it is not always right to single out people, I must mention Séamus Mallon because of the position he has held, the role he plays and the positive influence he has on everyone.
(Dublin West): Is the Taoiseach concerned that while the political leaders in Northern Ireland drag on their talks to an excruciating degree, communities, particularly working class communities, are being polarised and a vacuum is being allowed to develop which is being filled by elements actively fostering sectarian divisions? There is an increased tendency, for example, to mark out territory with flags, bunting and painted kerbstones etc., which sends out a signal that people of another creed are not welcome. This is a serious matter. In view of the fact that the Good Friday Agreement sets up structures based on sectarian divisions, does he agree that an agreement between leaders is not sufficient and that it is crucial for the people, particularly those in working class communities who have been affected by the polarisation and sectarianism which has been allowed to develop in recent years, to participate in the peace process?
There are ongoing difficulties and sectarianism. However, a lot of good work has been done both by the political system and community organisations. I welcome the decision by the Bogside residents not to disrupt the Apprentice Boys' Christmas commemorations in Derry, which created difficulties over the past few years. A large number of groups and bodies in Belfast and other parts of the North are trying to find ways to heal the old divisions and to resolve the marching issue. Good work is being done in Portadown to try to find a resolution to the Garvaghy Road and other problems and some progress has been made. There is still tension in some areas and some people have evil intentions. However, a large number of people across the traditional divide are trying hard to find ways to move forward. I am not denying the difficulties, but I would rather highlight the large number of positive groups, organisations, religious and non-religious bodies which are trying to work together and which deserve our support. If partial or full political progress can be made, it would allow them to strengthen their position in the communities.
Does the Taoiseach agree that one of the reasons for sectarianism in Northern Ireland is the two radically opposed views of history held by the two communities who have two different mental maps of the groups to which they belong? A way of defeating sectarianism in the long term would be to work towards a more informed view of history in both communities. Perhaps a millennial all-Ireland study of history would encourage both communities to see from each other's perspective, rather than that of their ancestors, and would move matters forward, not in the short term but in the medium to long term.
Hopefully, that is already happening in some way. As regards the suggestion for a millennial approach, last year's 1798 commemoration was useful as it gave people in the North an insight into that period and its leaders. This commemoration is continuing this year. As regards the millennium project, there is still a focus on the site of the Battle of the Boyne. Although agreement has not been reached, there is a desire that the site be used to enable people to share their history and learn about the teachings of each tradition. The feasibility of this proposal is being assessed but some groups in the North believe it would be helpful. Staff in my Department are researching history projects to which amounts of money, although small, will be allocated. I agree that the more that can be done, the better.
We should focus our efforts on assisting groups which are working positively to break down sectarian divisions. Given that violence was associated with groups over the years we always highlighted the difficulties. We should change track in the new millennium and highlight the groups which are trying to break down divisions.
Forty nine thousand Irish people gave their lives in the Great War, most of whom are buried in Flanders and whose graves are tended by the British War Graves Association. Most of them did not consider themselves British, in the sense that the British War Graves Association considers itself British, and fought in the trenches for what was, in their minds, Irish freedom, under the leadership of John Redmond and Major Willie Redmond, who gave his life in 1917. Does the Taoiseach agree that a greater Irish involvement, along the lines of the commemoration at Messines, in tending to the graves of Irish people of both traditions who died in the Great War in Flanders and more regular visits by Irish leaders, including members of the Government, to those graves, might help people in Northern Ireland to see we have a common history, that we share much sacrifice and there is much in history that is painful and unites us?
As the Deputy will recall, two years ago I provided the resources for the development of the project at Messines which has been completed, and which the President visited last year on behalf of this country. This year, there were discussions about the maintenance of the monument. I cannot recall the conclusion reached, but we offered the assistance of the Office of Public Works or that resources would be provided to assist in its upkeep. Extra resources were needed to complete the project as there was a shortfall in the budget and we said we would favourably assist. I do not know whether any other projects are proposed.
Perhaps the Taoiseach is aware there is a proposal for the construction of a wall on which the names of every one of the 49,000 Irish who died would be inscribed, showing exactly what part of Ireland they came from, whether it was Ballymena, Bandon or Ballydehob, along with their surnames, Christian names and units. Those details should be inscribed permanently in a place in Flanders. Would the Taoiseach consider that might be something worth supporting as a means of giving a human face to each one of these 49,000 Irish people, of both traditions, who died for a cause in which they believed?
I would support that, but I would like the original project to be completed, managed and cared for. Although it is not a fault of the people who were involved, such projects can be undertaken and then neglected, as we have seen from reports this year. I would like to see that properly sorted out.
Yes, I agree with the Taoiseach.
I do not have a difficulty with looking at another aspect.
The Taoiseach is right.
In light of the ongoing negotiations in the North – which, as another Deputy has already said, are moving at a very slow pace – does the Government intend making a declaration under Article 29.7.3º of the Constitution for the substitution of the new Articles 2 and 3, in the absence of the creation of a Northern Ireland executive, for a new North-South ministerial council, and legislation for the implementation of those bodies to be agreed by the council, and for the actual functioning of those bodies? The people on both sides of the Border, North and South, have voted overwhelmingly for a new shared vision of how this country should be. If, for whatever reason, the parties currently in negotiation in Northern Ireland fail to agree the composition of an executive, does that mean that every other part of the Good Friday Agreement must fall? Or, can the Taoiseach and the Government, under Article 29.7.3º of the Constitution, proceed to alter Articles 2 and 3 as was agreed and to provide for the ministerial bodies North and South? There will still be Ministers—
The Deputy appears to be asking a question that was disallowed.
I am not at all, sir.
That is how it appears to the Chair.
I am quoting from one which you thought was hypothetical. However, I would respectfully suggest to you that the Taoiseach has been asked quite a number of hypothetical questions. I am asking him a similar question. Any similarity with the question that was disallowed is entirely coincidental.
I do not want to speculate on that area. If we get into those difficulties we will have to look at all these aspects.
The Taoiseach would not be closed to it?
I would not be closed to anything at this stage but my total concentration is on seeing that the Good Friday Agreement is implemented in full and that the institutional aspects are dealt with in full. I do not want to get into the argument about what will happen if we do not achieve this, that or the other. At the end of the period we will either be successful or not and at that stage I will look at it, but I do not want to start speculating on it or cause an argument or row about what my view would be if it failed, when my heart says that I do not want to give in until we succeed. So, it is really a pointless exercise.
While we all want these negotiations to be successfully completed and all components of the Good Friday Agreement implemented, can the Taoiseach hold out some measure or glimmer of hope to the people who voted – 95 per cent in this State and 73 per cent in Northern Ireland – for that agreement as a single package, that failure to arrive at the consolidation of one component of that package would not result in its abandonment. Will the Taoiseach give some indication, without prejudice to the outcome of the ongoing negotiations, that the Government will not sit back and allow the entire package to fail because of the failure of one component to be put in place? That is a message of hope the Taoiseach could usefully give to the negotiators at this stage.
If it was just one aspect that would be easy but the whole institutional part of the Agreement is not one aspect. It is the executive, it is how the Assembly will relate thereafter to the executive, it is how we will have a cross-community divide working within that executive, it is how the North-South bodies operate, it is how the North-South implementation bodies and the British-Irish Council operate. It is not one specific part.
However, as I said previously in relation to the Patten Commission and human rights legislation, we will continue to try to implement everything contained in it. At this stage, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and I are trying to articulate that the way to achieve this is, as the Deputy said, by listening to what the people North and South said. They voted for the full Agreement. All the parties in the North agree, and they continually tell me, that no document in Northern Ireland was ever read, studied and understood as much as the Good Friday Agreement. It is for this reason that it should be implemented.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Bruton that at this juncture the least said, the better. I am glad that to a large extent this has been the tone of the House on this occasion. I accept entirely the importance of increasing personal relationships. Does the Taoiseach agree that anybody who has any experience of negotiations finds that this is of paramount importance? This has been the most welcome development in recent times. We often reach a stage where it is easier to say "yes" than "no". I hope that might be the ongoing scenario.
In relation to Deputy Joe Higgins's comments, sectarianism in Northern Ireland is not only a problem now. It has been a problem for 350 years and throughout the history of the Northern Ireland state. Does the Taoiseach agree that probably the best way to diminish sectarianism is to have representatives of the two traditions in Northern Ireland working together in partnership in government in tackling the political, social, economic, cultural and other problems, including sectarianism? Working together is the best way in which sectarianism can be diminished and eventually eliminated.
I agree with the Deputy regarding an executive that would include representatives of Nationalists, Unionists and republicans and which would have the support of Nationalists, republicans, Unionists and loyalists. People would run the administration and geographical area within that executive with devolved powers and they would deal with everyday issues that affect people's economic, social and cultural lives. It would change everybody's lives in the medium term. As I continually argue, people would have a responsibility to support such an arrangement. If people support it, normal politics, of which there has been an absence, would develop. This is why the institutions are so important in terms of the Agreement.