Nora Owen
Ceist:8 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with Mr. Donald Dewar, First Minister of Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22174/99]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting in Dublin on 2 November 1999 with Senator George Mitchell; his assessment of the prospects of the review of the Good Friday Agreement succeeding on the basis of the information he received from the Senator; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22380/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting in Dublin with the First Minister of Scotland, Mr. Donald Dewar. [22635/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together.
I met Senator George Mitchell last Tuesday evening when the Senator briefed me on the current situation concerning the review. As Deputies will be aware, the Senator went on to brief Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton. Since the Senator's return to Belfast yesterday he has been meeting with the parties both formally and informally. The Senator has already said that he expects to have his report ready very soon. I do not propose to comment further in advance of that report.
I had a very useful meeting with Mr. Donald Dewar, First Minister of Scotland, on Friday, 29 October. The meeting provided an opportunity for a wide-ranging discussion on matters of mutual interest on political, economic and cultural levels. Both of us recognised the potential benefits arising from the British-Irish Council and of close co-operation in areas where our interests coincide. We agreed that in whatever wider context, there should be a process whereby information could be shared on these issues and that closer co-operation should be developed.
I thank the Taoiseach for the answer and for the reiteration of the commitment about the British-Irish Council, including Scotland. What credence does the Taoiseach give to the statements over the weekend that the IRA is about to implement some form of decommissioning?
The process is almost complete. Senator Mitchell is engaged with the parties. Needless to say, I am reasonably well briefed on what is happening and the stage at which the discussions are currently, but they are extremely delicate. It could take a number of days or a number of weeks to bring them to a conclusion – I hope it will be a number of days because I do not think Senator Mitchell can give much more time to the process. Hopefully, over the next period the position will become clear. Senator Mitchell has committed himself to giving his best assessment as soon as the process is finished. I do not want to say anything that—
I asked the Taoiseach a very specific question. It was rumoured over the weekend that the IRA was about to enter into what was called technical decommissioning. What credence does the Taoiseach give to that because obviously that is crucial to whether Senator Mitchell's work will be completed satisfactorily? Is there some element of hope that there will be some decommissioning, which is being hinted at? I realise the Taoiseach has to be sensitive in what he says but could he at least give us some idea?
The less said, the better.
I hear many rumours about many things but I am not prepared to speculate on any rumour about what the IRA might or might not do. Senator Mitchell has asked us all to be extremely careful, as we have been in this House over recent weeks. I will await his report or his advice before I speculate.
I share the Taoiseach's concern about ensuring that any comments made at this time are deemed to be constructive. It is against that background that I pose the following question to him. By way of illustration to the rest of the Irish community and the broader community, will he outline to the House what the circumstances would be if Senator Mitchell were to, in a matter of weeks or days, give a final report back to the two heads of Government to the effect that the review had ended in failure and that progress was not possible? That is not a prospect to which I look forward; on the contrary, I hope positive progress can be made. However, the alternative needs to be posed to all Members of this House and others. What options would be open to the Irish and British Governments if Senator Mitchell were to, regretfully, report that the final bridge could not be crossed and that progress could not be made?
I acknowledge the constructive way in which the question was put. Needless to say, we will do everything we possibly can to assist Senator Mitchell and all the pro-Agreement parties, and all other parties for that matter, to try to reach a successful conclusion. Without going into it step by step, if that were the case, both Governments would have to receive that report and immediately try to engage with the pro-Agreement parties to see how aspects of the Good Friday Agreement could continue to be implemented. There has been agreement throughout the discussions over the past year or so that, while it would be extremely difficult, we would have to endeavour to continue to implement and operate as much as possible of, and in as comprehensive a way as possible, the legislative base, human rights issues and many other aspects. However, it would be difficult. The Deputy already knows what has been stated about the difficulties there would be for the Patten commission and North-South matters if there was no agreement. We could try, in an ad hoc way, to develop those, because they would be right in their own way, but it would be very difficult to do so without the institutional mechanisms. I assure the House we would immediately put all our efforts into doing that. However, at this stage, we are concentrating our efforts on trying to get a successful outcome.
I appreciate that is the case and I urge the Taoiseach – not that he needs urging from me – to ensure such a satisfactory outcome is arrived at. Nevertheless, in the event that such an outcome does not obtain, are the Irish and British Governments empowered to proceed to enact the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement to ensure that Articles 2 and 3 would be changed in line with the wish of the electorate, as expressed last May?
Those are hypothetical and very important constitutional issues. The people were asked to change the Constitution on the basis of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that serious efforts are still being made to have the IRA identify the location of the bodies of the disappeared? Many of us were moved to tears by a recent interview with Jean McConville about the pain her family is suffering as a result of not knowing where her mother's body is. Are efforts still being made to get the IRA and Sinn Féin to indicate where are the remaining bodies of the disappeared?
As I understand it, any available information has already been passed on. Some of the searches were successful but, unfortunately, most were not. There is no new information. However, as has been said here several times, any information is seriously followed up and investigated and that will continue to happen.
I want to return, for clarification purposes, to a question the Taoiseach answered. In reply to my question about Articles 2 and 3, the Taoiseach said that change can only be implemented if the Good Friday Agreement is implemented. Certain components of the Good Friday Agreement have already been implemented. In light of the progress that has been made where, while there was a failure to establish an Executive, Ministers have continued to have responsibility for Northern Ireland and there is the prospect of a North-South dimension, is it the Government's view that Articles 2 and 3 could be changed to bring them into line with the wishes expressed by 95 per cent of the people of the Republic of Ireland?
I am not going to give a loose reply to that. I stated that the people who voted on this issue, particularly those in the Republic, were asked to agree to the amendment to the Constitution on the basis of the full implemen tation of the Good Friday Agreement. That was the basis on which we sold this issue during extensive campaigning throughout the country. We did not sell it on the basis of a partial implementation of the agreement or on implementing sections of the Agreement. Particular emphasis was placed on the setting up of the institutions – the Executive and the North-South bodies. That will have to be considered.
The Deputy will be aware that people who took a particular interest in this issue and the debates which occurred focused on whether we would see real and meaningful North-South bodies under the institutional arrangements. If we see such meaningful bodies, then people will be happy to change. If we do not, people will have grave difficulties. That is what was put to the people. All of these matters will have to be examined. In reply to the Deputy last week I stated that I would like to think that very soon after the Good Friday Agreement is implemented in full, hopefully on the same day, the Government would pass what was agreed and that we would change our Constitution on the basis of what was put to the people.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the running of the Scottish Parliament during his meeting with the First Minister of Scotland, Mr. Donald Dewar? Did he receive any insight into improvements which could be made here as a result of experiences during the short period in which the Scottish Parliament has been in existence?
I have had three of four meetings with Mr. Dewar during the past year. The Scottish Parliament was up and running on this occasion so we had an opportunity to discuss matters. I did not try to give him advice and he did not try to give me any. I have also spoken to the First Secretary of Wales and one of the problems in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly is that they do not have the benefit of Standing Orders or customs and practice.
They are not used to coalitions either.
Is that bad?
They are working their way through this difficulty. They are probably looking at our Standing Orders, customs and practice and Rulings of the Chair.