Vol. 513 No. 3
1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his participation in the inaugural meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in London on 17 December 1999; the decisions, if any, reached or actions, if any, agreed; when the next meeting of the conference is planned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1336/00]
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when he last met representatives of Sinn Féin; his assessment of the prospects for progress on the decommissioning issue on the basis of his contacts with Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1338/00]
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit the United States in the period around St. Patrick's Day; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1343/00]
4 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach the situation in relation to the Northern Ireland peace process. [1439/00]
5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at the EU Heads of Government meeting in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1465/00]
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to London on 17 December 1999 and his attendance at the British-Irish Council and Intergovernmental Conference meetings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1466/00]
7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting in Dublin on 20 January 2000 with the Northern Ireland First Minister, Mr. David Trimble. [1602/00]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting in Dublin with the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Trimble. [1695/00]
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the recent communications, if any, he has had with the leadership of Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1699/00]
10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the recent communication, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1700/00]
11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit Northern Ireland. [1706/00]
12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his assessment of progress in implementing the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1708/00]
13 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland since 15 December 1999. [1709/00]
14 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to visit the United States of America for St. Patrick's Day 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1711/00]
15 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister since the adjournment of the Dáil on 16 December 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1725/00]
16 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had with the First Minister, Mr. David Trimble, since the adjournment of the Dáil on 16 December 1999; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1726/00]
17 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, he has had with parties in Northern Ireland since 16 December 1999. [1735/00]
18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent report on decommissioning by General John de Chastelain to the Irish and British Governments. [2201/00]
19 Mr. Gormley asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the latest report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. [2346/00]
20 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the Government's views on the report of General John de Chastelain published on 31 January 2000; his assessment of the prospects for progress in view of the conclusions in the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2493/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 20, inclusive, together.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I attended the inaugural summit meeting of the British-Irish Council in London on Friday, 17 December last. I was accompanied by my colleagues, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Prime Minister and I welcomed the establishment of the British-Irish Council which will enhance the excellent working relationship that our two Governments have long enjoyed. The council is particularly relevant in the context of the extensive devolution which has taken place in the UK and will allow us develop stronger links with the recently devolved administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh. I am circulating in the Official Report the communiqué which issued after the meeting.
At the meeting we agreed a number of issues for early consideration by the council, including drugs, social inclusion, the environment, transport and the knowledge economy. These issues are of particular importance and concern and I look forward to the benefits of this type of co-operation. We also agreed an indicative list of other issues which would be appropriate to the council's work. On the same day I attended the inaugural meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in 10 Downing Street. The same Ministers who attended the British-Irish Council accompanied me. The conference will play an important role in promoting bilateral co-operation across the totality of relationships but with a strong focus on non-devolved Northern Ireland matters. At the meeting we agreed a programme of work around two initial lists of issues which are set out in a communiqué which will be circulated in the Official report.
Regarding my meeting with the British Prime Minister in Helsinki, I refer Deputies to my statement to this House on 15 December. It was a source of great satisfaction to me that we have achieved the implementation of the institutional aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. The establishment of the new Executive in Northern Ireland was a significant achievement and the initiation of the North-South Ministerial Council represented an important milestone in our island's history. Since the inaugural meeting, there has been significant progress in the North-South Ministerial Council framework. I am circulating in the Official Report a communiqué issued on 24 January following the first meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in sectoral format, dealing with the Trade and Business Development Body. In addition, meetings in the following sectoral formats are envisaged over the next three and a half weeks – Education, Health, the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission and special EU programmes. A schedule of further sectoral ministerial council meetings is being prepared and it has been envisaged that a first council meeting in all the sectoral formats agreed to date will have taken place by March and that they would meet quarterly thereafter. A first meeting of the council in institutional format is envisaged for March.
I also welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson, on the implementation of the Patten report. The Irish Government has always maintained that early and effective implementation of the report's recommendations would form an essential aspect of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement as a whole. In this regard, it is very encouraging that the British Government has accepted and is to act on the great majority of the proposals. I recognise there are those who have difficulties with some of the changes being proposed, but we now have a unique opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland. The measures announced by the Secretary of State, when completed satisfactorily through legislation, will ensure a police service which is capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole. I hope Nationalists will then apply in great numbers to join the new police service of Northern Ireland. I look forward to seeing a detailed implementation plan emerge in the coming weeks and early publication of the necessary legislation which must be fully in line with the thrust and spirit of the Patten recommendations.
On Thursday, 20 January, I met First Minister David Trimble. We had a useful discussion on matters relating to the Patten report and decommissioning. Before and since then, I have been in continuous contact with the British Prime Minister and parties in Northern Ireland, including a meeting with a senior SDLP delegation on Friday last, 28 January. There are no current plans for me to visit Northern Ireland.
In regard to decommissioning, the Independent International Commission supplied a further progress report to the two Governments in the early hours of this morning but it has not yet been published. The report is now being studied and intensive contacts and discussions on the issue are continuing. It is clear that we are now at a crucial stage in regard to the consolidation and full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It is vital that all the participants involved consider the next steps with the utmost care and deliberation. Having regard to the circumstances, I am not in a position to elaborate further at this time. I regret that I cannot give the House more information but I know Deputies will understand the position and the need for further consultation with the British Government and the parties in Northern Ireland.
Although plans are at a tentative stage, I can confirm that I will be visiting Australia and the United States in the week around St. Patrick's Day this year. My Department is engaged in advancing the necessary arrangements and in putting together an itinerary for the visits in close association with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the embassies concerned.
Communiqué
Inaugural Summit of the British-Irish Council
The British-Irish Council established under the Good Friday Agreement held its inaugural summit meeting today in London. The British and Irish Governments were represented by the Prime Minister, The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair MP, who also chaired the meeting and by the Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern TD.
The devolved administrations were represented by The Rt. Hon. Donald Dewar MP, MSP, First Minister, Scottish Executive; The Rt. Hon. Alun Michael, JP, MP, AM, First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales; The Rt. Hon. David Trimble MP, MLA First Minister, and Mr. Seamus Mallon, MP, MLA, Deputy First Minister, Northern Ireland Executive Committee.
The Isle of Man was represented by Hon. Donald Gelling MHK, Chief Minister of the Isle of Man Government; Jersey was represented by Senator Pierre Horsfall, President of the States of Jersey Policy and Resources Committee; and Guernsey was represented by Conseiller Laurie Morgan, President of the States of Guernsey Advisory and Finance Committee.
A full list of delegation members is attached.
The British-Irish Council will be a forum for its members to exchange information, discuss, consult and endeavour to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest within their respective competencies.
The members of the Council were agreed that its establishment was an important step in the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and would serve to promote the further development of the network of relationships between the peoples they represent. The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister expressed their confidence that the Council would build on the excellent working relationship which the two Governments have long enjoyed. The establishment of the British-Irish Council was particularly appropriate now, in view of the opportunities presented both by the new environment created by the Good Friday Agreement, and the advent of extensive devolution in the UK.
At its first meeting the Council agreed a Memorandum on its working procedures. It adopted an initial list of issues for early discussion in the BIC and also decided which administrations would take the lead in each sectoral area:
|
Topic |
Lead Administration |
|
Drugs |
Irish Government |
|
Social Inclusion |
Scottish Executive and Cabinet of National Assembly for Wales |
|
Environment |
British Government |
|
Transport |
Northern Ireland Executive Committee |
|
Knowledge Economy |
Jersey |
In addition, the Council agreed an indicative list of other issues suitable for the Council's work, including areas which members are already taking forward bilaterally:
•agricultural issues such as plant quarantine; rural development and rural depopulation; the development of renewable raw materials and energy crops; salmon fisheries; sea fisheries and aquaculture;
•health issues;
•regional issues: including links between cities, towns and local districts;
•consideration of interparliamentary links (noting paragraph 11 of the Memorandum on Procedural Guidance);
•energy issues;
•cultural issues;
•tourism;
•sporting activity;
•education issues;
•approaches to EU issues;
•minority and lesser-used languages;
•prison and probation issues.
The Council agreed to hold its next summit in Dublin in June 2000 and further agreed that that meeting would focus on the issue of drugs.
British Irish Council,
17 December 1999.
British-Irish Council
Inaugural Summit, London, 17 December 1999
List of Delegates
British Government Delegation
|
Prime Minister |
The Rt Hon Tony Blair MP |
|
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland |
The Rt Hon Peter Mandelson MP |
|
Minister, Northern Ireland Office |
George Howarth MP |
|
Irish Government Delegation |
|
|
Taoiseach |
Bertie Ahern TD |
|
Tánaiste |
Mary Harney TD |
|
Minister for Foreign Affairs |
David Andrews TD |
|
Minister for Justice |
John O'Donoghue TD |
|
Northern Ireland |
|
|
First Minister |
The Rt Hon David Trimble MP MLA |
|
Deputy First Minister |
Seamus Mallon MP MLA |
|
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment |
Sir Reg Empey MLA |
|
Minister for Finance and Personnel |
Mark Durkan MLA |
|
Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety |
Bairbre de Brún MLA |
|
Scotland |
|
|
First Minister |
The Rt Hon Donald Dewar MP MSP |
|
Deputy First Minister |
Jim Wallace MP MSP |
|
Permanent Secretary |
Muir Russell |
|
Wales |
|
|
First Secretary |
The Rt Hon Alun Michael JP MP AM |
|
Assembly Business Secretary |
Andrew Davies AM |
|
Finance Secretary |
Edwina Hart MBE AM |
|
Isle of Man |
|
|
Chief Minister |
Hon Donald Gelling MHK |
|
Chief Secretary |
Fred Kissack |
|
Jersey |
|
|
President, Policy and Resources Committee |
Senator Pierre Horsfall |
|
Chief Executive, Policy and Resources Committee |
John Mills |
|
Guernsey |
|
|
President, Advisory and Finance Committee |
Conseiller Laurie Morgan |
|
Chief Executive, Advisory and Finance Committee |
Mike Brown |
An Initial List of Issues1.Bilateral co-operation,
•asylum and immigration, including Common Travel Area issues
•European Union and international issues
•Social security including methods of fraud detection
•Education
•Policy on misuse of drugs; combating organised crime and associated money
•laundering
•Fiscal issues.
2.Non-devolved Northern Ireland aspects,
•rights
•policing, including implementation of the Patten report
•criminal justice
•normalisation of security arrangements and practices
•cross-border security co-operation
•victims of violence
•prisons issues
•drugs and drug trafficking
•broadcasting.
Joint Communiqué
North/South Ministerial Council – First Sectoral Meeting on Trade and Business Development
Newry, 24 January 2000.
1.A meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in Sectoral Format was held in Newry on 24 January 2000. The meeting primarily dealt with issues relating to the implementation Body for Trade and Business Development. The Council also formally appointed the Chairpersons and the Vice Chairpersons of the Boards of the Implementation Bodies and an additional member to the Food Safety Promotion Board.
2.The Northern Ireland Executive Committee Delegation comprised Sir Reg Empey MLA, Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and Dr. Sean Farren MLA, Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. The Irish Government was represented by Ms Mary Harney TD, Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
3.Both sides acknowledged the significance of the occasion as the first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in Sectoral Format, following the inaugural Plenary meeting of the Council on 13 December 1999. They agreed that, under the remit which had been given to it, the Trade and Business Development Body would have an important role to play in enhancing co-operation between North and South on business development issues, in the promotion of trade between the two parts of the island, and in undertaking specific projects and events in relation to trade promotion when tasked jointly by the Council in that regard. Both sides agreed that these areas held real potential for mutual benefit in economic terms for North and South, and they looked forward to working together in the Council and with the Body to ensure that this potential was realised to the full.
Appointment of Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons of Boards of North/South Implementation Bodies; and of further member to Food Safety Promotion Board
4.The Council appointed Mr. Martin Naughton as Chairperson and Mr. Harold Ennis as Vice Chairperson of the Trade and Business Development Body. As the first meeting of the Council to be held since its inaugural Plenary, it also appointed the Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, the Advisory Board of the Food Safety Promotion Board, and the Joint Chairpersons of the North/South Language Body. These are set out in the attached Annex. It also appointed Mr. Don Anderson as a member of the Food Safety Promotion Board. This was in addition to the members appointed at the Plenary meeting of the Council on 13 December.
Board of Trade and Business Development Body5.Welcoming the appointment of Mr. Naughton and Mr. Ennis as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson respectively of the Board of the Trade and Business Development Body, both sides looked forward to working closely with them and their colleagues on the Board. Following the Council meeting, the Ministers met jointly for the first time with the members of the Board.
Progress Report by Interim Chief Executive
6.The interim Chief Executive of the Trade and Business Development Body, Mr. Liam Nellis, made an initial report to the Council on progress in making the Body fully operational including the recruitment of staff and the identification of premises. It had been agreed at the Plenary meeting of the Council on 13 December that the Headquarters of the Body would be in Newry.
Appointment Procedure for Chief Executive
7.The Council considered and agreed proposals for the procedure to be followed in relation to the appointment of a Chief Executive for the Trade and Business Development Body. In particular, it agreed that the post would be publicly advertised in early February.
Indicative Timetable for bringing forward key issues to Council
8.The Council endorsed an indicative timetable for a number of key issues to be brought to it over the next 12 months by the Board of the Body. These issues included a Year 2000 Corporate Plan and a draft three year Plan covering the period 2001-2003; a preposed staffing structure, including terms and conditions of service; a draft Code of Practice for staff and for Board members; and recommendations on possible actions in a range of business development areas.
Provisional Schedule for future meetings
9.The Council considered and agreed a draft schedule of future Sectoral meetings on Trade and Business Development. It plans to meet four more times in 2000.
Next Meeting
10.The Council agreed that its next meeting in this Sectoral format would take place in the South on the 22nd March 2000.
ANNEX
Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons to Boards of North/South Implementation Bodies
|
Food Safety Promotion Board |
ChairpersonVice Chairperson |
Bertie KerrProfessor Mike Gibney |
|
Trade and BusinessDevelopment Body |
ChairpersonVice Chairperson |
Martin NaughtonHarold Ennis |
|
North/South Language Body |
Joint Chairperson: Irish LanguageJoint Chairperson: Ulster Scots |
Maighréad Uí MháirtinLord Laird of Artigarvan |
|
Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission |
ChairpersonVice Chairperson |
Peter SavageLord Cooke of Islandreagh |
Mr. Quinn: I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that in the eight short weeks since the Executive was established it has carried out its functions particularly well, bearing in mind the legacy it had to overcome? Does he share with me the view that every effort should be made by all concerned to ensure the continued existence of the Executive within the framework of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and the changed constitutional structure that is now the United Kingdom? Does he further agree that in the most recent MRBI opinion poll published in The Irish Times the majority of the Irish people are committed to the process of decommissioning and want it to take place sooner rather than later?
Leaving aside the Christmas period, in the recent short period there was enormous commitment by all the parties to setting up the institutions, working in the committees and having meaningful agendas. Mr. Empey, in particular, moved very quickly last week to put in place the structures of the business development body. He could have taken longer to get it moving but he did not. It was a very substantive agenda. The reports were well publicised and I will circulate details of them. That is an example of the commitment to getting the structures up and running and setting up the board and the other meetings.
Mr. Trimble, Mr. McGuinness and all Members of the Executive, particularly the Deputy First Minister, have been driving on the format at meetings. I circulated some of the data on the format. Work on this could not have been speedier. Over the Christmas period I thought the pace would wane a little in January, but that has not been the case. I am very satisfied with the progress made.
On the Deputy's second question, it would be a disaster, to put it at its mildest, if any of the institutions were to slide. People have to think very hard. It is easy to take stands but they must realise the consequences of them. This is an extremely delicate period and people must be conscious of that. In the Dáil, as in the opinion poll the Deputy mentioned, I recognise there is enormous support for the institutions. They have the potential to do most of what people want done.
We have implemented an enormous amount of the Good Friday Agreement. In the last calendar year we probably implemented far more of the Agreement than people expected, if they were half honest. We have started this year with an enormous potential. There were those who thought the Patten report would not move on to a path that would facilitate a clear mechanism for its implementation, but that has been set down in legislative and other structures. All these matters will be followed through.
I have had no discussions with the British Prime Minister where I am not absolutely satisfied about his commitment to ensuring the institutions and all issues around them are handled safely, provided there is full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The House is aware we still have some difficulties with the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. Am I correct in understanding the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs will meet later this afternoon and following the outcome of that meeting the two Governments will consult each other before any decision is made as to how they wish to respond to the report from General de Chastelain?
A number of discussions are going on. The Deputy is correct in respect of the first part of his question. A meeting will take place at 4.30 p.m. Prior to that meeting I will have a discussion with the British Prime Minister at 3.30 p.m. There will be further discussions between the Prime Minister and me, the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and with some of the parties. There is also contact between my officials and other parties. As to whether this issue can be resolved to any satisfactory degree today or will take more time, it may take more time. This level of contact and pressure back and forth has continued, particularly over the past four or five days. Obviously, if that is ongoing, we have not yet found full resolutions.
Does the Taoiseach agree that putting beyond use, bombs and guns held by organisations which are associated with political parties who are serving in Government is not a partisan issue of concern to one or two political parties but a fundamental requirement for the normal functioning of Government and the normal sense of equality between Ministers that they are all working with the same political mandate? Does the Taoiseach agree that putting beyond use bombs and guns held by organisations associated with political parties serving in Government is important in itself, but is even more important in that it is the only available means of establishing the long-term intentions of the organisation concerned?
The answer to the Deputy's questions is "yes". I agree with him. Notwithstanding all the arguments about timing, convincing and persuasion, of which all Members are aware, at the end of the day it is still a fundamental question. It was for this reason after Hillsborough in Holy Week last year, when it was not possible to reach agreement on the act of reconciliation which would have involved everyone participating in decommissioning, that I argued strongly that we should try to get agreement on three basic principles.
The three basic principles on which we got agreement on 25 June were, first, that there would be an inclusive Executive with devolved powers; second, that the mechanism to deal with decommissioning would be established under the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning under General John de Chastelain and the legislation passed earlier by the Oireachtas and in Westminster; and, third, that decommissioning would be dealt with by May 2000 as per the Good Friday Agreement. I have not moved from that position.
While I did not like what Mr. Trimble did in November on the morning of his party's conference, when he forwarded an amendment to his conference without any notification to anybody although he had previously agreed in the review to the mechanism of bringing the institutions and the constitutional issues to a finality, he did so because he felt there was a political imperative to ensure he carried his conference. I understood that position. Notwithstanding this, I have argued strongly, with considerable success, for the full implementation of the Agreement.
As Deputy Bruton said, this means the decommissioning issue must be dealt with so everybody knows where they stand as we move forward in democratic politics, working on the basis of trust and that, however horrific, the past is the past and it can be resolved. Last night was one of the benchmarks in moving that issue on further and trying to get at least – although at least is unsatisfactory – a clear indication of where we are going on the path to achieving it. I am committed to achieving our objective, but we have hit very difficult times.
I welcome the Taoiseach's comments but I am not at all surprised by his positive answer to my two questions because he has always been consistent on this matter. Does the Taoiseach further agree, bearing in mind the issues to which he has already agreed, that it is fundamental the IRA and Sinn Féin realise that the notion of a gesture of decommissioning was only invented in the first place as a political request because the organisation was unable or unwilling to say its ceasefire was permanent and that, in a sense, it was a substitute for such a statement? Would the Taoiseach further agree that, at this stage in the process, it is essential that the IRA state there is a definite timeframe which can be measured and understood within which it will ensure the arms and guns, which can be used to kill so many people, are a position in which they can ever be used again for that purpose to lever political change?
The Deputy is correct on the history of the position. I understand, though I do not agree, how the republican movement would like to deal with this issue in the longer term. I understand it has its own strategy for dealing with this issue, though it is not in the public domain, and was not said clearly to me either. I think I can read between the lines, as many others can, about how it would deal with decommissioning. It is imperative for implementation of the Good Friday Agreement to stick to the rules and framework laid down. Having been part of the negotiations through the multi-party talks and the talks between the Governments, I have to endeavour to be consistent in its implementation. While I will argue strenuously for the implementation of the Patten report, the equality agenda, the ombudsman, the police authority and the North Report on the Parades Commission, it will be understood that I have to argue equally for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement on the other side. That is not a weakness, that is consistency. I would like people to note that I can only be successful if I play fair. In this instance, as Deputy Bruton and Deputy Quinn said here many times, it is not so much and it never was a matter of giving up ten guns, ten bullets, ten flares, or ten jackets as that does not exactly get us anywhere, given that one can go out and replace them the following day—
There are plenty of places in which to buy them, unfortunately.
—particularly if time and resources do not seem to be a problem. That does not really get us anywhere. The key is what we achieved on 25 June, that decommissioning will be dealt with under the independent international commission comprising some eminent people, by May 2000. There have been some arguments around that but I do not want to get into them and I have not. I heard what people said before, but I have consistently said May 2000. What is important now is the knowledge of the commitment so that I can truthfully say that I know this issue will be dealt with in whatever way brings certainty. That is the issue. I do not go with the issue of a bullet or a gun. The issue is one of commitment, the certainty of the commitment. I would not even get strung up on the dates but I have always stated the date that I think has to be adhered to, the consistent date. Moving from one date can get us into all kinds of problems, but May 2000 is the date.
Yes.
Last night was a step forward, and these deliberations which are taking place now are a step to move towards that date. It cannot be anything else because otherwise we would have an enormous amount of confusion. The House would appreciate that one must be clear about it because it is an international, national and domestic issue. Perhaps there are some things which one can fudge, but one cannot fudge an issue which is based on a fundamental principle.
Will the Taoiseach agree that, in addition to the urgency of seeing some clear evidence that weapons are being put beyond use, it is important that any statements which are made do not simply describe the current situation or current intentions but give a clear commitment as to future intentions, commitments and actions; that part of the problem in interpreting statements which have been made in the past have been concerned with the tense which has been used, that the present tense has been used where the future tense should have been used; that as a result of people seeing the right words but not seeing the tense of the verb in the sentence, people have tended to put a more optimistic gloss on statements which have been made by the republican movement than the words actually conveyed; and that it is very important that any statement, which is made by the republican movement to the extent that it deals with the future, is a firm one containing the word "will" rather than something which simply describes a current state of mind which could change tomorrow if something else changed?
I do not think there has been a problem about the word. In fairness, in negotiations with the republican movement – maybe this is the difficulty – it usually means what it says and it does—
It uses tenses which are interpreted differently.
Yes, but normally it does what it says and perhaps dwells more over it. Perhaps sometimes others who are opposed to the republican movement continually focus on not the bigger picture but on the small step. The bigger picture is far more important, but I agree that any agreement or statement must be clear and unambiguous, particularly that which will come from the independent international commission. We must know that it is firm.
Having said that, I know it is not the republican movement in the way it portrays the argument but Sinn Féin which has made clear its position regarding decommissioning in the Good Friday Agreement, in the agreement of 25 June and on many other occasions. We must stick to what is being documented, and there has been a firm commitment throughout to May 2000. I know there have been many delays, there has been procrastination, and I am aware of the difficulties on many issues, but one still comes back to some fundamental questions.
In these remarks I do not want to ignore that we have moved on a couple of years from the cessation of troubles, that the guns have been silent. An enormous amount of work has been done in the republican community to keep peace and stability, to stop punishment beatings and all those other matters. They are all very positive for the peace process, but there are still some outstanding issues and this is one of them.
The Taoiseach referred to a number of headings under which items were discussed at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference meeting of 17 December. Were marine and energy matters included, as they were not referred to in his reply? Were fish stocks in the Irish Sea and ageing nuclear installations in Britain discussed and were measures agreed?
I note the Taoiseach is on record as expressing concern about the de Chastelain report, and the Green Party shares that concern. Is it difficult to imagine any other circumstances where a May Day impasse has been declared in February? Does the Taoiseach support the call for Senator Mitchell to return in those circumstances, given the seriousness of the breakdown of trust? Is he willing to adopt a more direct hands-on approach, as he did previously and as his predecesssor, Deputy Reynolds, did, to ensure the position is restored and institutions do not break down?
As to the Deputy's first question, the longer list that I referred to covers about ten or 12 headings, and acquaculture, including salmon fisheries, is one of the issues mentioned in it. On the second matter, effectively since Christmas – with the exception of five days – I have been involved hands-on with this particular issue trying to find a way of satisfactorily moving on. Mid-February is a date that I would prefer not to have had, and it has turned into early February. The date is not helpful because it was not agreed but it is a reality. There are some things that one may not like but they are realities and we have to try to find a way of dealing with them. I would examine the possibility of doing anything that is meaningful or involving anybody who is agreeable. The important thing is to try to work together on this matter, although at times it is not always easy to do so. The deferment, disbandment, collapsing or setting aside of arrangements creates its own enormous problems and we have to try to find a resolution if we can.
(Dublin West): Would the Taoiseach agree that political parties on both sides of the divide in the North have been engaged in deliberate brinkmanship in recent weeks over some of the crucial questions in Northern Ireland and that it is extremely irresponsible in the circumstances? Would he agree that no self-appointed groups or political parties have the right to engage in this kind of brinkmanship or to adopt a stance on any of the main issues that could risk or hint at the risk of plunging Northern Ireland back into the nightmare of sectarian conflict? Would he further agree that no party has the right in any way to risk a resumption of the activities that would give rise to such suffering and dislocation, particularly in working class communities, as happened in the past 30 years?
Does the Taoiseach agree that disturbing evidence is now emerging of the backward nature of a major plank of the Good Friday Agreement, which I pointed to in the debate in this House, which is that it tends to institutionalise sectarianism? Is he concerned that in recent days, issues have come up in the Assembly which are of importance to all the people in Northern Ireland, but have broken down along sectarian lines in votes and discussions?
I will go back to what I said to Deputy Quinn at the outset, in agreeing with him, that in fairness to the Assembly the institution is in its infancy. While there have been arguments and political debate, the progress has been immense. It has been constructive and I do not think it has been overly sectarian. It will take a long time to develop aspects of normality in political life in Northern Ireland, so that people will take a free line. I suppose that happens in all parliaments. In the early weeks of the Assembly it would be unfair to say otherwise, and equally unfair to say that the Good Friday Agreement had built-in sectarianism. It had balances to get away from that, and the position adopted was to avoid minority or majority blocs of a sectarian nature. I think that will work well in the long term.
The Deputy mentioned people being involved in brinkmanship but perhaps that is being uncharitable to them. People have deeply held positions and they have reasons for holding them. They have their own strategies and deeply held views, but the end result is that one can get oneself into a lot of trouble. We have achieved an enormous amount of compromise, but we tend to return to just a few issues which must be moved on also so that we can all reach an understanding. Of course, people can box themselves into corners at times. I am not here to criticise anyone for doing that – we can all run out of road. People must help each other to deal with that. We should stick to the basic principles. In this case, we are not exactly deal ing with topics that have not been discussed before.
Hear, hear. That is true.
These topics have been discussed to death. Sooner or later, one has to come to a conclusion, which is often difficult to do. However. it is better to come to a conclusion now rather than later.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree one runs out of road much more quickly if one deliberately turns into a political cul-de-sac?
I will not disagree with that. It can be very dangerous to turn into a cul-de-sac.
I agree with the Taoiseach that the issue here is that the paramilitary organisations have deeply held positions. However, does he agree that the paramilitary organisations, both loyalist and republican, are deeply ideological movements, in that they construct an internal logic that justifies their position? Does he agree the Good Friday Agreement has removed the ideological basis for the maintenance of armaments by loyalists and republicans, in that, as far as loyalists are concerned, under the Good Friday Agreement, as endorsed by all the Irish people, the future of Northern Ireland, constitutionally speaking, can only be determined with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland? There is not an ideological basis for the maintenance of loyalist armouries. Equally, the Good Friday Agreement has removed all ideological justification for the maintenance of the IRA, in that the IRA's objective, which was all-Ireland self determination, was achieved in the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. An army that continues fighting after it has achieved its fundamental objective is not behaving consistently or rationally. Furthermore, the Unionist community has accepted for the first time an agenda which involves complete internal equality for the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Part of the problem for the republican movement is its chronic inability to recognise its own success. It is that inability which has, to use Deputy Joe Higgins' felicitous phrase, backed it into a cul-de-sac. If it would take another turning it would recognise there is a bright new road in front of it with no barriers.
Most of that is true. However, an important distinction to make is that they are not using the weapons.
That is true.
That is one of the benefits of allowing people to build up trust and confidence.
The relatives of Mr. Collins might disagree with that.
Unfortunately, the history of the situation does not help in the argument about decommissioning, both our own history and the more difficult recent history. However, it is true that if people on this small island are to work together this must be resolved; otherwise, the kind of armaments which are believed to exist will continue to be considered an immense threat. That is a fact.
In the interests of balance, while the republican movement might have backed itself into a cul-de-sac, it engaged very fairly and actively in the review. The review had a number of aspects and a complicated set of mechanisms, one of which was broken which did not help matters. While I have accepted why that happened, the republican movement has not done so. That has to be considered in the equation. It is not something with which I agree.
The Good Friday Agreement had many aspects, parts and difficulties, all of which have to be dealt with – there must be a conclusion to them all. There are still a few difficult ones. It is unreasonable not to give a clear indication as to where the resolution to a particular one lies. I am not on record in recent weeks stating it should all be delivered by 31 January – that was not realistic. It is, however, realistic to try to reach a resolution on how this issue can be dealt with so that people understand it and it will not continue to have a "high noon" every few weeks.
The institutions are working well and the people are committed. As Deputy Quinn said, 85% of the people still support them. They are the important aspects. I appreciate the atmosphere in the House on this issue and I hope people can look at the bigger picture and that we do not push ourselves over a cliff on an issue which has been around for a long time and which needs to be clarified to the satisfaction of all of us, but immediately for two of the major players. Time is running out on that.
I welcome the Taoiseach's last comments. Does he agree we are at a critical juncture and that it behoves all the people on this island, North and South, who are committed to what Mitchell McLaughlin said earlier today about making the process of politics work, to find a political solution to ensure the will of the people expressed so overwhelmingly on 22 May 1998 in respect to the Good Friday Agreement is implemented and that we should redouble our efforts to ensure that occurs?
I agree with that and I will do everything I can, using my powers of persuasion, to try to achieve that.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, I put it to him that Ireland is united, North and South, in a clear desire that the decommissioning issue should be addressed. This has been borne out by opinion polls on both sides of the Border. I ask the Taoiseach to note the changed circumstances in which we are dealing with the matter having regard to the fact that only four years ago, in reply to a parliamentary question, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, stated categorically that there was no way parties associated with paramilitary organisations could be participants in inclusive talks. The current urgency has been brought about by an understanding that certain events would take place during the month of January. Was the Taoiseach privy to this understanding or does he have anything to tell the House about it?
"No" is the answer to that question. I do not know anything other than what has been said about the understanding. I was not privy to it other than what I said earlier, that I was privy to the fact that there was not meant to be a February meeting and that it was May. That was a very clear understanding. I stated previously why I understand those changes were made.
Is the Taoiseach aware that shortly before this House met this afternoon, David Trimble called a press conference at which he said he thought it was inevitable that the Executive would be suspended and that that would be followed by a review. He seemed to suggest, in voicing that opinion, that he had prior consultation with the Secretary of State. Is the Taoiseach aware of that development and, if so, will he comment on it?
Sometimes, because I can afford to do so, I tend to be somewhat more blunt than other Members of this House. That said, I do not necessarily expect the Taoiseach to reply to my next question. Would he agree that on this occasion no blame can be attached to the British or the Unionists – we all understand why David Trimble did what he did at that meeting – and that the sword of Damocles has inevitably fallen because of the failure not merely to hand over but to get rid of one ounce of semtex or one rusty bullet?
I wish to draw to the attention of the Taoiseach a symbolic event which might lead to optimism in relation to the future. When the power-sharing Executive collapsed 25 years ago, a demonstration took place outside Stormont to demand the end of that Executive and the effective handing over of the Ministers to be hanged. On this occasion, as the future is being decided, a demonstration is also taking place outside Stormont but this one comprises farmers who are demanding that the SDLP Minister for Agriculture and the new Northern Ireland Executive take action about the plight of farmers in Northern Ireland. That is a change which is of great significance. While those of us involved with matters 25 years ago felt that the suspension—
The Deputy should be aware that statements are not in order. I have already allowed him a degree of latitude.
He is asking a question about awareness.
Does the Taoiseach agree that none of us expected the suspension of the power-sharing Executive to last 25 years and that the indications for the new Executive are more positive?
We will take a final supplementary from Deputy John Bruton.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is important that this situation should not be reduced to one where everyone must give a little? Does he further agree that we have reached the point where one movement must make a major decision and that we should not pretend it is something that can be resolved by everyone modifying their position? Does he accept that organisations which hold bombs and guns have reached a cross-roads and that they have an immediate decision to make? Does he also accept that we should not allow this matter to descend into a fog of moral relativism at a time when a clear decision is needed?
A final reply from the Taoiseach.
I wish to reply to those questions in reverse order. With regard to Deputy Bruton's question, it is clear that the republican movement must state its position on the big question. However, further understanding will be required on how that can be interpreted and agreed on the other side. If the question is – as it has been put on radio programmes in Northern Ireland in recent days – that the resolution of the decommissioning issue equals the surrender of product on 31 January, this will be difficult to achieve. It is in that sense that people can adjust their position.
Clarity of intentions is essential at this stage.
I agree with the Deputy and I have said as much. That is our position.
With regard to Deputy Currie's final question, there is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland are becoming increasingly positive about the Executive. More and more representations are being made about everyday issues and normal debates took place on education and health in recent days, which is a good development. I commented earlier on the matter to which the Deputy referred in his second question.
With regard to the Deputy's first question about Mr. Trimble's comments earlier today, I do not consider that anything is inevitable. I do not believe that a default, a cancellation of the Executive and the other institutions and a review are inevitable. We should do everything in our power to avoid such developments.
