Trevor Sargent
Ceist:1 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his round table discussions in Belfast on 8 March 2001. [7790/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions at Hillsborough on 8 March 2001 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair and the Northern Ireland political parties; the progress made in regard to outstanding issues; if further talks or discussions are planned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8019/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the implications for progress in Northern Ireland of the statement issued by the IRA on 8 March 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8020/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the United States and his discussions with political leaders there; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8021/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with President Bush; if, in the light of his discussions, he will outline the role he envisages for the United States in trying to advance the political process in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8022/01]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:6 D'fhiafraigh Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin den Taoiseach an dtabharfaidh sé tuairisc ar thorthaí na gcainteanna a bhí aige i Hillsborough ar an 8ú lá de Mhárta. [8085/01]
Austin Currie
Ceist:7 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent discussions with the British Prime Minister and Northern political leaders, particularly in relation to policing. [8135/01]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:8 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent talks with the parties in Northern Ireland. [8273/01]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:9 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he met President Bush during his visit to the United States of America; and if he will report on any discussions they had. [8275/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:10 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings in Belfast with the British Government and the Northern Ireland political parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8590/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:11 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visit to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8591/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 11, inclusive, together.
Following day long discussions with the pro-Agreement parties on Thursday, 8 March, the two Governments issued a statement in which we set out a framework for continuing work, which would help restore the momentum behind the implementation of the Agreement. We urged all concerned to respond positively to that statement. I welcome the statement of Wednesday, 14 March, stating that the IRA had met the independent International Commission on Decommissioning and I look forward to further early positive developments in pursuit of the IRA commitment to resolving the arms issue as set out in its statement of 6 May 2000.
In terms of the outstanding issues, the statement of the two Governments restated the commitment by the British Government of May 2000 to continue progressively to take all the necessary steps to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat, on which it will consult with the Irish Government. The British Government would continue with a security normalisation process to include reductions in the level of troops and installations in Northern Ireland until normality is restored. The Governments also recognised that there is an issue to be addressed regarding supporters of organisations now on ceasefire against whom there are outstanding charges for offences committed before 10 April 1998. They stated that in the context of the agreement of May 2000 being implemented, they intend to take the necessary steps in their jurisdictions to resolve this difficulty, so that those concerned are no longer pursued.
Regarding the operation of the institutions, the two Governments committed themselves to doing all within their power to sustain the full operation of the institutions, including during any formal review of the Agreement which may be necessary and called on all others to do likewise. They also stated that it continues to be essential that the full operation of the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council resume, and that all the institutions continue their important work. Significant progress has also been made on policing, and discussions will continue over the coming period with a view to reaching an agreement in June.
My programme of engagements for the St. Patrick's Day period began on Thursday, 15 March, when I attended a lunch on Capitol Hill hosted by Speaker Hastert. President Bush, Secretary of State Powell and National Security Adviser Rice and party leaders from Northern Ireland also attended, as did the Ceann Comhairle and a large number of members of Congress. In my remarks, I took the opportunity to express appreciation for the support of both Houses of Congress for the peace process. In the afternoon, I met Senators Ted Kennedy and Dodd and briefed them on the recent discussions between both Governments and the parties. That evening, I addressed the American Ireland Fund gala dinner which honoured Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Jim Walsh. I was delighted to have the opportunity there to acknowledge the important contribution of the fund and to add my tribute to Senator Dodd and Congressman Walsh for their unstinting support for the peace process and for their overall commitment to Irish issues on Capitol Hill.
On Friday, 16 March, I chaired a breakfast meeting of the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board, where I briefed members on the peace process. The meeting also included a discussion on developments in both the Irish and US economies, and on our strategy for research, development and innovation. Later that morning, following the traditional presentation of shamrock at the White House, I had a very positive meeting with President Bush. I was very pleased that the President pledged his administration's strong support for our efforts to implement the Good Friday Agreement, and his willingness to help the two Governments in every appropriate way, and I welcome the nomination of Mr Richard Haas to take responsibility for Northern Ireland within the State Department. We also discussed the very positive economic relationship between our two countries, as well as a wide range of international issues. Following my meeting, I attended a reception in the White House, hosted by the President, with the leaders of all the main parties in Northern Ireland in attendance. I then returned home.
(Dublin West): Questions Nos. 9 and 11 in my name and Deputy Noonan's name refer to a report of the Taoiseach's visit to the United States and do not refer to Northern Ireland. It is not helpful if the Taoiseach continually includes the United States with—
The Deputy will get his opportunity to ask supplementary questions.
(Dublin West): They should be taken separately.
The Chair has no control over that.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Is it fair to say that in the joint statement between the two Governments that essentially no deal was reached but progress was made? Can the Taoiseach give any further detail as to how close we are to an agreement that could amount to a deal? Does he have any date for when General de Chastelaine's report will be produced or how imminent is it? Some reports said it was due this week. In his discussions with the British Prime Minister was the question of local and general elections in the UK raised given the sensitivities and fears in this country about the spread of foot and mouth disease and is the British Prime Minister cognisant of those fears when organising domestic matters in the UK?
The talks went better than I thought and the round table process worked. There were two fairly lengthy sessions, one at midday and one late in the evening. The rest of the day was taken up with bilateral and multilateral meetings. The atmosphere and the engage ment of all parties were good. The small parties often feel they are not as close to matters as they would like and a day like that is useful for them. The Irish and British Governments like to give time to them when they seek meetings. We are looking at ways to bring the smaller parties up to date on matters. That was the first round table format meeting since May. I had several meetings and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have had meetings on different occasions.
A comprehensive agreement was never going to be achieved but progress was made on policing. As outlined by the Deputy First Minister, Séamus Mallon, the SDLP is very close to a conclusion. Although such progress was not articulated by Sinn Féin, a significant number of the issues it raised have been comprehensively addressed. We have certainly come a long way, if not quite full circle, as a result of the various legislative and other moves up to the consent reached before Christmas. There are some outstanding issues which we will continue to discuss prior to June to see whether we can achieve resolution. Some of these issues relate to flags and emblems and how precisely those will be addressed. People are concerned that agreement may be reached but nothing will happen. Northern Nationalists and republicans have concerns about having a police force about which they are unclear.
We have addressed the operational matters and the RUC Chief Constable, Mr. Ronnie Flanagan, has been helpful in this regard. While there are some outstanding issues in this area, most of them have been well teased out.
On decommissioning, I do not know when a statement will be made but it was clear in the statement made last week that engagement had commenced and would continue with the objective of getting back to 5 May statement about finding ways to put arms beyond use in a manner acceptable to the public. I hope the process will be a short one and I do not expect any undue delays.
The British Government does not intend to move on demilitarisation in any substantive way although it may address some issues in the short term. However, it will not move on any other issues until it sees what happens in regard to decommissioning. That is the straightforward position outlined by the British Government.
Good progress was made on OTRs – on the runs – and we can resolve this issue over the coming months. Some of the other smaller, though not less important, issues raised were cleared and significant progress was made on others. Hopefully, further progress will be made between now and June.
I raised foot and mouth disease on the periphery of my meeting with the British Prime Minister and outlined our concerns, as I had done pre viously by telephone. However, I did not ask him, nor did he offer to tell me, when the next general election would be held in Britain. Of course, the date for the local elections has been fixed for 3 May.
Does the Taoiseach agree that, OTRs aside, one of the issues which was not referred to in the statement of 8 March which constitutes an integral part of progress in regard to the achievement of lasting peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is the position of those people who have effectively been exiled from Northern Ireland by paramilitaries on both sides? Does the Taoiseach feel it would be useful for the two Governments to call on Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA, on the one hand, and the various loyalist parties and associated paramilitaries, on the other, to indicate that, in response to full and comprehensive movement on the issue of OTRs, all of the summary diktats to people exiled from Northern Ireland for whatever reason, would be removed and that people would be free to return to their own communities without fear of being beaten up by people using baseball bats etc.?
In regard to progress on policing, will the Taoiseach indicate whether he is satisfied that the review of the legislation which gave effect to the Patten proposals – a review which we would normally expect to be completed in the next 18 months – will take on board any operational or legal changes which may become necessary? Will any such changes, therefore, be built into a process which, of itself, will be self-correcting?
Does the Taoiseach believe the British Government is in a position to make progress on or clarify the role of the RUC in three particular instances which gave rise to Nationalists' lack of confidence in the force, namely the deaths of Mr. Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and solicitor, Pat Finucane? Has any progress been made, since we last spoke about this issue in the House, on the British Government's attitude to particular forms of inquiry which would remove those three instances as an obstacle to full participation by both communities in Northern Ireland in a modern police force?
If the OTR issue were fully dealt with, all people who have been threatened, abused or forced out of Northern Ireland or who live in unsafe circumstances should be totally free of any threat, particularly people who left Northern Ireland a long time ago and have never been able to return to their families. We have stated that clearly and would restate it in any overall package. Like other Members, I have met many of the relatives of these people in recent years. This is a very serious matter. It is essential that arms are put beyond use in the attempt to achieve normality in Northern Ireland. I previously called on parties associated with paramilitary groups to clarify their position on these matters and they have all done so, although not all of the threaten ing activities have ceased. However, the level of punishment beatings and other horrendous issues which, in the past, were raised in this House week in, week out has reduced dramatically. I hope that will continue to be the case as we move into the summer when the atmosphere is always more difficult and dangerous. I will continue to raise this issue in any future discussions.
On the policing review, I do not believe all of the issues can be resolved without legislation. We must examine this issue in an overall context. It is unlikely that the British Government will introduce a Bill immediately in regard to this, certainly not before the general election. As Deputy Quinn suggested, that would be the right way to proceed. The highly respected oversight commissioner, Mr. Tom Considine, and others, will review precisely how the legislation and reforms are operating and how the police service in Northern Ireland develops and evolves. It has not been agreed, as yet, that a designated person or group will play a particular role in this area although a number of groups may feed into the process. I am confident, following the recent talks, that we can arrive at a process whereby most of these issues will be resolved although it may not be possible to resolve some of them in the absence of a legislative base. The introduction of a Bill in the coming year would certainly be helpful.
We did not resolve the position on the inquiries into the deaths of Mr. Hamill, Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finucane but there was considerable depth of feeling on the matter, especially on the part of the SDLP which has always kept these inquiries – that of Pat Finucane, in particular – to the forefront. I have stated on many occasions that the Finucane inquiry is different to the others for obvious reasons which I do not need to restate.
The Finucane inquiry is viewed in a different light. I do not see how progress can be made until that case is resolved. The British Government has a resistance to setting up judicial reviews on these issues because it believes that other inquiries are ongoing which may throw some light on these issues. I do not wish to take away from the good work of those inquiries, but a decade has now passed. Proof is essential, however, and hearsay will not be sufficient and that has been a difficulty.
The Secretary of State Dr. Reid is now aware of the depth of feeling and the Government, through the Minister Deputy Cowen, has made the British authorities aware that these issues must be dealt with. Some cases are easier than others.
The Finucane issue will not go away. I do not see the SDLP giving way, and I do not think it should give way on that issue. It believes there was widespread collusion and wrong-doing involved and it must be exposed. If the SDLP is to co-operate with the setting up of the Northern Ireland Police Service, it might be in a position in which it could not then go back over some of these cases. There is a clear understanding now that these issues are not for negotiation, they are fundamental issues going to the core of what the RUC stood for, for good or ill, in the past. I do not wish in saying that, to take away the good name of many officers who have served well. I think some of those three cases might involve more than just the RUC.
The Taoiseach has frequently referred to four issues: decommissioning: demilitarisation, policing and persons on the run. I take it that for the first three the strategy now is that a process will continue until the early summer or maybe into the autumn and the Taoiseach does not envisage a final result in any of these three until possibly the autumn.
The second issue relates to persons who prior to the ceasefire were involved in terrorist-related crime and are now on the run. I understand the position as far as Northern Ireland and Great Britain is concerned. Would the Taoiseach explain the Government policy in respect of persons who were members of the Provisional IRA or other proscribed organisations, who are suspected of having been involved in crimes in this jurisdiction prior to the ceasefire. Is there a Government policy? Are the files closed or are the Garda still actively seeking such persons? I could refer to a number of unresolved crimes where the Garda have names of persons and where there is forensic evidence to at least advance a prima facie case against suspects. Will negotiations relating to persons on the run for crimes committed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland cause legislation to be enacted in this jurisdiction, and is an amnesty being contemplated?
We hope to clear the issues relating to decommissioning and see further progress under de Chastelain. There must first of all be more re-engagement which I think will happen but I am not sure when. General de Chastelain will have to make a statement of how he sees the situation. It is his call. We must also wait and see how the First Minister and the Unionists generally would react to that. I hope we will see positive developments but I do not know if it will be totally positive or just a step in the right direction. It all depends on the extent of the engagement. If that proceeds, it opens up the way for demilitarisation to move onwards.
The issue of policing will not be resolved before June because it is felt it would not be wise to include it in a British general election campaign. We should not allow the work to be delayed, however, because training of recruits will commence in the Autumn.
Deputy Noonan will recall where the issue of "on the run persons" originates. There are those who had been convicted of offences and received fairly lengthy sentences and had even served short periods of those sentences. Under the Good Friday Agreement, there was a two year period after the date of ratification, June 1998, when they were all released except for two people. People who were not charged and the only evidence against them is hearsay have a problem that if they return to Northern Ireland they are unsure of their position. They would be covered by the Good Friday Agreement if they gave themselves up to the authorities in Northern Ireland and the same applies in this State. That issue remains an anomaly. Escapees are in a different category because they had been charged or were on remand. There are about 20 or 30 cases involving persons who were under suspicion by the security forces in the North or have known that they are on the list as in some well-known cases highlighted by the media during the year. They have not got a clearance. Efforts were made in the British system to deal with this. That has not been possible and more efforts are being made now to look at it. The question of an amnesty arises. The British will have to decide if that can be done through current legislation or whether new legislation is required. I think the latter is more likely.
We have not closed the files in many cases, most of which the RUC and the Garda will continue to pursue, but suspects on the lists prior to April 1998, or effectively June of that year, the application date for those in prison, would be entitled to avail of the same amnesty. Whatever mechanism is used, they will not serve much time. It would have to be formally indicated that they were no longer being sought, but no files have been closed as of now. There have been cases where people have been arrested while others are still in process.
While I appreciate the Taoiseach's reply, I did not follow all the twists and turns.
I do not think the Deputy was meant to.
If a person in the United States is afraid to return home because he or she was involved in a Provisional IRA offence in this jurisdiction prior to the ceasefire and fears being arrested at Shannon Airport when he or she returns, will the outcome of negotiations taking place in Northern Ireland in respect of those in a similar position apply in this jurisdiction? If so, what legal mechanism does the Government intend to use to provide for this? It will have to legislate. It is not enough to state that people might believe that they are suspected and that, if they return, they might be arrested. The same answer could be given to those who raise such concerns in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach will have to clear his head and clear the lines in the South before he can establish a negotiating position on the North.
Other than citing examples of cases, we will not establish a negotiating position on the North because that will be done by the British Government. There are about 24 or 25 cases in the North whereas there are none on our lists and none has been advanced. The reason is complex because there are different cases. There are those who were charged and prosecuted and escaped; those who were charged and never prosecuted; those who were arrested, were on remand and had not been prosecuted; and those who were suspected on hearsay evidence and about whom nothing happened. The last category represents the majority of cases. In our case, anyone who returns is likely to be arrested by the Garda. If it is for an offence, the privileges of the Good Friday Agreement will take effect as it has for all other such offences. At this stage no legislation is required but, if a case arose which was not covered by our law, we would have to legislate for it.
(Dublin West): I wish to ask the Taoiseach about his visit to the United States. When the Taoiseach met President Bush, was it all soft soap and plámás or did he raise serious issues and make serious criticisms of any aspects of US foreign or domestic policy? The Government will hold a referendum in a few months to outlaw the death penalty in the State. Did the Taoiseach feel creepy giving a bowl of Irish shamrock to a man responsible for 150 executions in the state of Texas? It is something many in this country find morally repugnant, especially as the system is highly racially discriminatory and increasingly discredited with many innocent people being found on death row, a source of international debate and scandal.
Did the Taoiseach raise with President Bush the issue of the sanctions against Iraq, the toll they exact on innocent human life, especially children, and the destruction caused to the social fabric and infrastructure of that country while not scathing the dictatorial leadership? Did he discuss the prospects for the US economy and the fact that a recession beckons in the largest capitalist economy on the globe with serious profit warnings by major multinational US based companies? Was there any discussion of this prospect and how it might impact on the tens of thousands of Irish workers employed in Ireland by affiliates of those multinationals?
Was the Taoiseach lobbied by anyone on behalf of the United States administration on any issues relating to the United Nations, especially where our position on the Security Council is concerned, or European Union economic or security issues? If so, what were they?
I can see that Deputy Higgins will be no easier on this President than he was on the previous one. Discussions were centred primarily on bilateral issues and our bilateral relationships. The aim was to improve those relationships, to take up where we had left off with the previous administration, to try to strengthen the relationships and use them to mutual advantage. The Iraqi sanctions will be debated in the House tomorrow when the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will answer questions on the subject. We discussed a range of issues, the sanctions being one. I had an opportunity to obtain the President's views on a wide-ranging number of issues which he was glad to give me. We discussed environmental issues because they had arisen that morning in the context of the reports about Kyoto. I raised those issues to determine his precise attitude and what was happening in that regard. We discussed what would happen in the discussions on the Middle East. Mr Colin Powell and Ms Condoleesa Rice were present and participated in the discussions. We also discussed Russia and Africa, especially the AIDS issue in which the President has an interest.
We spent most of our time discussing Northern Ireland and the American and Irish economies. The President is an informed person who is well briefed on what has happened here and has a clear mind about what he wishes to do. He informed me that he will attend the European Council in Sweden in June and give his views on European matters. I spent about an hour and 15 minutes with him at lunch and about the same length of time the following day. I had an opportunity to engage in a very extensive discussion with him on a range of issues. I was not lobbied on any issue. Neither was any of my delegation.
(Dublin West): And the economy.
We discussed it.
I join the Taoiseach in expressing satisfaction that progress is apparently being achieved on policing. Does he, as I do, look forward to agreement being reached on a declining number of matters when it will be possible for the SDLP to fully endorse and support the new police service? In those circumstances, can we be assured that the SDLP will have the full support of the Government as, I hope, it has the full support of all democratic parties in the House in order that the Government and any possible alternative to it may fully support the SDLP on this issue which requires courageous decisions?
The Taoiseach said, concerning Sinn Féin, that policing issues have been comprehensively addressed in recent months. What are the main sticking points as far as Sinn Féin is concerned? Does the Taoiseach share the opinion many have expressed that Sinn Féin is not keen to come to terms with this issue and has no intention of asking its people to support any police service in Northern Ireland?
Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to consider the appeal of the Omagh victims' league for financial support in taking civil actions against those believed to be responsible for the Omagh bombing? Is he prepared to support a plea to help them financially in that respect?
Does the Taoiseach share my concern that, despite the moves the IRA has made to get in touch with General de Chastelaine, it stated that the meeting was to set the basis for discussions? Does the Taoiseach agree that, while this move is welcome, it is a very small move and the IRA needs to proceed from that very quickly?
All parties are anxious to find resolutions to the remaining difficulties. It is unfair to say that the parties are not trying. Perhaps some parties have made more progress than others but all are trying. It has been a key objective to reach a point where the SDLP moves to recommend acceptance of the new police service in Northern Ireland – both to its party and to its community. The aim is to move with the SDLP toward that goal. We helped it in any way we could during the long passage of the legislation in Westminster and we continue with that help. We have moved close to a position from where we can make progress on this, and the other matters raised earlier by Deputy Quinn relating to the legislative base in Northern Ireland.
On the Omagh issue and related cases, we are sympathetic. How the legal position will work out, I do not know, but our secretariat has been following that issue. I have not had a recent update on the matter but we continue to give it our attention and support. The security and intelligence efforts related to the Omagh bombing continue. I was asked recently about this and I take this opportunity to confirm that the efforts that were being made by the Garda are still being made and that will continue.
I repeat what I said to Deputy Sargent about the IRA meeting General de Chastelaine. It was a minimum move and the intention is that there will be further engagement. Deputy Sargent asked if that engagement would be this week and I do not know the answer to that. The meeting was the contact that was required. It got over a previous difficulty that there had been a telephone contact between the IRA and the de Chastelaine commission but nothing further.
However, there has been movement. The two Governments and all the parties were anxious that this would be a formal meeting and an official commencement of the operation. The matter has now progressed to the detail of how to move the process, and of trying to achieve what was set out by the IRA in its statement of 6 May 2000 in response to the 5 May 2000 statement by the pro-Agreement parties. I hope meetings to work on detailed matters will be arranged soon as that is the key to really making progress.
On the Taoiseach's visit to the United States he met the Ireland and American economic advisory board. Did the Taoiseach raise with the board the issue of the many US firms, such as Gateway and Intel, who have indicated job losses in Ireland? I refer especially to Intel who have stood down the work force constructing their FAB 24 building at Leixlip with the loss of 1,500 jobs. Did the Taoiseach raise these issues and the concerns of the Irish work force about redundancies in American based firms operating in Ireland?
I thanked US firms for their investment and for their continued progress in Ireland, and for the fact that there are 500 US companies which employ 70,000 people here. I also thanked them for talking about deferrals not closures despite this being a difficult time in the US economy. Deputy Noonan is claiming that 1,500 jobs that were to be created in the future are a loss—
I asked about the 1,500 construction jobs lost at Intel.
It is a delay to the FAB 24 project and not an abandonment. We are lucky to have companies like Intel here, when we look at what is happening in many areas of Europe and the world. I discussed the economic situation when I met the economic advisory group. There has been a major downturn for dotcom and technology companies. One senior executive at the meeting pointed out that in 1999, £12 billion was put into the marketing and advancement of dotcom companies. Last year that figure was down to £7 billion and this year £1 billion is projected. The effect across an economy is easily seen.
From an Irish perspective, the key thing is to remain competitive and to hold as much of the market share as we can. The excellent productivity of our work force is needed to get through what will be a difficult period. The fall-off in stocks for many of the medium to large size companies has been 60% since the Christmas period so there will clearly be a major slowdown. The advice of the economic advisory group is that while it is impossible to predict the length of any slowdown, it will certainly include the first half of this year, which will be a cautious period. That was the collective advice of what was a large turnout at the advisory group meeting.
Did anyone mention the PRSI ceiling to the Taoiseach?
No, not one person raised that. The advice of the group is that this country should remain competitive so that we are able to ride out what will be a severe problem in the United States, at least for the first half of the year.