Michael Noonan
Ceist:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the state of the Northern Ireland peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11318/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Northern Ireland Issues.
Michael Noonan
Ceist:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will outline his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11320/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Sinn Féin con cerning North-South Ministerial council meetings. [11552/01]
Austin Currie
Ceist:5 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent contacts with Northern Ireland political leaders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11640/01]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:6 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the arrangements for his forthcoming visit to Scotland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11682/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and any conclusions reached at his meeting with representatives of Sinn Féin on 12 April 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11908/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if, at his meeting on 12 April 2001, he raised with representatives of Sinn Féin the plight of those people driven out of Northern Ireland under threat of death or injury; if so, the response he received from Sinn Féin; the steps he intends to take to ensure people driven out in this way are allowed to return to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11909/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has had any response from the republican movement to the appeal he made for progress on decommissioning before the UK election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11910/01]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister or political leaders in Northern Ireland to discuss proposals for political progress there; if he expects to take any initiatives in advance of the UK election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11911/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, together.
I had a useful meeting with Sinn Féin representatives, including the party president, Gerry Adams, and the Northern Ireland Minister for Health and Social Services, Bairbre de Brún, on Thursday, 12 April. Our discussions included the ongoing exclusion of Sinn Féin Ministers from attending meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council, decommissioning, policing and the exclusion of people from Nationalist areas of Northern Ireland. It is wrong and unsustainable that certain Northern Ireland Ministers are excluded from attendance at North-South Ministerial meetings. As the two Governments stated at Hillsborough on 8 March, it is essential that the full operations of the North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council resume, and that the institutions continue their important work.
As regards putting arms beyond use, I very much welcome the engagement between General de Chastelain and an IRA representative. It is now essential that further and early progress be made on this critical issue. While good progress has been made on policing, it is imperative that new policing arrangements are such that they, to quote the Patten Commission report, "are capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole".
I took the opportunity at the meeting to raise at some length the issue of the expulsion of persons from Nationalist areas, and to stress the unacceptability of this. In response, Sinn Féin representatives said their party would continue to use its influence to bring this to an end. I will continue to press the issue on every appropriate occasion. The reality is that acceptable new policing arrangements would help greatly to resolve the problem, a point that was made by Sinn Féin at the meeting. I am in no way lessening the responsibility on everyone with influence to do everything possible to bring this heinous practice to an end.
Work is ongoing at official level between the two Governments to try to make progress on the outstanding issues before the British general election. I will continue to keep in contact with the British Prime Minister and the pro-Agreement party leaders in Northern Ireland as and when necessary over the coming period although their focus inevitably will be on their campaigns once the election is called. However, once the election is over, we need to make very early progress in order to resolve all outstanding issues as quickly as possible.
At the invitation of the Secretary of State for Scotland, Helen Liddell, and the First Minister, Henry McLeish, I will undertake an official visit to Scotland in June. Although the programme is not yet finalised, my visit will include an address to the Scottish Parliament as well as the unveiling of the famine memorial in Carfin, which is to be followed by a civic reception hosted by North Lanarkshire Council.
Is the Taoiseach aware of Martin McGuinness's statement to the Saville inquiry, saying he was second in command of the IRA in Derry on Bloody Sunday? Does the Taoiseach believe the statement marks a departure from the practice adopted by the republican movement of insisting that Sinn Féin and the IRA are two separate entities? The belief of successive Administrations in this jurisdiction was that while there was single membership of either organisation, dual membership was the norm rather than the exception, particularly at the highest level. Does the Taoiseach now envisage that negotiations will take place with Sinn Féin at senior level in the foreseeable future without the fiction of referring the matters agreed to the army council?
I have no insight other than press reports into the factual basis of Mr. McGuinness's statement. I welcome the development, however, as it has been signalled for some time that he would make a comprehensive statement. The whole purpose of the Saville inquiry, apart from all the presentations to it, is to get to the truth. Anyone who can add to what is known about Bloody Sunday should do so as it is not a trial or an adversarial criminal investigation. Having worked hard to build on the Irish Government's document and to convince the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, to have a tribunal some years ago, I know that it is important that Martin McGuinness makes a contribution. We have to wait to see what happens, but it is vital that those who have relevant information come forward so the truth can be established.
On the relationship here, while some people down the years have continually said "Sinn Féin/IRA", it has been the practice of the Irish Government to treat them as separate organisations. However, as I said in 1995 while in opposition, I view Sinn Féin and the IRA as opposite sides of the one coin. I have not changed that view. It is a view I held long before I was in a position of authority. I said that in one of my earliest statements about Northern Ireland. I also held that view while dealing with Sinn Féin, although the reality is, when we deal with Sinn Féin as a political party, it will not ever communicate other than to say it will consult and use its best efforts and endeavours with the IRA. That has been the position down the years with successive Irish Governments.
They look in the mirror in the morning.
I do not disagree with anything the Taoiseach has said and I welcome Mr. Martin McGuinness's statement to the Saville inquiry. It is helpful. However, what I want to explore with the Taoiseach is the nature of the advice he is receiving now and whether this is a once-off position taken by a leading member of Sinn Féin in respect of the Saville inquiry only. Does it indicate a movement towards the position in which both he and I and all parties in this House have believed for some time, that Sinn Féin and the IRA are not two parallel organisations but the same Republican movement and at the highest level Sinn Féin and the IRA go hand in hand? Does he see a situation emerging or has he been advised on the possibility of a situation emerging where in future in negotiations with Sinn Féin he will be able to conclude matters across the table without the fiction of reference to an army council, which in many respects does not differ in personality to a great degree from the negotiators? Could he reflect on this. If this is the movement forward, it seems to me this is of benefit to the peace process. It is something which should be encouraged. In the very involved manner in which the Republican movement moves forward, it may be a significant move forward. I would ask the Taoiseach if he has any reflections on it?
I have no information. There has not been any indication at official level or security level on this issue. It is very much seen as in the spirit of the Saville inquiry that Mr. Martin McGuinness is putting his position to help in the process of finding the truth.
On the other issue, I do not see a change in the relationship. I do not see a situation emerging where the Irish Government, in trying to find the thinking behind the Republican movement, will get it in a way other than the way it is getting it at present. However, I work towards a time when Sinn Féin will move on to the next step and, in using its best efforts and actions, will ultimately, sooner rather than later – at times I think it may not happen as late as many people would think – get to a situation where the IRA with which it has an association will not exist. That is the path we are on. I do not think that will happen overnight or in a year, but it is a realistic assessment for all of us, who, as political parties, work closely with Sinn Féin to give it that space and freedom of movement. That is a realistic process so that as we work through this situation we will get to the stage over the next few years where the IRA will cease to exist in the form in which Sinn Féin has had a close association.
To move on to another issue dealt with in the Taoiseach's reply, he expressed concern that the North-South Ministerial Bodies are not meeting and I share his concern about that. He said he had a meeting with Sinn Féin in early April and that this matter was discussed together with some other matters. Has he had a meeting with Mr. Trimble or with the British Government or with the leader of the SDLP where the fact that the North-South Ministerial Bodies are not meeting as intended was discussed?
I have had contact with them all. Tomorrow the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, will meet the Secretary of State, Dr. John Reid, in London. My Secretary General will meet the Chef de Cabinet to Mr. Trimble tomorrow. I have also had contact with Mr. Trimble and I have talked to Mr. Séamus Mallon and Mr. John Hume.
The main issue is that while the North-South bodies are working well, the very real difficulty is that both Mr. Martin McGuinness and Ms Bairbre de Brún, two members of the Executive, are not allowed to perform their role in the North-South bodies. This is because of a suspension, which has been struck down in the courts and is on appeal, and which does not seem either fair or reasonable. That continues to create a difficulty. Without trying to increase tension on this matter, we have been trying to find ways to keep things moving. It is still a real difficulty. I have discussed the issues and will discuss them again this weekend with the parties concerned in a fairly informal fashion because as we get to the election period, we do not want to put them under too much pressure. While I will have meetings, they will be low-key and will not be public.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the very serious concern in Northern Ireland among both traditions at recent revelations regarding the Arms Trial? Will he do everything in his power to ensure the truth in relation to events at that time is found out because it is a matter of serious concern to both traditions in Northern Ireland?
Has the Taoiseach given any thought to the recent comments by Mr. Mitchell McLoughlin to the effect that the census in Northern Ireland last Sunday will hasten the day of Irish unity in so far as it will indicate a substantial increase in the number of Catholics in Northern Ireland, and that this, to quote one of his colleagues, will ensure a united Ireland within 15 years? Would the Taoiseach agree that this sectarian rhetoric is extremely dangerous and that what we ought to concentrate on in Northern Ireland is not some "rabbit theory" of out-breeding the other side but rather the solid work of being involved together in governing Northern Ireland in bringing about reconciliation by combating the serious social, economic and political problems of Northern Ireland and by partnership between North and South through the cross-Border institutions? Would he agree that this is the way forward and that Mr. McLoughlin's comments are very dangerous, apart from being sectarian?
On the first issue, I said on the Order of Business yesterday that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General would prepare a report on this. The whole effort will be to make sure that whatever should be in the public domain, will be in the public domain and therefore the answer to that question is "yes".
On the second issue, it is not helpful to try to predict what might happen in the longer term. People may have their views on it but the important thing, on which I would agree with Deputy Currie, is to try and bed down the institutions and make them work across the sectarian divide, make them lessen the sectarian tension and make the mechanisms work. That is working well but anything which heightens the tension is not helpful. Whatever comes out in the census will come out in the census anyway and I do not think we should mix that with the political agenda.
The spirit of the Good Friday Agreement is to work for peace and reconciliation in every way we can. There is provision within it for these matters to be reviewed at another time and in other circumstances, but that is not now.
Will the Taoiseach agree that any statements of this nature are negative and increase tension and that we should concentrate on the positive rather than these sectarian comments?
As the House knows, in my dealings with all the parties I try to keep them on the political agenda and away from the sectarian one which never proves productive. We know how unproductive it is every summer. Any statements not based on the principles of peace and reconciliation always prove to be counterproductive. Irrespective of who makes them, they are picked up by the other side and reverberate back. Any statements used in that way are not helpful.
I wish to put a number of questions to the Taoiseach arising from his reply to the nine questions being taken together. The Taoiseach made an explicit appeal on Sky News on Easter Sunday to the IRA to engage in the decommissioning process. Has there been a response of any kind to that explicit appeal he made on behalf of all of us?
The discussions between General de Chastelain and the IRA are representative, useful and helpful. I am not privy to all of the details. I know those contacts are helpful, but I will leave it at that until we hear more from General de Chastelain.
The Decommissioning Act, 1997, provides for regulations on certain immunities, which will expire on 22 May. What plans, if any, has the Taoiseach to extend the life, in legislative terms, of these immunities? When will we see the necessary resolution or motion to that effect?
The British Government recently extended the remit of the decommissioning body, which was to effectively cease this summer. I cannot recall the date to which its remit has been extended. I believe it is until next spring; I do not think it is for a year. It has not done that by order yet, but as soon as we have that, we will make the necessary moves.
As I said before, if there were agreement between General John de Chastelain, the decommissioning body and the IRA representatives or any of the other paramilitary organisations, it might mean an extension or some changes. That issue will also have to be examined.
In the course of the forthcoming discussions the Taoiseach will have with the various political parties, will he bring to their attention that, between 1995 and 2000, 1,600 people in Northern Ireland were forced into involuntary exile without any recourse to a court or democratic or judicial process? They have remained, for the most part, in exile for fear of their lives or that of their families. All of that happened at a time when the paramilitiaries on both sides were on a form of ceasefire. As a confidence building measure, can the Taoiseach impress upon the political parties associated with paramilitaries on both sides to indicate that the enforced exile of those 1,600 Irish people, men and women, has been lifted and that there will be no retaliation against them or their families should they choose to come back to Northern Ireland?
I will do that. I would like to expand on what I said in my reply. We went into some detail on the issues raised by Deputies Currie and Quinn during Question Time on a number of occasions during a substantive part of the meeting I attended with Sinn Féin. Examples were given of some of the groups of relatives who have been writing submissions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself and, I am sure, to many members of the Opposition.
Three points arise out of that. First, Sinn Féin gave a commitment it would do all it could on the ground to make it possible to resolve this position. Second, it gave many instances in reply to circumstances I outlined and said all the blame tended to be put on their membership or people associated with them, but that was not always the case. It said there were also community activists on the ground and that it was not behind every one of those groups or bodies. Third, we explored what I said in my reply about policing. In many cases the reason people are being excluded from these areas, apart from paramilitary involvement, is that residents' concerned groups turn on those people because of their anti-social behaviour and as there is no adequate policing the situation gets out of control. I use that argument all the time as a reason we should try to find a compromise on policing. If we did that, we would not have that difficulty.
Some areas are close to being no go areas and the police cannot deal with these issues. There is always a certain risk in saying this, but it is becoming clear to the representatives concerned that this is a very good reason we should try to have a more balanced police service in Northern Ireland whose members can police these areas and, apart from the violent issues of the past, the sectarian issues, can deal with what are community and anti-social issues, which are no different from any of those that have to be dealt with in our constitutencies.
Assuming there is no change of Government in Britain, which seems unlikely given the anticipated general election on 7 June, there is a short window of opportunity between 8 June and the marching season within which the issue of policing could be resolved. That window extends to the Assembly elections and subsequent local elections in Northern Ireland of approximately two or three years. There is an absolute imperative on all sides to compromise and arrive at a resolution of the impasse over policing before the commencement of the July marching season in order to put in place a mechanism, to use the Taoiseach's phrase from an earlier reply, to bed down the institutions in a secure manner and remove the difficulties associated with the non-participation or the ban on the participation by the First Minister, David Trimble of the two Sinn Féin members of the Executive. The key to this is moving quickly after 7 June on the basis of compromise on all sides to bed down institutions by bringing forward a satisfactory compromise proposal and a solution to the policing issue.
That is a fair analysis. The aftermath of the election will leave three weeks or less, as 1 July is a Sunday. As I said before during questions on Northern Ireland, this is not the way we would have hoped it would have worked out. For a long period it seemed we would have an adequate period, but that is not to be. If, as expected, the election is on 7 June, we will have a very short period of intensive work. Since Easter we have done what I said we would do during Holy Week. We have had active engagement. My officials met Prime Minister Blair's officials last week. They were also in Northern Ireland last week and they are there again today. There will be a meeting between the SDLP and Sinn Féin tomorrow and matters will be reviewed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will meet the Secretary of State Reid over the weekend. I hope to have a further round of talks with a number of the parties. It is clear that by this time next week the game will have moved on. Our work will stop about this day next week. We will have to wait until after the election, but we will try to get as much done and as much compromise as we possibly can between now and next Tuesday or Wednesday and then we will have to wait. It is correct to say there will be an intensive period from 10 or 11 June and there will be only two working weeks after that.
During the Taoiseach's discussions with Sinn Féin, did the issue of conditions for Sinn Féin supporting the new policing arrangements arise? Did it outline these conditions to him? To what extent is it prepared to support the new arrangements? As the Taoiseach is aware, there was a major recruitment for the new police force in the North and some 10,000 people applied. Will those people now be shortlisted and interviewed, or will the whole process be put on hold until the SDLP and Sinn Féin are ready to support the new policing arrangements?
We discussed all of those elements, particularly with a view to getting an understanding with both Sinn Féin and the SDLP. The particular difficulty of the SDLP is in relation to the judicial tribunals which it is seeking on the Nelson, Finucane and Hamilton cases. Subject to that, they are prepared to move to a substantial degree on a number of issues. Seamus Mallon has repeatedly made it clear to all of us that it is not enough to say there will be legislation and he has not agreed to sign up unless he is firmly convinced that such legislation will be in line with the Patten report. Having spent so much parliamentary time leading this debate through the House of Commons and the committees last year, Seamus Mallon was very clear on what he wants to achieve. His position is well documented and he is unlikely to move from it.
Sinn Féin has a longer list. In addition to some of the issues already mentioned, it has particular concerns with structures and management systems and the operation and accountability of the new policing system at district and local level. In my view, all the issues can be dealt with and agreed on, but only if people compromise on various aspects of the situation. All the issues are important but if we are to progress towards inclusive governance of the entire system, we just have to get some compromise. I have gone through the issues in great detail with all the parties and we gave an assessment to the British Government last week of our understanding of the position on each outstanding aspect. The Irish Government officials, from my own Department, Foreign Affairs and Justice, have put an enormous amount of work into giving a very fair assessment of what we believe will achieve a conclusion fairly well in line with Patten. It may not be exactly the same as Patten and it is not easy to get it perfectly in line but it has to be an approach which provides a fair and meaningful basis to move forward on the policing service. We will be trying to progress that over the next week.
On the recruitment question, there was an enormous response to the recruitment invitation. However, I do not really see matters progressing successfully until we reach a sign-off position. Realistically, it would be very difficult for young Nationalists to be put in the dilemma of joining up and commencing their training, without a clear message from the parties to whom they would have at least a broad political allegiance. I have got this view from young people in the Nationalist community who have never been involved in any kind of violence and whose families have no involvement in political parties, other than supporting them on election day. I certainly could not tell those young people to ignore what their political parties are saying.
(Mayo): Is the Taoiseach concerned at the conclusions of a recent United States Government report which refers to a huge increase in membership of the Real IRA and mentions a very worrying aspect that this consists of new recruitment into the system, rather than simply members transferring from the Provisional IRA? Does the Taoiseach agree this poses possibly the biggest single threat to the existing peace process? Is he concerned that the US Government has not proscribed those organisations and outlawed them with regard to fundraising? Bearing in mind that many people in the Irish-American community still see the situation through green-tinted glasses, far removed from reality, does the Taoiseach agree there is an urgent need for an approach to the US Government by both the Irish and British Governments, to have those organisations proscribed in the United States?
Taking the last question first, the British and Irish Governments have already taken all appropriate steps and provided all relevant information with regard to the proscribing of the Real IRA. I understand a decision is likely to be made shortly.
On the question of the reported increase in membership of that organisation, I am always concerned that such reports can glamourise an organisation and provide it with favourable propaganda. The reality, as I understand from my information, is that after the Omagh atrocity which caused such carnage among the civilian population, most people who had any connection with that organisation moved well away from it for obvious reasons. I believe it is a correct inference that it did not succeed in recruiting people from other paramilitary organisations but has targeted its efforts towards misguided young people whom it has sought to brainwash into its evil deeds and lifestyle. I have no information to suggest there is any more than a limited group involved and it is unclear how the US report arrived at the assessment which has been referred to.
The Government will, of course, give all possible co-operation to the US authorities in dealing with the fundraising issue.
Does the Taoiseach agree, having regard to the agreement with the GAA in relation to the use of the proposed national stadium, that if young people, particularly young men, join the Northern Ireland police service, they will be prevented, ipso facto, from availing of the stadium as players?
Irrespective of grants or money considerations, I have every confidence that the leadership of Cumann Lúthcleas Gael will respond to what the political parties finally decide on the policing arrangements, in a way that will not create difficulties for new recruits.
Has the Taoiseach got a clear understanding from senior members of the GAA which gives him confidence that, if there is a satisfactory compromise in relation to the Northern Ireland police service which will replace the RUC, and if it comes into existence with the support of the SDLP and others on the Nationalist side, that it would be made very clear by the leadership of the GAA that the rule change necessary will be proposed at the next congress of the GAA? Does the Taoiseach have an explicit understanding and commitment to that effect?
I base my view on the special convention the GAA held in 1998. At that convention the GAA stated categorically that when the political issues concerned were sorted out and the Patten report was supported it would move in tandem with that. I have no reason to think the GAA would not honour that. That would also be the view of Northern members of the GAA who took a tough line at that conference.
I want to move on from Northern Ireland to the question of the Taoiseach's proposed visit to Scotland. What are the proposed dates for the visit, how long will he stay, what engagements will he undertake and will he have any other engagements anywhere else in Great Britain in the course of the same visit? Would it be a fair interpretation now of Government policy that it is seeking as a Government to develop a separate and distinct set of relationships with the devolved administration in Scotland and Wales distinct from the foreign policy pursued with the London Government? How does the Taoiseach see that developing?
It will be a one day visit, early morning to late evening.
What is the date?
It will be on or around 20 June. I will address the Scottish Parliament, visit the Carfin memorial which I was to visit some months ago and I will meet the political representatives of the parties. I will attend receptions held by the Ministers and the Scottish Secretary of State, Helen Liddell, and meet Henry McLeish. I will also meet some other groups I should have met on the last occasion but that has not been finalised.
On the second issue, it is not a secret that devolution opened up two things. For the British-Irish parliamentary group it opened the opportunity to change our structure. We debated many times that we should have a new and inclusive arrangement for involving the devolved administrations and parliaments in our affairs. That includes the devolved administration in Wales and Northern Ireland, the Parliament in Scotland and the other assemblies. It has equally given us the opportunity at foreign policy level to recognise and deal constructively with the new administrations. They are now elected parliamentary representatives. They have their own parliamentary and assembly structures and are anxious to develop their own identity. It gives us the opportunity to make up lost time with these institutions. We were more involved in the past and we now have the opportunity to be involved again. We moved quickly to develop those relationships by putting consuls in both Edinburgh in Scotland and Cardiff in Wales. We will continue to develop them while ever-mindful of criteria laid down by the foreign office and by the directions of No. 10.
I understand what the Taoiseach has said but he is as aware, as I am, that there is still such a thing as the United Kingdom although it may not be part of the political landscape. Taking that into account, to what degree does the Taoiseach feel he can develop an independent foreign policy with Scotland and Wales without coming into conflict with Mr. Blair's Government, with which he has a very good relationship? What are the demarcation lines that have been agreed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Office in respect of our relationships with Wales and Scotland?
In terms of the Foreign Office, Ministers at junior level are involved in overall foreign policy issues. Diplomatically the Foreign Office would be made aware of any of the arrangements we make. Some of the meetings I had in Wales, outside of the assembly meetings, were attended by the representative with responsibility for devolution and foreign policy issues. This is an evolving position for them and us and it is important to ensure that we work with them and do not go off without keeping close contact with the Minister responsible. That is the line but it is not being pressed. The procedure is that all our relationships, contacts and developments and how our consuls general work operate in a free and open way. There is a proposal, whether it happens after the British election, that there would be one Secretary of State and one administrative function that would deal with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the way United Kingdom foreign policy proposes to work vis-à-vis the three bodies.
Do I take it that the Taoiseach's position is that he will continue to develop separate relationships with the Scottish and Welsh administrations but that he does not see an actual potential for conflict between the development of those relationships and the relationships which he has with the London Government?
In these early years it would be wrong of us to get into conflict. Rules are laid down, although not strictly enforced, and we should be conscious of them, but there is no reason they should affect any of our growing relationships. This will develop further after the election when we will see the Scottish and the Welsh attend European meetings at different levels. That will allow us to have close relationships with individual Ministries. Many issues we have talked about in the British-Irish context show we can work closely with them. Our experiences are more relevant to sharing with Wales and Scotland than perhaps with London. There is enormous potential for us to share and we will be careful not to create any difficulty.
In his answer the Taoiseach included Northern Ireland in the group. Does he suggest that our relationships with Northern Ireland in the future will be through the Department of Foreign Affairs, similar to those with Wales and Scotland, or was that an inadvertency in his answer?
At the moment where we deal with Helen Liddell or Dr. John Reid, it is likely that there will be one Secretary of State responsible for all three areas. That will change how we operate. Britain's system will change and it is my information that it is unlikely to allow three Secretaries of State. It will be a change in their system, not ours. We will continue as we have but they are unlikely to allow three Secretaries of State.