Michael Noonan
Ceist:1 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent developments in the Northern Ireland peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7460/02]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Official Engagements.
Michael Noonan
Ceist:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7461/02]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:3 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7462/02]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:4 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach when he next expects to meet the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7463/02]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:5 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. [7464/02]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:6 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the recent work of the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7465/02]
Michael Noonan
Ceist:7 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Washington with President Bush; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7466/02]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the finalised agenda for his visit in March 2002 to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7694/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in the peace process; and his views on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in this jurisdiction. [8314/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and any conclusions reached at his meeting with a delegation from the SDLP on 6 March 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8924/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with President Bush of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8927/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the US-Ireland Economic Advisory Board on 13 March 2002. [8928/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:13 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the official engagements he undertook during his recent visit to the United States. [8929/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his discussions with political leaders during his recent visit to the United States. [8930/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, on the margins of the Barcelona Council. [8932/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:16 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his views on the call made by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble, for a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9171/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:17 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has raised with the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble, comments he made regarding this State at the meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council on 9 March 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9172/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:18 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the United States. [9195/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:19 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions he has had on the peace process with the British Prime Minister and the political parties. [9196/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, together.
My programme of engagements in the US commenced immediately on my arrival on Monday, 11 March, in Chicago where, at the invitation of the President of Northwestern University, I delivered the annual T.W. Heyck lecture. In the course of my lecture, I addressed a number of issues relating to the Good Friday Agreement. I also took the opportunity to refer to the view recently expressed that a poll might be called in Northern Ireland next year on the question of a united Ireland. I support the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement which allow for holding such a poll at a time when it appears there may be a majority in Northern Ireland in favour of such an outcome. The timing of a poll is obviously a matter for careful judgment and consultation between the Irish and British governments. I would share the concern of many observers that holding such a poll prematurely could serve to polarise the situation and distract from the work of healing and good and fair government that we are trying to achieve under the Good Friday Agreement.
I also referred to the concern that has been expressed that the scope of change in the agreement is such that it risks making Northern Ireland a "cold place" for the Unionist community. I made it clear that equality is neither a Nationalist nor Unionist agenda. It is a right of both, as well as the essential basis for a stable system. Since the principles of equality and partnership are at the heart of the agreement, the challenge for us all is to improve the confidence and well-being of all communities in Northern Ireland and there is scope for common action to assure unionists of the benefits of the agreement. The lecture was attended by more than 700 people and was followed by a question and answer session.
On Tuesday, 12 March, I met with Mayor Richard Daley, as well as leaders of the Irish community at the opening of the new Fitzpatrick's Hotel, before departing for Washington. Follow ing my arrival in Washington later that day, I attended the St. Patrick's Day reception hosted by our Ambassador, Sean Ó hUiginn and Mrs. Ó hUiginn. Guests comprised many prominent friends of Ireland in Washington as well as representatives of Northern Ireland political parties, including First Minister, Mr. David Trimble and Deputy First Minister, Mr. Mark Durkan.
On Wednesday, 13 March, I chaired a breakfast meeting of the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board. The exchanges were focused on developments in the Irish and US economies, with a particular emphasis on the prospects of economic recovery and the possible implications of recent and current events on US foreign direct investment in Ireland.
For my part, I drew special attention to the unique advantages Ireland continues to offer as an investment location and to the ongoing efforts being made in moving our economy further up the value-added chain. In that regard, I referred to the policies being pursued in the area of science and technology generally and research and development specifically. I also availed of the opportunity to brief the members of the board on key developments relating to Northern Ireland. Later that morning, following the traditional presentation of shamrock at the White House, I had a very positive meeting with President Bush, which was also attended by Secretary of State, Colin Powell and other key officials including Ambassador Haass. The President pledged his Administration's continued strong support for our efforts to implement the Good Friday Agreement, and his willingness to help the two Governments in every appropriate way. We also discussed the very positive economic relationship between our two countries, as well as a wide range of international issues, including the Middle East, EU-US relations, and the continuing war on terrorism. I took the opportunity to reiterate the solidarity of the people of Ireland with the people of the United States and indicated our continued support in the drive against international terrorism.
Following our meeting and the reception hosted by the President, I attended a lunch on Capitol Hill hosted by Speaker Hastert. President Bush, Ambassador Haass and party leaders from Northern Ireland also attended, as did 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 with Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, and later Senator Clinton and briefed them on recent developments. As a gesture of our appreciation for his strong and valuable support for Ireland, the Government decided that it would be very appropriate to mark the 40th anniversary of Senator Edward Kennedy's entry in to public life by the funding of a newly established chair in Trinity College Dublin, to be called the Senator Edward M. Kennedy chair in health services management. I am delighted that we were able to honour Senator Kennedy in this way. Ted Kennedy has been a true and valued friend of Ireland over many decades and he has been steadfast in his support for peace and reconciliation. The chair and centre will provide leadership in an area which is both at the centre of Irish public policy debate and one which Senator Kennedy has had as a priority throughout his 40 year public career.
That evening, I addressed the American Ireland Fund gala dinner where I was honoured to receive its annual peace award. I was delighted to have the opportunity there to acknowledge the important contribution of the fund for the unstinting support it has provided for peace and reconciliation, North and South. In the course of the several events outlined above, I had the opportunity for some exchanges with Northern Ireland party leaders. With regard to the remarks on the nature of this State, I do not believe that most people who live and work here would recognise the State as described by Mr. Trimble. I do not believe there is much purpose to be served at this stage in revisiting this controversy. The 10 April will mark the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. We have, I believe, managed the intervening period with determination as well as sensitivity in seeking to give full effect to the Agreement's provisions. We have faced difficulties and challenges but we have managed to address these together and to keep the process moving forward. We have peace in our country undreamt of several years ago. Our many friends in the United States are deeply mindful of the progress that has been made and support for our efforts there remains strong and committed. I very much welcome this.
I met with the leader and deputy leader of the SDLP, Mark Durkan and Bríd Rodgers at Government Buildings on 6 March. Our discussions centred on recent political developments and the criminal justice review. We also discussed the issue of policing and the appointment of an international judge to investigate cases of concern. Also on 6 March, I met with a delegation from the Alliance Party led by the party leader, David Forde. We discussed recent developments and issues of concern to the party, in particular issues relating to the procedures in the Assembly.
I had discussions with Prime Minister Blair on the margins of the EU Summit in Barcelona when we discussed a number of current issues and the continued implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. With regard to the implementation of the Agreement in this jurisdiction, considerable progress has been and continues to be made. Constitutional arrangements are in place which put the future of Northern Ireland firmly in the hands of its people. The institutional arrangements provided for in the Agreement reflect the multi-stranded and complex relationships between the peoples of these islands – in Northern Ireland, between North and South and between Britain and Ireland. The Government is playing its full part in ensuring that these insti tutions are working productively and effectively on behalf of all of the people. We have also dealt with difficult and painful issues that arise in any process of conflict resolution. Prisoners have been released and steps have been taken in a process of putting paramilitary weapons beyond use. A new dispensation in the areas of human rights and equality is being created. Human rights commissions are in place in both jurisdictions and equality legislation provided for in the Agreement has been enacted. Measures continue to be taken to demonstrate our respect for the different traditions on the island, including funding of the Apprentice Boys maiden city festival and funding of the Ulster-Scots Agency which has as its remit the promotion of Ulster-Scots cultural issues.
Throughout the process, the Irish and British Governments have worked together as partners. There is no doubt that work remains to be done. There are aspects of the Agreement and of the commitments made by the Governments at Weston Park which have yet to be fully realised. Violence, although greatly diminished, has not fully become a thing of the past as we all hoped it would. There are communities where paramilitary organisations remain influential, and a small number of dissidents continue to seek to use force to overturn the Agreement. They will not be allowed to succeed. We will continue to work with the British Government and with the pro-Agreement parties to secure the full implementation of the Agreement.
I have a number of supplementary questions. Have the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Garda been briefed on the break-in to the Castlereagh police headquarters? Is the Taoiseach concerned about this event and will he comment on allegations that sections of the security forces in Northern Ireland were involved in the break-in?
I have been briefed on the break-in, in regard to which there are widespread concerns that are shared by the British Government. I welcome the fact that the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. John Reid, has immediately called for an independent investigation to establish what happened. I do not have any specific information apart from what is in the public domain, because that is all the information the authorities had there. Naturally, I would be deeply worried if any highly sensitive information has fallen into the wrong hands, which is the major concern on this issue. It is essential the investigation is completed as quickly as possible.
Does the Taoiseach have precise knowledge of the general nature of the sensitive information? Does it include the names of persons who in the past have assisted the RUC with its inquiries?
I do not know its precise nature, but files containing names and data were taken. I do not know precisely what role those named played and, pending the investigation, it is not known by the Secretary of State, Dr. Reid, either. The information is considered sensitive.
Focusing on his visit to meet President Bush, how did the Taoiseach indicate he would support the President's war on terrorism? Did he indicate that, as before, there would be free use of Irish airports? Is there to be further progress on legislation specifically dealing with counter-terrorist measures, such as the Criminal Justice (Suppression of Financing of Terrorism) Bill, the Criminal Justice (United Nations Conventions) Bill and the International Criminal Court Bill? The people accepted the latter by referendum at the same time the Nice treaty was rejected. Can the Taoiseach indicate whether he discussed these matters with President Bush, describe what assurances were given and tell us if he will consult with and seek the approval of the Dáil regarding any measures to give effect to his support of the President?
President Bush and Mr. Colin Powell expressed deep appreciation for the help of this country and its people, particularly for our work in the UN which is seen to have been very effective and helpful. They thanked us for our domestic arrangements to co-operate to confiscate funds or assets across the financial system. They have been continually briefed by the ambassador regarding legislation. I briefed them again and they were extremely happy with that. There was no question of any extension of arrangements for flyovers, but the President recalled that when the USA sought co-operation it was available and he thanked me for that. There was no other stated position.
I made the point, again, that we believe diplomatic options should be fully exhausted before we would get involved in military force elsewhere and that the primary responsibility for resolving international issues rests with the United Nations. I said that we welcome the resumption of dialogue with the United Nations on a number of issues, such as the Middle East resolution of last week and, of course, Kofi Annan's ongoing dialogue on Iraq.
I call Deputy Quinn. I will call you again Deputy Sargent.
There are a number of questions to be answered.
I appreciate that, but Deputy Quinn submitted eight questions and you submitted one.
In his comprehensive reply the Taoiseach referred to the peace process. Has his attention been drawn to a report which states that in the past year more than 700 people have been expelled from Northern Ireland by paramilitary organisations from both the loyalist and so-called republican communities? Can the Taoiseach indicate, with regard to the proposed amnesty for the "on the runs" or those who are charged with or are being sought for offences against the security forces and against the State, if he intends to extract, from Sinn Féin and the IRA on the one hand and the paramilitary organisations on the other, a commitment that they will cease their harassment and intimidation and, in some cases, unauthorised punishment of persons they deem to be anti-social? Will the amnesty be conditional on their compliance with the rule of law? If anybody is guilty of anti-social or illegal behaviour, the police forces and the courts are there to deal with them.
There are two aspects to Deputy Quinn's question. The first is the ongoing attacks. The latest figures show that almost two thirds of them now originate from loyalist quarters, a substantial change from what we have seen over the years. However, it does not matter where the violence originates because it is still thuggery and gangsterism and it must be dealt with. The best way of doing that is through support for and the widespread use, by everybody, of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I welcome the recent reports which show that young Catholics are increasingly joining the force. Hopefully, everybody will come on the side of the force because that is the way of dealing with this problem.
The second issue is the amnesty vis-à-vis the exiles. The debate is about the amnesty for the OTRs or “on the runs” as opposed to those who have been exiled over the years and, in some cases, who continue to be exiled. A fair case has been put forward that both issues should be dealt with together. I have made that clear to Sinn Féin and I had hoped to make it clear last week to some of the loyalist leaders but it was not possible. However, I hope to restate it to them on an early occasion.
This issue is difficult for the British Government, as Members will be aware from comments made in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. There are two options for dealing with the OTRs. There is an administrative procedure which the British Government can follow but it is quite lengthy. It involves checking each case through the administrations of justice and policing in Northern Ireland to ascertain the status of the case and whether it can be cleared. The other option is legislation. It is probably likely that the British Government will continue to use the administrative system; I do not anticipate it introducing legislation in the short-term. The Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, reiterated to me in Barcelona on Saturday that it was his intention to honour his commitment, irrespective of which way he chooses to deal with it.
I have a separate question relating to the Taoiseach's visit to the United States. The Taoiseach is quoted in The Irish Times, with regard to his discussions with President Bush, as saying he did not feel that the President was about to wage war on anyone unless he felt it was absolutely necessary. The Taoiseach added: “I think he also made it clear that he doesn't have any immediate plan to start any action overnight. I think that's not where he is at this stage.” Upon reflection, can the Taoiseach give the House his view as to where he thinks President Bush is now? Does he intend to use the Security Council of the United Nations before he wages war on anybody else? Did the Taoiseach give President Bush any unilateral commitment that Ireland would be by his side irrespective of when he decides to wage war?
I will reiterate what I said to Deputy Sargent. The Government will continue to work with its EU partners and with others in the international community in an effort to ensure that tensions are resolved without recourse to military action. That is the option people in this country support. They do not see any other option unless the situation gets out of control, as it did in Afghanistan where there was nobody to deal with it. However, that situation does not apply anywhere else at this stage.
American intelligence shows that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who have been trained in terrorist military camps are still at large. I have no reason to disbelieve that. The President, at some length and in detail, outlined to me what had been going on in the camps organised by the Taliban and in similar camps in other countries. He stated that in their view there could be up to 50,000 people who have been trained in terrorism and a small fraction of those have been knocked out in action in Afghanistan. As the Americans see it, based on their intelligence – the President feels strongly on this and I suppose nobody would be surprised at that after what has happened in the United States – this sizeable armed and dangerous group of people are out there and they will use their efforts in whatever way they can to deal with this. However, I did not detect that they were going to ignore the principle that the responsibility for resolving international crises rests with the United Nations or that they felt they should either ignore that process or ignore UN Security Council resolutions or the international community.
On the same point, could I just clarify what transpired? Did President Bush, in the course of his long discussions with the Taoiseach, indicate that he wanted to go to war against Iraq? If so, did he give the Taoiseach grounds as to why the United States should go to war against Iraq, did he indicate that he intended to resurrect the UN Security Council motions concerning the legitimate concern that all peace loving countries have regarding the accumulation of arms of mass destruction under Saddam Hussein, and did he indicate whether he proposed to resurrect the authority of the United Nations Security Council so as to revisit, under the authority of the UN, the inspection of arms of mass destruction in Iraq which are a threat to us all?
The Deputy asked a number of questions. Everybody is affected by the threat of terrorism which has not abated and the international community must remain unified if we are to address successfully the issues arising out of what happened last September. That is the first point.
The way to address this – this is a view which is far more that of the European Union – is through the UN. Kofi Annan made that clear last week. He has engaged again with Iraq and was widely supported. That, for now, removes the threat of the United States taking action.
What did President Bush say to the Taoiseach?
President Bush was very clear. He made the point that he wants to see the inspectors involved, but I do not think the President will tolerate a position where Iraq, as the Americans see it, plays games with the inspectors with the inspectors getting in every now and again, not really getting co-operation or not fulfilling the role which the UN wants them to play. The Americans' strong belief is that weapons of mass destruction are being processed within Iraq, that there are many things Iraq could be doing to help its citizens which it is not doing, and that the sanctions regime should be in place to turn the screw in terms of these issues. That is what the President said.
I put forward our view, which we followed in the UN Security Council, that these issues should be dealt with internationally through Kofi Annan and his colleagues and that there should be co-operation to operate the sanctions regime in a way that affects the Iraqi people to a minimum and affects the Iraqi Administration to the maximum. That is the focus of the considerable effort being put in by Irish diplomats. It is the right thing to do, rather than just ignoring the effects of sanctions on the poor unfortunates and not turning the screw on the administration. There is clearly a difference of emphasis.
That view, which I expressed, is widely held. If there is co-operation, the Americans would be happy to see that co-operation progress. However, the Americans will not ignore a situation or allow a situation develop anywhere where a substantial number of trained terrorists are allowed to involve themselves in terror camps and training and in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The Americans will not take as cosy a view into the future as perhaps they did before 11 September, and they regret that.
The Taoiseach is not here to explain the position of the American Government. He is here to explain the position of the Irish Government.
I was asked a question about what the President of the United States said and I answered that question.
The Taoiseach is very good at it too.
I thank the Deputy.
In the event of the United States and its military allies intervening in Iraq, will the Taoiseach state directly what will be the position of the Government? Will it be for them or against them?
That is not a question to be answered now because one does not know what the circumstances are. Ireland is a member of the Security Council and we will engage fully and actively with the Security Council to try to ensure that we can take the appropriate necessary actions. In the case of Afghanistan and when there was no other option, not alone did we support the action but we were one of the key leaders because we were in the chair of the presidency. We gave full support and full cover to the United States and will do so again. However, in the case of Iraq there is a process to be followed. That process has been set out in the resolution by Kofi Annan, which the Americans themselves have sided with since last week. That has to be followed. It is not a black and white position. If in the future there is no co-operation or interest on the part of the Iraqis in helping the United Nations and if they ignore the international community, the position will be different. Then the United Nations would say so. We are not in that position now.
Did President Bush seek any assurances from the Irish Government in respect of action in Iraq? Did the Taoiseach offer any assurances to President Bush in respect of action in Iraq or did he leave the door open for further consultation at diplomatic level?
The only thing asked for and the only commitment given at this stage is that we will continue to work closely with the Americans and the United Nations. We will certainly do that.
I wish to change the subject to Northern Ireland. Has the Taoiseach any grounds for confidence that there will be further acts of decommissioning in the short to medium term? If so, what are the grounds for that confidence?
First, I do not have any information. I would be disappointed if the process and the consultations with General de Chastelain, which have continued since their commencement in October, do not move things on another step. I do not know when that will happen. I hope it will happen in the shorter term rather than the medium term.
In his first reply, the Taoiseach said to me that the Government was doing everything possible to counter international terrorism. Can I take it from that that he is implying that there is no particular need for the three Bills which I listed that are designed specifically to bring us into line with international measures to combat international terrorism? Will those Bills be published before this Dáil ends? Will the Bills be enacted?
When the Taoiseach mentioned that there were armed and dangerous people, can I take it he was not referring to the hawks in the Pentagon in that statement because it was a very general statement? Does the Taoiseach agree that there are measures being taken from time to time to combat terrorism that can be counterproductive, particularly the military actions involving the use of weapons such as the big BLU-82 bomb, which collapses lungs, breaks eardrums and pulls out eyes, as reported recently in The Guardian and The Irish Times? This is part of the American arsenal in the fight against terrorism. Is that to be condoned? In the light of that type of response to the threat of terrorism, can the Taoiseach say if the people and this Dáil will be asked to make a decision before any further Irish facilities, such as airports, are made available to the US military forces? That was the case in the Gulf War when Charles Haughey was Taoiseach. Will that be the position if there is further action?
In reply to the Deputy's question on legislation, a lot of powers already exist to deal with these issues. Other legislation is in the process of being formulated and is in the system.
We either mean it or we do not.
It will have to be passed, whether this side of the summer or not. The Deputy's earlier question implied there was some delay or difficulty but this is not so. The American administration and the UN are aware of the process and the issue is not being delayed.
I was not referring to the Pentagon, as the Deputy asked with tongue in cheek. All wars and conflicts bring their own difficulties. I do not think the Deputy is saying the world should stand back and allow military dictators or people with access to large amounts of money to build up stores of weapons which can be used indiscriminately against humanity. It is sometimes stated that the actions of such people are not seen but we saw their terrible crimes in front of our eyes six months ago. We cannot now forget that 6,000 people were blown away while trying to do a day's work.
There are now crimes on both sides.
Those people did no harm to anyone. They merely turned up for work on 11 September, whether in the Pentagon, in Pittsburgh or elsewhere. That should not be forgotten. If there are people who are prepared to ignore the UN Security Council's resolutions and perpetrate actions against their own people we must all decide where we stand with regard to them. I would stand with the United States and not with a crowd of murderers and dangerous people. I am not sure where Deputy Sargent would stand. I merely answer his question.
For justice, actually.
There was not much justice on 11 September or on many other occasions throughout the years either. It is thanks to the United States of America and to its actions on many occasions there is more justice in the world than there might otherwise be.
(Dublin West): What justice was there for the 6,000 innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan?
The issue of other fly-over arrangements does not arise at this stage and if it did it would be for the Government to make a decision.
It would be a matter for the Dáil.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the reaction to the recent controversial speech by Mr. David Trimble and to his insulting remarks directed at the State has distracted attention from a far more important part of the speech which related to a referendum on the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland? Would the Taoiseach agree that instead of concentrating on something that would entirely polarise the Northern Ireland community the emphasis should be on bedding down the Good Friday Agreement institutions and on representatives of the two traditions working together to tackle the social, economic, political, cultural and other problems of Northern Ireland? When that has been done we can turn our minds to other things.
Would the Taoiseach further agree that predictions of a united Ireland within five or ten years, or even before the centenary of the 1916 rebellion, are dangerous nonsense and, for those of us who believe in a united Ireland in the proper circumstances in the future, possibly self-defeating? Is it not time such nonsense stopped?
I broadly agree with what Deputy Currie has said. I do not want to say anything about the first part of the speech. I have stated on the record that I regret the remarks and believe the analysis is unfounded. However, I have said my piece on that matter and believe we should move on.
Deputy Currie is right that the second part of the speech is more important. Deputy Currie will recall that it was argued that provision for a plebiscite on this issue every seven or ten years should be included in the Good Friday Agreement. At the time I was on the side of the ten year position because I felt that was an appropriately long period. Then it was felt by David Trimble it was wrong to put in that period because it might be too short, so it was not inserted. The wording is that when both Governments and the pro-Agreement parties clearly see there is a view among the people for this, they will take a different position.
An analysis or examination of the public record at that time or the negotiations that went on will show that the issue would be dealt with in the long term rather than the short term, as the Deputy said, and certainly not within a decade. The feeling during the debate was that it would be the other side of a decade or the centenary in 2016 or whatever, but certainly not within a decade.
The first review of the Agreement, which will deal with the most important aspects, is not for four years and nobody could have foreseen that it would be otherwise. However, to say before the review of the Agreement that the major clause should be deleted and a plebiscite held makes no sense and it certainly was not the basis of the prolonged discussions I had on this and many other issues. That was not the position.
It is a dangerous thing to talk about, not to mind think of doing, because so much of the Agreement must not alone be implemented but enforced administratively. That will take a considerable number of years. The review itself, which will probably be held at the end of 2003, will highlight where things are and there is a checklist which will take another four or five years. To try to have a vote before that would be entirely unhelpful to the process and to combine it with the first Assembly elections since the Agreement in May 2003 would be a disaster.
Totally.
That is a zany proposal.
I remind the Taoiseach of something else I said on a number of occasions when I quoted the late Cardinal Conway. He was asked at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement whether he believed that if the agreement brought about equality in Northern Ireland, it would mean that Catholics would become Unionists or that because Catholics were being treated on the basis of equality, they would be spurred on to a united Ireland. The cardinal replied that he was quite prepared to leave that matter to history. While we would like history to be much shorter, does the Taoiseach agree that is the way things should evolve and it is dangerous to make these predications, although this has probably resulted in some quarters from the oversell of the Agreement in terms of bringing about a united Ireland in the short term?
I would make three points. First, these issues should be allowed to take their passage in time. It is clearly set out in the Agreement how that will happen. Following the full implementation of the Agreement, people can reflect on whether there is support for a plebiscite. Second, to combine it with an election would create friction and tension. The Assembly elections will be the first since the Good Friday Agreement. There are enough difficulties, whatever the outcome of the election in 14 months. A new First Minister and Deputy First Minister will have to be appointed and it will have to be ensured the institutions work.
Third, many issues have been addressed and are working well such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Human Rights Commission and the criminal justice review. These are all important issues but, quite frankly, it will take the better part of this decade, unless I am totally misreading the situation, for them to work through the system.
On the occasion of the Taoiseach's recent visit to Washington, why did he present a piece of Tipperary Crystal rather than Waterford Crystal to the President, bearing in mind there is short time working at the Waterford Crystal plants? Is any of the Tipperary Crystal product manufactured in the State? How many people are working at the Tipperary Crystal plant?
Tyrone Crystal might have been more appropriate.
I know the Deputy is very serious. In recent years we have tried to avoid always having one brand. There are several crystal companies in the country. Last year I presented Dublin Crystal and Waterford Crystal in the previous year. Other colleagues this year presented Waterford Crystal. We try to share it fairly.
My second and third questions were not answered. I asked the Taoiseach if any of the Tipperary Crystal product is manufactured in the State and how many people are working at the Tipperary Crystal plant.
That does not arise in any of the questions.
It certainly does arise. Is the Taoiseach going to answer?
During my time at the Department of Labour, I spent about nine months in the Deputy's city trying to keep the Waterford plant open. Most of those who moved to Tipperary were the Deputy's fellow county people. That may have changed since then.
That does not answer the question.
(Dublin West): Following from that and knowing how challenged President Bush is in matters of discrimination, can the Taoiseach be sure he knew the name of the plant that was in the crystal bowl? Maybe the President thought he was being given a bowl of parsley for his Texas steak.
Did President Bush, when telling the Taoiseach that he was still chasing evil and dangerous remnants of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, express any regret that the United States started that jihad in the 1980s and called into being, trained and financed those forces whom he now labels as evil? When the Taoiseach gave President Bush his full support for the so-called war on terror, was the Taoiseach giving the President backing for the United States continuing to arm and support the Israeli Prime Minister and war criminal, Sharon, as he slaughters innocent men, women and children in the Palestinian homelands, laying waste their territory and destroying their homes all in the name of the war against terror? Did the Taoiseach raise the battering of the Palestinian people and the consequences of the slaughter of innocent Israelis? Was it not shameful for a Taoiseach to give that kind of unqualified support to a leader of the United States who needs restraining rather than encouragement?
I ask the Deputy to conclude as we are coming to the end of the Taoiseach's questions.
(Dublin West): Why is the Government standing back and not taking a leading role internationally in defending the innocent Palestinian people and bringing this to the attention of the United States?
I appreciated the opportunity to have quite a long discussion last week with President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell on the Middle East and I was able to spell out what we believe. While the situation is difficult, there are grounds for some hope. Our people at the UN were very much involved in drawing up last week's Security Council Resolution 1397, which represents a landmark because for the first time it speaks of a state of Palestine. From the meetings President Arafat has had with me and other Members of this House, I know this was something he was very anxious to achieve. As I have done on many occasions, last week I again raised the horrific events and the enormous pressure that has been put on the Palestinians by the Israelis.
I was assured that the US is now again fully engaged with this process after being out of it for a long time, which we did not support. Special envoy General Anthony Zini is back working in the region and Vice President Chaney is also there. It may only be a glimmer, but there is some hope that the international community may be able to help. It was also discussed at length at the weekend and the EU is very anxious to help. Through our roles in the EU and particularly in the United Nations, we will do all we possibly can to help ease the tensions. A point I made both to the President last week and at the EU meeting is that tit for tat killings never work.
It does not stop a deplorable situation. What happens is that the situation gets worse. John Hume said on many occasions that in the case of an eye for an eye everyone ends up blind. That is the difficulty in regard to what has been happening in the Middle East. The lack of engagement by the international community was part of that, but we should at least be grateful that last week's UN resolution was a forward step whereby, for the first time, every country supported the United States in a resolution of this nature.
When the Taoiseach was in the United States he met the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board. I understand the flow of American investment through the IDA pipeline has been almost cut off this year. What are the prospects for the future and did he discuss the issue with the advisory board?
The flow of American investment will be low everywhere this year. While we moved from $7 million or $8 million to $27 million or $28 million in a short period, we must now work very hard, as will every other country, to try to maintain this investment in the future. The view of the advisory board is that things will remain very difficult this year. Senior business people do not think there will be an enormous improvement in the first nine months of this year. They believe it will be into next year before companies and investors begin to move. There is a retraction of investment in the United States and there is a large amount of restructuring taking place. There are many chapter 11 companies. Many companies who are expanding are using the sales of goods from chapter 11 companies and liquidation proceedings to restock. Because of this, stocking levels are not going through the system. It is thought that this will flow through the system in the last quarter or into next year. While some sectors are already showing growth across the board they do not think this will happen in a substantive way this year. That certainly will not lead to great flows in inward investment.
Has the Taoiseach a final comment in regard to tourism?
There are mixed messages on tourism. Corporate travel has taken an enormous hit, which will continue. The outlook is not nearly as bleak for tourism as I thought it would be. I have spoken to Bord Fáilte, CIE and others and they believe the year will not be as bad as people expected. However, corporate travel has almost ended for now.