The Taoiseach to make a statement on the Sunningdale Agreement.
Sunningdale Agreement: Statement by Taoiseach.
On a point of order, under what Standing Order or rules is such a statement made, not that I am objecting to it being made? If there is a Standing Order that allows such a statement to be made are the Opposition entitled to have any say in the matter? Where there is more than one element in the Opposition are those elements entitled to have something on the record as well if they so think fit?
It is a longstanding practice Deputy—it is quite rigid; I have no discretion in the matter—that in the issuance of statements of this kind only the Leader or Leaders of the Opposition party or parties are allowed to speak. There is no motion before the House. Therefore there can be no debate and the Chair has no discretion in this matter at all.
Again, on a point of order, is it not with the implied unanimous consent of the House that any such statement may be made? Furthermore, did this practice not arise originally, and indeed solely, from a practice where such was allowed when a National Loan or some such matter was introduced, where the support of the Opposition would be forthcoming and where it was allowed that there should be a statement to support this? This practice developed from that but was never intended to cover it.
There is a lot in what the Deputy says in that regard. It is with the consent of the House that such a statement is permitted.
The Leader of the Opposition, representing the vast bulk of the Opposition in this House, and the Taoiseach may have their own views expressed. In those circumstances it follows then that anybody holding a different view to either of those is left without any voice or any record in regard to a matter as important as this. Does that seem proper or fair?
The Deputy is entitled to his opinion in that regard. The Chair has a function to rule and has ruled previously that he cannot call on any other Deputy on such an occasion.
Is there such a Standing Order?
It is a longstanding practice to which the Chair is bound to conform.
There is no Standing Order.
At the Sunningdale Conference the following declarations were made:
The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status.
The British Government solemnly declared that it was, and would remain, their policy to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom. If in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland, the British Government would support that wish.
The Government are aware that their declaration has been the subject of some controversy and that misconceptions have arisen in relation to it. The Government were advised that as the declaration was the subject of legal proceedings firstly in the High Court and later on appeal to the Supreme Court it would not be proper for them to comment on the matters that had been raised until the issues ceased to be sub judice. The judgments in the Supreme Court have now been delivered and the Government are glad of the opportunity which is thus afforded to them to clarify misunderstandings and correct certain misconceptions.
All the parties at the Sunningdale Conference were fully aware of the divergent political attitudes which were represented at the conference. They were concerned however not to accentuate those divergences, but to find ways to bring about accord in this island. With this end in view each Government in making its declaration was concerned to assist in the process of reconciliation which the conference was endeavouring to promote.
Instead of indulging in essentially arid and potentially divisive arguments as to the rights and wrongs of historic events now long past, the Irish Government considered that they should concern themselves with the present and look to the future, and see how best they could serve the common cause of securing peace and justice in Northern Ireland. The Government were well aware that differences exist in the constitutional law of the Republic of Ireland and of the United Kingdom as to the status of Northern Ireland but they considered that it would not be helpful to debate those constitutional differences.
They considered that peace and progress could best be secured by allaying fears which, however unjustified the Government felt them to be, were nonetheless very real. Their object therefore in making their solemn declaration to the conference was to reassure those in the majority community of Northern Ireland who were apprehensive of the new institutions which were being created—the power sharing Executive and the Council of Ireland. The Government therefore declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status. The declaration was of course referring to the de facto status of Northern Ireland, that is to say the factual position, to which reference is made in recent judgments in the High Court and the Supreme Court. The factual position of Northern Ireland is that it is within the United Kingdom and my Government accept this as a fact.
I now therefore solemnly reaffirm that the factual position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom cannot be changed except by a decision of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. This declaration, I believe, is in accordance with and follows from the resolve of all the democratic parties in the Republic that the unity of Ireland is to be achieved only by peaceful means and by consent.
The declarations of the Irish and British Governments, and the arrangements agreed at Sunningdale, will be incorporated in a formal agreement to be signed at the formal stage of the conference. This formal agreement will be brought before the Dáil and registered with the United Nations.
I believe that what I have said here today represents the view of this House. I hope it will also be heard across political and community divisions by all who want to see an end for ever to conflict and dissension in any part of Ireland.
All of us who live today in the island of Ireland have inherited an immensely difficult and complex problem which has brought suffering and death to innocent men and women in each generation. It is a problem which no previous generation in our history— whatever else it may have achieved— was able to resolve. The way is open to us who live in Ireland at this particular time to begin to resolve it. The House can be assured that this work, pursued in recent years, will be carried forward by my Government with energy and resolution.
We welcome the fact that the Government at last have given some clarification of what they meant by their declaration in paragraph 5 of the Sunningdale communiqué. I think it unfortunate that this clarification was so long delayed, but it was, perhaps, even more unfortunate that the declaration was so ambiguously drafted as to require this clarification.
I have always maintained, and I am on the record of this House to this effect, that in dealings between Unionists and the rest of the Irish people clear, honest statements of positions and aspirations are more likely to lead to fruitful understanding and progress eventually than opaque ambiguous statements the effect of which in bridging differences can only be short-lived.
The confusion that arose out of the wording of paragraph 5 of the Sunningdale communiqué was added to by many statements from different quarters and by the continuing refusal of the Government to explain their position. The statement by the Taoiseach that the Government's declaration as set out in paragraph 5 was referring to the de facto status of Northern Ireland is, therefore, welcome, even if belated. The de jure positions of the two sovereign Governments concerned remain unchanged. As between the Irish Government and the British Government there are conflicting constitutional claims.
As between those who wish to maintain the constitutional link with Britain and the rest of the Irish people, the position is somewhat different. There is a full understanding and recognition of the political aspirations of Unionists but there is also a firm conviction that in the course of time most Unionists will come to see that their best interests lie in a united Ireland. In seeking to bring about a united Ireland we in Dáil Éireann have abjured violence and seek agreement.
Fianna Fáil's position in this matter is set out in an amendment in the name of our Leader, Deputy Lynch, to a motion recently discussed in this House. I quote from that amendment:
...that Dáil Éireann...
Declares that the use or advocacy of violence to secure unity is abhorrent to it,
Re-affirms the inalienable right of the people of Ireland to a united Ireland,
Re-affirms their aspiration to achieve this by peaceful means, and
Accepts that for practical purposes this involves the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland.
We do not expect any substantial change in political aspirations in the short term. As I have said, we understand and recognise the basic political aspirations of Unionists. We ask them to do the same for the rest of the Irish people and to accept that we have no desire or intention of trying to coerce them into a united Ireland. If they would do that, it could constitute a major step towards ridding this island of politically motivated violence. With those who support the two major political and constitutional aspirations in this country agreeing to differ on these aspirations and foreswearing violence to achieve their aims, the men of violence would be much more effectively isolated.
We believe that the concept of a power sharing executive and a Council of Ireland, far from being a threat to Unionists, constitutes the best hope of establishing a climate in which the people of Northern Ireland can live normal, peaceful, industrious lives. Like the Government, we recognise that the fears in regard to these institutions, however unjustified we feel them to be, are nonetheless very real. I would reiterate the views expressed by Deputy Lynch in this House on 27th February last and reported at column 1681 of the Official Report. When speaking of the Council of Ireland, he said:
Even if there was a desire on the part of one side to dominate the other then the proposed structure and composition of the Council of Ireland as indicated in the Sunningdale communiqué would, I believe, make that impossible.
We believe the Council of Ireland could have great potential for the economic development of the whole island, thereby improving the lot of all the Irish people, north and south. We also believe it could play a major role in reconciling different traditions and aspirations in Ireland, while recognising that such differences are real and deep-rooted. In this connection, while the Taoiseach may be right in saying that we should concern ourselves with the present and look to the future, I believe it would be both unrealistic and self-defeating to attempt to ignore the facts of our history which have produced the present situation in Northern Ireland.
In short, I believe Unionists could have a great deal to gain and, because of its structure, nothing to lose in the proposed Council of Ireland. We welcome the Government's clarification of their position and trust it will contribute to a realistic assessment of the situation now existing, and thereby expedite the movement to establish peace and justice in Northern Ireland, an aim for which Fianna Fáil have worked hard and not unsuccessfully for a long time.
Order of Business.
On a point of order, at the conclusion of the Taoiseach's statement he said he believed he expressed the view of this House——
Has the Deputy a point of order to make?
I want to ask whether the Taoiseach is entitled to express this as the view of the House without having that view expressed by Members of the House?
That is hardly a point of order.
I am afraid it is. Is it not the case that if one does not agree with what has been said, it is the right of a Member of this House to indicate this? I disagree with the declaration——
The Deputy is seeking to make a statement. He knows the views of the Chair in the matter. The Chair trusts the Deputy will not behave in a disorderly fashion.
I am in a difficulty as the Chair will see.
The Deputy will have to seek another opportunity to express his views on this matter. He cannot and may not do so now.
My views are——
On a point of order, I wish to record my reservation for future discussion——
Order of Business.