Vol. 274 No. 4
asked the Taoiseach if he will make an up-to-date statement on policy in relation to Northern Ireland having regard to the statement by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in a radio interview on 30th June to the effect that he was not working towards Irish unity.
2.
asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with the British Prime Minister at Chequers.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Government's position in relation to Northern Ireland has been very fully expounded recently by myself and the other Government speakers in the Dáil debate and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Seanad. The lines of policy enunciated in those statements remain valid and I do not propose to add to them other than to say that the common ground of all the recent Ministerial statements, including the one to which the Deputy refers, has been that the Government's principal and urgent concern is to do everything possible to bring about peace and reconciliation and the reconstruction of power sharing in Northern Ireland.
Since those debates took place, the British Government's White Paper, entitled The Northern Ireland Constitution, has been published. As I said in a statement last Friday, the White Paper outlines some realities which must be taken into account in considering provisions for the future government of Northern Ireland. I should like to reiterate my wish that the processes of discussion and consultation envisaged in the White Paper will be attended with success.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the statement made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on RTE, to which I referred in my first question, was made after the debate on the Northern Ireland situation in this House and therefore represented a new situation as far as the Taoiseach's statement and those of the other members of the Government are concerned?
As the Deputy is aware, there has since been a debate in the Seanad. As I said in my reply, I confirm that the Government policy as enunciated in all these statements remains valid and has not been changed.
Was the statement by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in the radio interview on 30th June, to the effect that he was not working towards Irish unity, made with the Taoiseach's prior knowledge; if it was made with his prior knowledge, had it his approval; and does it represent Government policy?
The Deputy has carefully selected a particular part of the statement. As he knows from experience, a single extraction from a lengthy statement or interview does not accurately represent the substance of the interview. As I said, the statement made by the Minister is in line with the policy decisions which were dealt with by myself in the Dáil and, since then, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Seanad.
I do not think it could be possible to take this particular statement out of context as was suggested by way of explanation or alleviation of it by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his interview last Sunday. The statement was specifically to the effect that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was not working towards Irish unity. He is a member of the Government and the concept of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet still obtains, I hope. If that statement means, as it appears to mean, that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not working towards Irish unity, does that mean that the Coalition Government also are not working towards Irish unity?
The Deputy is also aware if he read—as he appears to have—the statement, that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was asked: "Do you support the aspiration itself? Do you still want unity?" The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs replied: "I hold the aspiration. If you can say you hold an aspiration in this sense, I would be absolutely overjoyed if Ireland were to become united peacefully and by consent."
If I hold an aspiration to become a millionaire, I know it is not likely, and therefore I am not working towards that event. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said it was not likely that unity could be achieved and therefore he was not working towards that event. Is there not a flagrant conflict of policy, as we understand the Coalition policy to be, between that statement and what the Taoiseach now tries to pretend it is, that is, the policy of the Government.
I have made Government policy quite clear. I can confirm that on the same occasion the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said in reference to unity peacefully and by consent: "There is no political outcome that would bring me more deeper and lasting joy than that." That is very definite.
Question No. 3.
I know if I became a millionaire it would bring me deeper and lasting joy but I know that will not happen. Is the Taoiseach aware that it is now widely believed that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is dictating and changing Government policy in relation to our unity aspirations? Is he further aware that it is widely believed that he is doing this deliberately in order to put in jeopardy the unified approach which this Parliament wants to adopt towards that problem? If that is the case, the responsibility will lie in the first instance with the Minister concerned, in general with the Cabinet and, ultimately, with the Taoiseach if that policy is put in jeopardy.
What the Deputy has said does not mean it is widely accepted. I do not accept that the Fianna Fáil view of a particular situation is necessarily the correct one or the one that is widely held. I have said what Government policy is, and that is what it is.
Is the Taoiseach aware that at present people do not know where they stand in relation to Government policy on this situation? Certainly we are in grave doubt——
There are no bags of guns anyway.
It is a matter for the Taoiseach to ensure that the policy he is pursuing will be such as to command the support of the vast majority of the Irish people. I will leave that matter and pass to the second question which the Taoiseach answered with the first question. Even though both questions were put down before publication of the British Government's White Paper, the purpose of my putting down the second question was to elicit whether the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was given any prior information about the contents of the White Paper at his meeting with the British Prime Minister at the Socialist Conference in Chequers.
The meeting at Chequers had nothing to do with the White Paper. It was a private meeting and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs represented the Tánaiste in his capacity as Leader of the Labour Party.
Notwithstanding newspaper comment to the contrary that no reference was made to Northern Ireland in his contacts with the British Prime Minister on that occasion?
That is a different question. First, I am not responsible for newspaper comment and I think it is a mistake to be unduly influenced by it in circumstances like this. The Deputy is aware that this was a meeting at which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs represented the Tánaiste. Any reference to Ireland was in his capacity as a representative of the Tánaiste and as a member of the Labour Party.
Are we to take it that no indication was given to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs on that occasion as to the contents of the British White Paper? Were any indications of its actual contents given to the Government in advance of its publication?
The Government got a copy of the paper only when it was released for publication.
Did the Government have any influence in its drafting or in its content?
No.
They should have.
I should like to ask the Taoiseach——
I think Deputies will agree I have given a lot of latitude to Questions 1 and 2. I do not propose to continue on this matter for much longer.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the attendance of the Fianna Fáil Party at the Oxford seminar on Northern Ireland was blacked out by newspapers as well as by RTE? I am wondering if this implies that the influence established by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs within RTE also extends to the newspapers.
That is a separate question. I am calling Question No. 3.
