asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the new British initiative announced for the Six Counties.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - British Initiative on Six Counties.
2.
In replying to Parliamentary Questions on Government policy in relation to Northern Ireland on 17 October last I indicated our belief that ultimately the way to reconcile the two major traditions and to create permanent peace and stability in Ireland lay in the free and voluntary coming together of the people of Ireland under agreed political structures. I also said that the process of discussion and negotiation we favoured to that end would be promoted, without any question of imposing a solution, by a declaration by the British Government of their readiness to encourage the unity of Ireland, by agreement, in independence and in a harmonious relationship between the two islands. That remains our position. I indicated also that the immediate need was to end the political vacuum and stalemate in the North and that the immediate priority was therefore to establish in Northern Ireland a system of devolved administration which the majority of people in both sections of the community could support and sustain. The major responsibility for devising the form and substance of such a system rests with the British Government but a solution will require the co-operation of the two Governments and of both parts of the community in the North.
The Government, in their statement of 21 November 1979, following publication of the British Government's Working Paper for the proposed conference, recalled the indications given in that reply and on all other occasions of the way in which the Government would wish to see progress made. We indicated that we would be observing developments closely with a view to assessing whether any combination of the elements outlined in the British Working Paper was likely to meet the basic criteria of acceptability to both sections of the community in Northern Ireland and of bringing about the appropriate climate in which further political progress could be made in relation to all the aspects of this tragic and complex situation. I would draw attention here to the reference to "all the aspects".
The Government who had deliberately left it to the parties in Northern Ireland to give initial reactions to the Working Paper have now noted that the paper has not met a basic criterion, referred to in our statement of 21 November, of acceptability to both sections of the community in the North. We would urge that further consideration be given to those aspects of the paper which are the subject of current controversy so as to ensure that an appropriate climate for political progress is brought about.
I should like the Minister to tell us what all that was about. Can he tell us specifically what is left, after the production of this document, of the Government's recently announced policy? In other words, what has happened and what is to happen in relation to the ignoring of the Irish dimension, to the abandonment of any thought of unity of the country and since power sharing is not on? This situation would appear to have taken care of all that was left of Fianna Fáil policy.
Regarding the first part of the supplementary, I appreciate that the Deputy was not here when I started the reply but I will ensure that a copy of the full reply is made available to him afterwards so that he may read it in detail. Regarding the Deputy's question about the Irish dimension, the Government's policy has been outlined in the House on innumerable occasions and that policy remains as it has been.
What I am really asking is, in view of the fact that through all the recent issues of Government policy in respect of the Six Counties, we would appear to have been left with but three aspects—the Irish dimension, eventual unity, which is a sort of pious wish, and power sharing-since all three of those aspects are now effectively wiped out and just not on so far as Mrs. Thatcher is concerned, where do we go from here in so far as Government policy is concerned?
First, the Deputy is being premature in assuming that all these aspects are now being left aside. There is continuing discussion and development in relation to the recent British proposals and the Government, as I said in the reply initially, would urge that further consideration be given to those aspects of the paper which are the subject of current controversy. I understand that the other participants in these discussions are making their points of view quite clear also.
It is regrettable, though understandable, that the Taoiseach is not here to answer this very important question. However, can the Minister say whether the statement made by the Taoiseach during an RTE radio interview to the effect that at this time he would not insist on an Irish dimension, still holds?
It would be false to suggest that the Taoiseach made such a statement or to take out of context in such a way what he said. The Taoiseach indicated that he would not press the formal structures at that stage but at all times he has continued to represent to the British Government in particular the need to encourage the ultimate unification of Ireland and the need for the British Government to make clear their position in that respect. I might add that the House would appear to be forgetting that the Taoiseach was the first person to get from the British Government an official recognition of an Irish dimension.
That is not true.
On a point of clarification, in what way am I taking out of context the Taoiseach's reply during the interview concerned? Did the Taoiseach not state clearly on that occasion that at that point he would not insist on an Irish dimension? Have the Government changed their view as expressed then and, if so, might the House be so informed?
I am sure that if the Deputy wishes to table a question in relation to a specific point and in context, the Taoiseach would be glad to deal with the matter. There are innumerable references to the fact that the Taoiseach has made quite clear that he continues to press and encourage the British Government at the same time that these negotiations are going on to declare their interests in the ultimate unification of the country.
Would the Minister not accept that one of the major factors in arriving at the situation we are in today with regard to Northern Ireland is the fact that the Government are facing continuously in about six different directions on Northern Ireland? Could they not be clear about their position with regard to Northern Ireland, the Irish dimension and the question of power-sharing within the context of Northern Ireland? The Government cannot have it every way without serious consequences and risk of the loss of life in Northern Ireland.
The Deputy did not know what his own Government were doing.
He never called the Taoiseach a liar.
It is about time the Government came clean.
(Interruptions.)
Did I understand the Minister to say that the Government were entering into discussions about the aspects of the document that were causing controversy? Is it not a fact that what is causing controversy is what is not in the document and not what is in it? Will the Minister ask the Government to try to identify points that are controversial from the point of view of the minority population in the North and make representations to the Government of the United Kingdom in regard to them?
I can assure the Deputy that the Government will do that. In fact the last paragraph of my reply is related to that matter, if Deputies wish to read it when it is available in detail.
It is what is not in the document that is causing the trouble.
Is it not a fact that the British Government at the end of 1973 solemnly declared that they would support the wish for unity in the North of Ireland if that wish was ever expressed by the majority in the North? Has not every party represented in the Dáil voted for resolutions which had the same effect? What, therefore, remains to be done in the sense of getting a declaration which, as far as I am concerned, the British have already given? What more does the Minister of State pretend—it is only pretence—he wants the British to do?
The Deputy is aware that the Sunningdale Agreement did run into difficulties subsequently——
Here in the House.
——and the Deputy can take it that the Taoiseach was quite conscious of that fact. I should like everybody to be clear about the fact that that is not being critical of the agreement, but in the development of policy subsequently one must take into consideration the after effects of the Sunningdale Agreement. The Taoiseach has made it clear that he continues to support an agreement and procedures within the North of Ireland which will receive the support of the majority of both communities, whatever name is put on such arrangements and agreements. They are currently a matter of discussion.
Neither the last Government nor this Government have ever, formally or informally, denounced or backed away from the Sunningdale Agreement. The fact that it did not work is neither here nor there. Is it not a fact that the British Government never receded or recoiled from the solemn declaration they then made? The declaration was to support Irish national unity if the majority in the North supported it. That is still on record, has never been denounced, receded or recoiled from. Is that not a fact?
I should like to make it clear that I was talking about the aftermath of the Sunningdale Agreement in that context.
Why are the Government not satisfied to speak plainly to the British and hold them to the standards which were fought for and established at Sunningdale? We will never do better than that while that sort of thing goes on on the far side.
What are the Government doing about this initiative? What have they done since it was published? Will the Minister and the Government take into consideration that there are other people vitally concerned with the partition of our country, particularly those immediately contiguous to it, as well as the majority and the minority in the Six Counties? Is it not now clear—Sunningdale, the executive, the initiative and all the rest—that there is not any point in continuing with any of those half-hearted measures? Does the Minister agree that we should be seeking what I thought Fianna Fáil were leading up to a year or so ago, a declaration of intent to withdraw bag and baggage out of the country?
In reply to the Deputy's question in relation to what the Government have been doing, I should like to tell him that that is on record in the House. The matter was discussed on many occasions and the Taoiseach made clear statements about it in the House. It is in very good and safe hands.
Do the Government agree or disagree that in the document published by the British Government the possibility of power sharing exists?
We are going into questions covering many aspects.
I want the Government's view on the contents of a document which was published last week.
That is a separate question.
It is not.
If the Deputy tables a separate question on the matter I will consider it.
Am I to take it from that reply that the Government have not considered the document?
No. I would prefer if the Deputy would not keep leading the press and other people in that way. Sometimes when the Deputy gets a half answer he leads off in another direction.
All I got in the last two-and-a-half years were half answers.
From statements in the House and statements witnessed by the Deputy the Government have made clear their approach to this question and that they have the matter under consideration. I should like to repeat the last paragraph of my reply which I read slowly to give everybody an opportunity of hearing the points in it. I stated that the Government who had deliberately left it to the parties in Northern Ireland to give initial reactions to the Working Paper have now noted that the paper has not met a basic criterion, referred to in our statement on 21 November, of acceptability to both sections of the community in the North. I stated that we would urge that further considerations be given to those aspects of the paper which are the subject of current controversy so as to ensure that an appropriate climate for political progress is brought about. If the Deputy does not understand that I will gladly meet him later and, perhaps, explain it further.
I do not want a meeting afterwards; I want this matter clarified in the House. Am I to take it from this that on the important national question the Government have no independent view?
(Interruptions.)
It is clear from what has been announced that it is just hot buttered toast compared with what Fianna Fáil were saying in 1975 when in Opposition. We will hear it again from them when they are in Opposition.
Since the question was taken Deputy Kelly has made about six statements. I am calling question No. 3.
I do not mean any disrespect to the Minister of State but I would prefer if the question was answered by the Taoiseach.
I have answered that question.
There was an altercation on another question when the Minister of State stood up. I would prefer the Taoiseach to answer that question.
The Chair has no objection if the Minister is prepared to allow it to be re-answered by the Taoiseach.
I will read it again if the Deputy wishes.
I want the question postponed to be answered by the Taoiseach in the House and that is my right.
I am prepared to postpone the question although I have read the reply.
The Minister of State is subject to the ruling of the Chair, like the rest of us.
He knows that.
The Minister pays attention, which the Deputy does not.
Question No. 3 postponed.