I have received notice from the Taoiseach that he proposes to make a statement under Standing Order 38.
Taoiseach's North American Visit: Statements.
A Cheann Comhairle, I feel it is appropriate that I report to the House on the outcome of my visit to Canada and the United States over the last couple of weeks. I am glad to be able to tell the House that it was both a busy and a very successful visit, and one which I believe will contribute substantially to furthering interests shared by all Members of the House, especially the interest we have in the major issues of peace on our island and progress towards the goal of reducing unemployment.
A highlight of the journey was, of course, my official visit to Canada at the invitation of the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Mulroney. This was the first such official visit by a Taoiseach since 1949 and I was very warmly received by Mr. Mulroney and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Joe Clark, at the Federal House of Commons in Ottawa.
Relations between Ireland and Canada have not, in my view, been sufficiently developed over the past 35 years despite the many common bonds of history we share and the numbers of our people who have made their homes there. My visit improved the understanding and cordiality of the relationship between Ireland and Canada. This process will develop further when the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, makes his visit to Ireland at my invitation some time in the future.
At my meeting with the Prime Minister we discussed the recent Summit of major industrial countries in Bonn, from which he had just returned, with particular reference to the emerging danger of protectionism as it could affect our countries and world trade generally. I explained to the Prime Minister the current position of the Northern Ireland dialogue and was extremely glad to hear from him that he would be prepared to contribute to the maximum of his ability to any steps which we might find it possible to devise, leading to a peaceful and durable arrangement in that area.
We discussed other matters of mutual interest including the supply of Irish beef to the Canadian , industrial development policy Canada and Ireland, budgetary arrangements and strategies and the exchange rate policies in both countries. We also discussed East-West relations and world trade.
At a meeting with Secretary of State Clark, we talked in some detail on Central America and on the Middle East, including the place of UNIFIL there, and the role of the Irish contingent in that force. I invited the Secretary of State to Ireland for further discussion between our two countries, on the major aspects of foreign policy in which our two countries have a common interest. Arrangements are in hand to formalise contacts on certain of these aspects to an even greater degree.
I briefed the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Canadian media on the achievement of the parties to the Forum report which I presented as the first real movement made by any of the three parties to the crisis: the British, the Unionists and the Nationalists in Ireland. I will be returning to this topic later in my statement as it refers to various aspects of my work both in the United States of America as well as in Canada.
In a message after my departure from Canada I remarked on the fact that so much of our time in the discussions, both with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, was devoted to issues of peace, both in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the world, reflecting the particular vocation of our two countries to peace.
Before leaving this topic, I feel obliged to express my revulsion at the comment from Fianna Fail made on the first day of my official visit to Canada, referring to engagements "of no consequence". This graceless remark can be interpreted only as a gratuitous insult to the people and Government of Canada, and is one which I hope Fianna Fail have come to regret — and for which the Leader of that party may, perhaps, wish to express contrition in his statement later. I remain eternally optimistic.
In relation to one of the two major themes of my trip, namely the question of attracting foreign investment to Ireland, and the jobs it can create, I am glad to be able to tell the house of two very successful meetings with leading American industrialists. The first of these was in New York on Thursday, 2 May when I met a group that included the chairman of a dozen of the 100 largest corporations in the United States, including several of the biggest companies of all. In Boston on 6 May I met the leaders of 20 companies from the New England area, most of whom are discussing projects with the IDA.
Many of the companies whose chairman or chief executives I met are now in the process of deciding to locate projects in Ireland. The projects now at the final stages of decision-making involve over 1,000 jobs, despite Deputy Haughey. Many other companies I met are involved in serious discussions about prospects for future investment in Ireland, and several of my discussions were with chief executives of companies already located here who are considering the possibility of expansion.
The importance of these kinds of contact cannot be overestimated. Ministers on this side of the House, and indeed former Ministers now sitting on the benches opposite, and likely to remain there for some time, will know only too well how seriously such contact is taken by the companies involved. They want to know directly from members of the Government what Government policies are and in what way they are likely to develop; how their investments are likely to be viewed in the countries in which they decide to locate; and they have questions covering a multitude of areas, ranging from industrial relations to legislation covering safety at work, which can best be dealt with at the political level. The assurances they can receive from Government Ministers — especially from the highest level, that of Taoiseach — are often of critical importance in the decision-making process.
I was able to develop for those I met, both in the United States and Canada — and in an interview devoted to this subject specifically on prime time television on the NBC To-Day Programme — a number of important points about the welcoming environment of Ireland for new industry and investment; our young and well-educated workforce who are mobile, innovative and encouraging of change——
They are so mobile that they are emigrating.
——our system of low corporate taxation accepted by all the major parties in this House and which offers industrialists a secure advantage at least to the year 2,000. I was able to demonstrate the political stability of our State and to outline the range of grants and other facilities which are on offer for those who wish to join us in facing the future.
Taking all the contacts I made together, I am confident that several thousand jobs will be developed in time. Indeed, I note with pleasure that one of the companies I met is about to announce a high technology project which will bring 145 badly-needed jobs to Cork.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
It is my intention to emphasise at every level, both here and abroad, the continuing advantages of Ireland as a manufacturing and servicing base in a unified market of 320 million people. I would be very glad, in doing so, to have the support of all sides of this House, support that existed in the past. Real patriotism would suggest that this is necessary and infinitely preferable to opportunistic sniping.
A sheep and animal farm.
We do not know what the Taoiseach is doing.
I referred at the start of this statement to the issue of peace on our island. This visit presented me with an invaluable opportunity, both in Canada and the United States, as well as with the media and more general audiences, to outline the achievement of the parties to the Forum report. I explained on every occasion that it was on the basis of the Forum report that the current Anglo-Irish dialogue is proceeding.
I told the American and Canadian leaders and the audiences whom I addressed that I believed that the Forum's call for equal recognition of the rights of the nationalist and unionist traditions in Northern Ireland is the sine qua non for progress, and that this is, in the words I used in addressing the Press Club of Canada “a problem which must be addressed by both governments through joint co-operative arrangements if a fair and durable solution is to be found”— something that can be done only in the wider context of Anglo-Irish relations through the kind of discussions now proceeding between the Irish and British Governments.
I presented the Forum report as an expression of nationalist philosophy articulated on behalf of 90 per cent of nationalist opinion in this island, which completely cuts the ground from under the IRA and INLA, because it draws a clear and fundamental line between constitutional Irish nationalism and the nationalism that the terrorists have distorted and besmirched with innocent blood. I stressed that the terrorists have thus been denied by representatives of the overwhelming majority of nationalist opinion in the island any possible shred of political legitimacy for their campaign of intimidation and murder which, in the words of one of their proponents is, as we all know, designed to move on to the `the destabilisation of the south.'.
It may be of interest to the House if I mention briefly the people I met and with whom I discussed the importance of the Forum report as I have outlined it above. Apart from Prime Minister Mulroney and his Secretary of State, I had very helpful and positive discussions with Speaker O'Neill and Senator Kennedy, Governor Dukakis of Massachussetts, Governor Cuomo of New York and Mayor Flynn of Boston. In Boston I addressed the House of Representatives on this theme and I had a meeting with Cardinal-designate O'Connor in New York.
What has he to say to the Taoiseach?
Because of the importance to Ireland of the friendship and support of Irish Americans, I make a point on my visits to the US to have the closest possible contact with Irish American organisations. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, as Leader of the Opposition and as Taoiseach, I have availed of every opportunity to meet with, talk to and listen to those Irish Americans who have in so many ways shown their support for the achievement of Irish political, economic and cultural objectives.
On this visit I had an opportunity for informal contact with a representative gathering of Irish Americans at a reception in Boston. In New York, I invited to what was in fact a very cordial meeting at our Consulate General representatives of almost a score of organisations which included: AFL/CIO; Irish American Labour Coalition, Ancient Order of Hibernians, United Irish Foundation, Grand Council of United Emerald Societies, The Corkmen's Association, The Kerrymen's Association.
What about the Sioux Indians?
I am glad it is improbable that the reaction of the Opposition will be heard in the US. The insulting noises they have made in reference to these organisations would not do them any good.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Deputy Briscoe met with more organisations than those. We meet every month with the ones the Taoiseach has mentioned.
I met also with: The Saint Patrick's Day Committee, The Irish American Cultural Institute, American Irish Historial Society, American Committee for Irish Studies, American Irish Immigration Committee, The Louth Society, Project Children, The Irish Businessmen's Association, United Irish Counties and The Donegalmen's Association. These bodies will no doubt be interested to learn that Fianna Fáil, in the words of their spokesmen, regarded them as organisations "of no consequence".
There were no Provos on the list, Brian.
(Interruptions.)
I appeal to the House to allow the Taoiseach deliver his address without interruption.
For the benefit of the Opposition I might add that in some places there seemed to be hostile querying about the fund raising activities in the US of that party but that at that meeting I defended them. I have a bad conscience about that.
I should say that on all of these occasions I was encouraged by the support, so evidently growing now, for solutions to the problems of Northern Ireland and which reject the doctrine of violence. There is now much more awareness of, and support for, policies which seek peace through dialogue and the democratic process.
This growing perception among Irish-Americans is due in large part to the unremitting efforts of Irish leaders — including my predecessors in this office for the past 13 years or so — to sow the seeds of a commitment to dialogue and to peaceful means in all of their travels to North America. I consider it important that I was able to further that process.
In my absence abroad, the Leader of the Opposition criticised my presentation of the Forum report and of the Irish Government's position in relation to this report in the United States and Canada on the basis of press reports of my remarks at one function. Had he checked the record he would have found that what I did at that function was, first, to quote verbatim from Paragraph 4.15 of the Forum report to which both our parties subscribe, namely,
The solution to both the historic problem and the current crisis of Northern Ireland and the continuing problem of relations between Ireland and Britain, necessarily requires new structures that will accommodate together two sets of legitimate rights:
—the right of nationalists to effective political, symbolic and administrative expression of their identity, and
—the right of unionists to effective political, symbolic and administrative expression of their identity, their ethos and their way of life.
I then went on to say that the solution to the accommodation of these two rights has to be found in Northern Ireland, which is where the problem of accommodating these two sets of rights exists, not in this part of Ireland. That is blindingly evident. But — and here I quote the words that were omitted from the very middle of that sentence as it was published here in this country — I added "obviously the two Governments have a fundamentally important role to play in resolving it". If the Leader of the Opposition had checked, he would have ascertained that that was what I said.
I then went on in the immediately following sentences to describe the acceptance of this principle by the British Prime Minister in the Chequers communique and I continued by referring to the task facing our two Governments in turning this principle into practical form in terms of actual political action on the ground; and the need for the two Governments to find together the right approach to the task.
Everything I said about Northern Ireland on that occasion, as on others, related to the fact that this problem can be resolved only by the two Governments working together, not by the British Government alone acting within Northern Ireland. No one at that meeting nor at any other meeting or discussion I had during my visit to North America could have been in any doubt about my insistence that the problem cannot be resolved within the narrow context of Northern Ireland but requires, as I reiterated over and over again, radical action by the British Government to end the alienation of the Northern nationalist minority from the system of government, the security system, and the legal-judicial system in Northern Ireland.
That the Leader of the Opposition should have chosen to launch an attack on me as Head of Government, while outside the country, on the basis of one sentence of press reports of one speech which was both taken out of its context of the Forum report and which committed the central part of the sentence itself complained of, is a measure of his gross irresponsibility so far as our national interest and the Northern Ireland problem are involved.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
During my visit, I also met a wide range of influential media representatives, including some of the most important opinion formers in the United States. Thus, in New York, on 2 May, I hosted a press breakfast to brief the media. This was attended by representatives of such major New York and US media as the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, New York Daily News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, America Magazine, and also representatives of the major television networks and in Canada I addressed the Press Club of Canada in Ottawa. I was the guest at a luncheon hosted by the publisher of the New York Times, Mr. Arthur Sulzberger, at which I had an opportunity to meet the editorial board of that newspaper and to explain Irish Government policies with particular reference to the Northern Ireland situation, and I had a similar meeting in Boston with the editorial board of the Christian Science Monitor.
In addition, apart from the To-day Programme, on which I had the opportunity to tell a huge audience about the attractions of Ireland for industry, I undertook six other TV and radio interviews and my appearances before both the Canadian House of Commons and the Massachusetts legislature were broadcast live.
That is a fair list — better than a tape recorder in some freelance journalist's apartment.
On 2 May I had an important meeting with the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar at the UN Building in New York, during which we discussed the situation in Lebanon in detail. I took the opportunity of underlining the concern felt by the Irish people about incidents there involving attacks on Irish Army personnel and I assured him of our continuing commitment to making a concrete and positive contribution towards peace in that troubled area. We discussed the situations in the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq War and its consequences, as well as the situation in South Africa and particularly Namibia. The Secretary General outlined his views on Central America and I briefed him on the outlook in relation to Northern Ireland and the Anglo-Irish process. We also discussed the appalling famine tragedy in Ethiopia and Sudan and the Secretary General paid tribute to the contributions which the Irish people have made in this area. We discussed ways in which individual countries could further help to alleviate that dreadful tragedy.
Mr. De Cuellar formally invited me to participate next autumn in the ceremonies to mark the 40th Anniversary of the United Nations——
Is the Taoiseach going again?
——which are to be attended by the Heads of Governments of the major states of the world but from which, no doubt, the provincial-minded Opposition would wish for Ireland to be absent——
Deputies
Hear, hear.
——and I was honoured to accept on behalf of my country.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
In relation to the Bilderberg Meeting which I attended on 10 and 11 May in New York, the idea that this meeting represents a sinister — or even a secret — plot to undermine the neutrality of non-members of the North-Atlantic Alliance or democracy in the West would come as a very big suprise indeed to the members of government of other neutral countries — such as former Premier Palme of Sweden and former Chancellor Kreisky of Austria——
All hasbeens.
——and Ministers from these countries who have attended these meetings over the years — whose presence at them, is annually a matter of public record, available from the Bilderberg Conference Secretariat. Indeed several statesmen from neutral countries present at the meeting who had heard of the allegations being made in Ireland during my visit expressed frank and total incredulity that such suggestions could be given the slightest credence.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We can only expect that from Fianna Fáil.
The purpose of establishing the Bilderberg Meetings, was in fact "to provide an opportunity for regular off-the-record discussions which would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations."
For my own part, I regard the meeting, my attendance at which was included in the programme for my North-American visit made available before my departure, as an extremely useful place at which to make contact with, or to renew contact with, influential people whose goodwill can be of considerable benefit to this country. For instance, at this year's meeting I had useful discussions with the new Secretary General of the OECD, with Ministers of such countries as Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, with all of whom we share many interests and aspirations, and with two members of the British Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, Mr. Norman Tebbitt, and the Minister without Portfolia, Lord Young.
With regard to the agenda, while I missed the opening session on social and economic developments on both sides of the Atlantic, I attended a very informative session of the meeting on relations with developing countries. I contributed to this debate my own view that the debt problem of some of these countries, which is as much a problem for the lending as the borrowing countries, was being given undue attention there, at the expense of recognition of the desperate need for increased aid by the least-developed countries of south-east Asia and Africa. I also urged recognition of the scale of public support in many of the developed countries for aid, as exemplified not just by the official aid levels attained in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, but by the voluntary response in Ireland to the Ethiopian famine, which I pointed out was the equivalent to a sum of $1.5 billion in the United States.
I had the opportunity of listening also to informative discussions on the East-West problem, and on the US budget. I did not attend, nor was it ever my intention to attend — although Ministers from other neutral countries did so without any problem from their point of view — a session on NATO, which took place on the last day of the conference when I was on my way home via Halifax, Nova Scotia. There I had conferred upon me a Honorary Degree by the University of St. Mary's which since its foundation by an Irish priest has had close links with this country. I noted with interest that of the graduates on that occasion from several faculties between a quarter and one-fifth had Irish names.
Only the deepest of inferiority complexes could induce the kind of reactions that some persons have displayed to my attendance at this meeting, the participation in, and agenda of which are, incidentally, always available to the press, contrary to an impression that some people have sought to convey. I do not share this kind of paranoia and have no intention whatever of allowing it to inhibit me from furthering our national interests by maintaining and extending the range of international contacts, which during the past decade and more I have developed and from which this country has, I believe, benefited.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
If there are those who believe that I would ever, consciously or unconsciously, in either my official or my private capacity, take part in any forum where Ireland's interests can be threatened in any way, either in terms of our neutrality of or in respect of any of our other interests — if there are those who suffer from such a delusion, then they totally misunderstand all that I stand for in politics.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
In concluding, a Cheann Comhairle, I would emphasise my absolute conviction of the great importance of Government Ministers even at the highest level, travelling abroad to promote the Official Government view on the national questions and to promote as vigorously as possible the economic and commercial interests of our country. Our far flung race give evidence of the degree to which we have had had an open relationship with the world throughout the centuries and beckon us to avail of the great opportunities with which it now presents us in commercial and investment terms.
We must develop and cultivate our contacts and relationships with the Governments and peoples of friendly countries and must mobilise their support for our various national concerns. This is a duty that falls particularly on me as Taoiseach, on the members of my Government and, indeed we would say, on every Member of this House. It is our duty jointly to represent our people and our country well abroad, and to have a sense of national solidarity in this regard. The traditions of the past, whereby a Taoiseach, travelling abroad on the nation's business, was fully supported by all at home, needs to be reasserted in the national interest.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
They attacked Jack Lynch.
My firm view is that it is wrong for anybody at home to seek to disrupt the work of or to belittle an Irish Taoiseach when he is on the world stage about the nation's business.
What stage?
I do not object to and have never resented criticisms of Garret FitzGerald. I have a duck's back. But when those criticisms are directed at me in the office I occupy while I am visiting two of the most powerful nations in the world — one of them on an official visit — endeavouring to secure investment and jobs for this country; fostering and developing the strong ties that bind us; clarifying and spelling out the message of the New Ireland Forum; trying to turn the concern of those with an interest in Irish affairs away from support for the shallow and destructive men of violence — when I am trying to do all of these things through contact with opinion formers and people of real media influence in both countries, with the one and only purpose of striving to further the interests of this country abroad, then those criticisms are no longer attacks on Garret FitzGerald, the man. Then they constitute an attack on the office I occupy, and on the country and the people I am proud to represent. In this context, the criticisms by the Opposition can be seen only for what they are — a mean, narrow and warped attempt to gain short term political advantage at the expense of the best interests of the people of Ireland.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Deputy Haughey, leader of Fianna Fáil.
Would the Taoiseach tell us the name of the plane he returned home in?
Any detached observer of today's proceedings must be impressed by some features. First of all, there was the refusal of the Taoiseach to deal with parliamentary questions and to answer specific questions addressed to him and to deprive myself and other Members of this House of an opportunity of cross-examining him, as is our parliamentary duty and right. The second aspect which must strike a detached observer is the way in which the ranks of the Fine Gael and the Labour Parties have been brought in here for once. Deputy De Rossa had occasion in the past few days to try to assemble a quorum for the Finance Bill but today we have had the Members assembled in order to engage in barracking, shouting and in very unparliamentary behaviour. All of these things indicate a certain nervousness on the part of the Taoiseach which, as far as I can ascertain, derives from a very definite feeling of guilt about his serious neglect of duty in the past few weeks.
I also direct the attention of impartial observers and Members of the House to the fact that in the course of his speech he has used very personally abusive terms. He finished his contribution by describing the Opposition as mean, narrow and warped. He spoke about inferiority complexes. Some of the remarks he caused to be sent back to this country from his very high-minded and statesmanlike tour of America were very much directed to personal abuse.
He did not say half enough.
Probably not, in the Deputy's view because that is the sort of tradition from which the Deputy comes.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy has a flawed pedigree.
The Deputy should be allowed to speak without further interruption.
I drew attention to the fact that this is why they were brought into this House, to barrack, shout and try to defend the indefensible. Everyone is conscious of the fact that the well-paid, well-heeled handlers were in here last night in great numbers. They, too, must have been aware that there was something particularly reprehensible to defend here today. Most reasonable people would feel that only major and compelling reasons of State would justify the absence of the Taoiseach for a fortnight in the middle of a parliamentary session. No such reason exists in this case. The Taoiseach's meanderings around America have caused widespread feelings of irritation, annoyance and resentment among the general public.
Deputies
Rubbish.
Public morale is very low at present. People are depressed, worried and anxious about the future. It was particularly insensitive of the Taoiseach to undertake this kind of tour against that background. In my view it indicates a serious lack of comprehension and a failure to understand the mood and the feelings of our people at this time. It is not as if the Taoiseach was going away for two weeks and leaving behind a satisfactory state of affairs, with everything in reasonably good shape: exactly the opposite is the case. He left behind a Government who obviously can govern no longer and an economy that is in a shambles. We have mass unemployment, tens of thousands of young people having no hope of finding a job, crushing taxation, bankruptcies, closures, redundancies and an economy that is literally falling apart. We have rampant crime and lawlessness. How can any Taoiseach in conscience absent himself from his office for a protracted length of time in that situation?
The Taoiseach's schedule, which involved him going backwards and forwards across the American-Canadian border in a rather erratic itinerary, had all the appearance of hasty improvisation. Many of the engagements were of a trivial nature. The Taoiseach has read them out for us. They seem to have been undertaken for no purpose other than to fill up gaps in the programme. Certainly they were not of sufficient weight or importance to justify extending the visit by even half a day.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I am afraid the devastating wit has been lost on me. I did not hear Deputy Quinn's remark.
Now that he is here in the House the Minister should wait for the Finance Bill. Will he come back when we are talking about taxation? All of the Labour Party should do that.
We are now told that the Taoiseach did much to attract foreign investment but that does not cut any ice. The primary responsibility for industrial promotion belongs to the IDA. In so far as their efforts need political back-up, that is normally supplied by the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism——
Is that why the Deputy went to Libya?
The farmers are duly grateful I went to Libya.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. The Deputy in possession should be allowed to continue without interruption.
One of the main reasons I went to Libya was to try to undo the damage that was done. Everyone knows that the IDA are a very efficient body who are assiduous and alert to any opportunities that arise. Any Minister, and indeed most TDs, who happen to be in the United States or anywhere else will invariably find him or herself pressed into service and asked to deliver a speech or attend a gathering. We have all done that. It is standard practice but to try to elevate that routine type of meeting into a major industrial promotional effort as the Taoiseach has been doing is nothing more than a "try-on".
Deputies
Rubbish.
I tell the Taoiseach and Ministers that the people have become very cynical at the prospect of returning Ministers announcing many hundreds of jobs as a result of their visits abroad. It has become a particularly debased form of coinage and that aspect of the Taoiseach's visit has been added on post factum to try to defend the indefensible.
The Taoiseach mentioned some of the visits he made and the meetings he had to promote Irish industry. I see in a report in The Boston Herald that he visited Mr. Dukakis — I think the Taoiseach mentioned that in his speech. The newspaper reported as follows:
Fitzgerald is also visiting Massachussetts to stimulate business investment in Ireland. He met privately with Dukakis but a spokesman said nothing major was discussed.
I hope that is not typical of his general performance. I should like to direct the attention of the House to the Taoiseach's remarks on Northern Ireland as reported in The Irish Times of 10 May. In reply to a question at the Foreign Policy Association, he said, “It is not a problem between Britain and Ireland basically”. Those words have not been denied. The Taoiseach has glossed over them and has built statements around them but the basic comment he made has not been denied. On any reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the words, the Taoiseach was saying the problem of Northern Ireland did not require what the Forum report very specifically said it required, namely, a reassessment by Britain of her role in this situation. Such remarks contradict the entire basis and thrust of the Forum report and statements made by the Taoiseach. Paragraph 4.16 of the New Ireland Forum report states and I quote:
A settlement which recognises the legitimate rights of nationalists and unionists must transcend the context of Northern Ireland.
Even in his considered, written statement here to us today the Taoiseach did not quote that simple direct principle enunciated by the Forum report because I do not think he believes it. As recently as 3 May last he went on RTE and said that he did not think that a purely internal settlement would be workable. This Taoiseach keeps contradicting himself. It is very difficult for anyone to understand exactly what he is after, what he means, what his objectives are. I describe the Taoiseach's——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
(Interruptions.)
Please, the Taoiseach on a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach got his chance.
The Taoiseach answered five questions together earlier on.
On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition has just said that in my statement today I did not say something which in fact is in my statement today when I specifically said:
... the problem cannot be resolved within the narrow context of Northern Ireland,....
Is the Leader of the Opposition in order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in accusing me of omitting something that I actually included in my statement? He will not get away with that.
At that time I described the Taoiseach's statement as serious and damaging, and it was. In fact I personally heard a British television interviewer use it very tellingly against John Hume, the Leader of the SDLP, in an election programme. Lest there was any doubt about it — because poor John Hume was so taken aback that he was inclined to doubt that it had been said——
He was right.
——the BBC television interviewer said "I have it here on tape, Mr. Hume, would you like me to play it for you?" However, the clear impression was given that the Taoiseach had accepted the British Government's version of the situation and the humiliating "out, out" Margaret Thatcher formula. That impression was very damaging indeed. The Taoiseach should now admit the blunder he made and not be seeking to change the record.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I put the record straight and the Deputy knows it.
It has been obvious for some time that the Taoiseach had not been clearly and categorically behind the Forum report, as we are all entitled to expect. He has been ambiguous——
Look who is talking.
(Interruptions.)
Order in the House, please. Please allow Deputy Haughey to proceed.
If I have to stay here all day I will finish my speech. At this stage, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you should evict some of the more unruly backbenchers over there——
A Deputy
What about the mumbo jumbos over there?
——because obviously they were brought in here today for no other purpose but to barrack, shout and try to deny me the right to speak. I do not intend to——
(Interruptions.)
The truth only.
The Taoiseach has been ambiguous about this central constitutional issue in regard to Northern Ireland. For example, in his speech to the Diplomatic and Commonwealth Writers' Association on 22 March 1985 he accepted that there could be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland involving a transfer of sovereignty without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. This was essentially an endorsement of the British guarantee, whereas the Forum report placed consent in a totally different context. I want to remind the Taoiseach of exactly what that report said.
That was the Deputy's 1980 communique.
In paragraph 5.2(3) it said:
Agreement means that the political arrangements for a new and sovereign Ireland would have to be freely negotiated and agreed to by the people of the North and by the people of the South.
The Taoiseach's comments in America used phrases like "the achievement of peace and stability in Northern Ireland", "measures which would involve progress in Northern Ireland", "to reconstruct society in Northern Ireland"— all carrying clear indications of what was in that statement to which I took exception, namely, that the Taoiseach is prepared to settle for an internal settlement.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kelly, please.
Does the Taoiseach want a return to normality on Northern Ireland, a reconstructed society in Northern Ireland?
The Taoiseach should now know that only an honest withdrawal of his unfortunate remark will allay all the fears, suspicion and anxiety that he has aroused. Everybody in this House recognises the crucial importance of American opinion, particularly the support of Irish Americans in persuading the British Government that they must take action on the problem of Northern Ireland. Therefore in my view it is extremely misguided of the Taoiseach to go around the United States pretending that the British Prime Minister and himself are in full agreement and that in fact Britain has no particular responsibility to remedy that tragic situation.
He did not give her a teapot.
The Taoiseach made some claims about his visit to Canada. Apparently the Canadian Prime Minister promised to support an agreement between the British and Irish Governments with the qualification that he would not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. Could he have said much less? What great advance is it for the Canadian Prime Minister to say that he will support an agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments? If we had an agreement between the British and Irish Governments is that not all we are looking for? Is that not the end of the story?
I am glad to hear that.
It seems to me that that visit to Canada — and I say this in all sincerity — was just another instance of this Taoiseach blundering into an ill-prepared meeting with a somewhat unenthusiastic host and being fobbed off with polite, meaningless words.
It sounds like a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting.
Deputy Molony seems to be determined to say a lot before he finally departs from the political scene.
(Interruptions.)
The House will have me for another two years.
I feel like quoting the American President who said that if you cannot stand the heat you should get out of the kitchen.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have foolishly claimed in America and elsewhere that the British and Irish Governments have a common perception of the problem, that there is real progress. Let us examine the Taoiseach's proposition in America that the Anglo-Irish talks have a 50:50 chance of success. That is what he told his audiences all over the continent of America. We know very little of what is going on on the Irish side. The Taoiseach has not publicly defined our position except in vague and elastic terms, terms which very qualified and reliable journalists seem to have difficulty interpreting. However, the British Northern Secretary of State has no such inhibitions. Let me read a few headlines from The Irish Times: 18 April, “Talks do not include joint authority, Hurd”; 25 April, “Security is top of British Policy List, says Hurd”; 13 May, “Hurd says Future of UDR not for Negotiation”— that was said within 24 hours of the Taoiseach's claim that a third of the UDR was very dangerous.
Has the Taoiseach examined the evidence contained in successive British newspaper articles recently that the Anglo-Irish talks are on the verge of collapse? Is that the position? Following that now infamous Chequers Summit last year the Taoiseach said in this House that there would be another summit meeting "early in the New Year". Then, according to a briefing given to The Irish Times repeated on 24 January, the next Anglo-Irish meeting would be just before or after St. Patricks Day. Then the Sunday Independent of 10 February said it would be some time before Easter. Then, according to The Guardian of 18 February, it would possibly not be until the summer between the local elections and the marching season. In today's The Irish Times we learn that it is likely to be put off at least until the autumn. This House is entitled to know what exactly is the position, what is happening, if anything.
I wonder what happened to the Deputy's teapot?
I want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that a number of articles——
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy should try to understand that when he makes these incomprehensible interjections he is only encouraging me. I know therefore that I must be making valid and important points and that he feels it necessary to interrupt. The Deputy is not in a position to judge whether I am making an important point or not.
More of Deputy Haughey's arrogance.
(Interruptions.)
There have been a number of articles appearing in the British press over the last few days suggesting that the meeting should be cancelled altogether. I should like to direct the Taoiseach's attention to them because he seems to have gone to great trouble to mislead our American friends on this issue. The influential Economist magazine last week, for instance, stated that peace in Northern Ireland does not need another Thatcher-FitzGerald meeting. It went on to state that the British want more antiterrorist co-operation but they may already be getting most of what the Irish Government have to give. It stated that the two Prime Ministers would do better to cancel their summit and carry on working sensibly together at a humbler level. That is very interesting. In other words, the British Government have got all they want. American opinion having been mollified by the combined efforts of the Taoiseach and the British Minister. Everything in the garden is now lovely — the British garden, of course.
What about the teapot?
The Sunday Times stated last weekend that the hardening view from Stormont Castle is that Ulster should face at least 20 years of direct rule from London with no political initiatives or attempts to secure an agreed form of developed government. Monday's Daily Telegraph suggested that in view of the Taoiseach's remarks that one third of the UDR was very dangerous the next summit should be postponed for a very long time.
In the light of all that I want to ask the Taoiseach does he really believe that there is a 50/50 chance of success? Was he, or was he not, with his prattling about Anglo-Irish relations and a 50/50 chance of success, deliberately misleading Irish-American public opinion?
There is no need for a return match after the last 10-0 defeat.
Surely Deputy Haughey does not believe all he reads in the papers. Did they not write his political obituary on one occasion?
The Deputy's obituary will be written very soon.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy McLoughlin will get his chance tonight. Reality will come to him tonight.
I am afraid that most of the Taoiseach's remarks in the United States followed the old negative condemnatory approach and he made no attempt whatever to offer genuine Irish-Americans who wish this country well any clearly defined legitimate constructive objectives. The Taoiseach also met the Cardinal-elect, Archbishop of New York, John O'Connor. The meeting was described in the press as one of mutual incomprehension. Many of us who have to listen to the Taoiseach from time to time do not at all doubt that, but surely that is an extraordinary and at the same time depressing development? What Irish leader before ever brought about such a negative outcome of such an important meeting?
The Taoiseach also used his visit to America to attend this secret Bilderberg Conference, a group about which many people have grave doubts. It does not matter how the Taoiseach comes in here to shout, bluster and use personal abuse, because we have grave doubts about this organisation and its conferences. I have always had the impression that the Taoiseach had strong views about secret societies; yet he belongs or has belonged to a number of very powerful international bodies and groups whose aims and objectives, methods of operation and meetings are definitely secret and none more than this Bilderberg group. How can the Taoiseach justify attending a Bilderberg meeting? If it is wrong for a Taoiseach, and I believe it is, or a Minister to be a member of the Free Masonic Order, the Knights of Columbanus or Opus Dei, why is it all right for him to be a member of an arguably far more powerful secular secret society like the Bilderberg Conference?
The attendance is made public after every meeting and for those reasons it is not secret.
(Interruptions.)
We were first of all told, and the Taoiseach initially let it be known, that he was attending in a private capacity. Was he attending in a private capacity? That is the story that was fed out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and, I believe, by his own Department; but, of course, that is a totally untenable and unacceptable position. We all know that a Head of Government in office cannot attend anything of that nature in a private capacity.
All Prime Ministers who have attended that meeting have attended in a private capacity.
There were no other Prime Minister at that meeting. The Taoiseach was the only Prime Minister in attendance.
(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputy should let his boss do the talking.
Deputy Barrett appears very upset today.
(Interruptions.)
I am leaving Deputy Sheehan alone. He should not draw me out. One word from me and his irate constituents would throw him off the pier in Schull into the Atlantic Ocean, and he knows it. If some of us had any doubt about the nature of the Bilderberg Conference, what was going on and the Taoiseach's presence there I think the whole manner in which the Taoiseach approached that conference confirmed any doubts we might have had. First of all, the Taoiseach said "I am not aware of any connection with NATO". In view of all we know, all that has been published and his statement today, is he now prepared to withdraw that statement? Did he not know that this organisation was intimately connected with NATO, its operations and its policies?
It is not.
Lest the Taoiseach thinks that these sort of things emanate from some massive inferiority complex on my part — I wish the Fine Gael Party would make up their mind as to whether I suffer from arrogance or an inferiority complex because I think they are mutually exclusive——
The Deputy is just suffering from paranoia. That is all.
A very distinguished journalist from RTE addressed the following question to the Taoiseach: "When this first became a matter of controversy after Mr. Haughey's statement in Dublin, those of us who are covering your tour here asked you specifically about it and you did not tell us that NATO was on the agenda". The Taoiseach's reply was that he had not got the agenda with him. He has been attending Bilderberg Conferences off and on for ten years, since he was Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1975——
An old boy.
——but he later had to admit the truth when it was revealed that both NATO and military aspects of East-West negotiations were on this year's agenda. Is he asking us to believe that as Taoiseach and Head of a Government he was going to an important international conference without knowing what was on the agenda?
No, sir.
One way or another the Taoiseach is culpable. If he did not know, he should have known; and it was gross irresponsibility for him to go to that type of conference, without knowing what would be done. If he did know what was on the agenda, he was telling a lie.
The Deputy should withdraw the latter remark.
The only rule of order is that one cannot accuse a Member of lying in the House.
The statement is out of order and I would prefer if the Deputy withdrew it.
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach had to admit the truth when it was revealed that NATO and military aspects of East-West negotiations were on this year's agenda. It is a matter of record that NATO has been regularly discussed at Bilderberg meetings since the fifties, when on occasions whole meetings were given over to it. In 1978, for instance, the topic was Western defence and its political implications. In 1977 the NATO Secretary General attended. The US National Security Adviser, the leading American arms negotiator all attended. When the facts emerged the Taoiseach claimed that he did not have the agenda with him. I should like to know if that is the truth, that the Taoiseach went off to America to go to this conference without having the agenda or not knowing what was on it?
As the Deputy has asked a question, I will answer it.
I will not give way.
The Taoiseach should sit down. He was asked questions earlier and he would not answer them.
I should like to point out to the Taoiseach that the Deputy in possession is not prepared to give way.
The Taoiseach should take his medicine.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy asked a question and I want to answer it.
The Taoiseach refused to answer parliamentary questions and submit himself to question and answer when he could deal with these points. This is the procedure he opted for and he can now accept it.
The Deputy should not ask questions if he does not want any answers. The Deputy will not like the answers.
The Taoiseach has tried to disguise reality by suggesting that there was heavy representation from neutral countries and even that Bilderberg is the best place to meet people from neutral countries. I challenge the Taoiseach to say what other serving Prime Minister or Foreign Minister of a neutral country was present this year. We did not get an answer to our parliamentary questions but I want to repeat them now. In his statement the Taoiseach has not given us any of the hard information for which we are looking. Is the Taoiseach prepared to place the agenda of this conference on the table of the House? Is the Taoiseach prepared to place the attendance lists of those who attended, their rank and the offices they hold? These things are of great importance to the Members of this House and we are entitled to this information? The Taoiseach went to that meeting as head of the Irish Government. This is a meeting which we know has certain connotations and which has a certain background. We are entitled to know the agenda, who was present and what was discussed and if any commitments were made by the Taoiseach on our behalf to that secret meeting. Our neutrality unlike the neutrality of other countries has been put under pressure in Europe not least by the lukewarm, equivocal and ambiguous attitude of this Taoiseach and his Minister for Defence among others of his party, particularly Deputy John Kelly who is no longer with us but who just came in to hurl a few insults and then in a proper professorial manner left us.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputies opposite would consider this thing calmly and objectively they would agree with me that it is not appropriate for the Taoiseach to continue to attend secret meetings which have a heavy NATO presence and with NATO subjects figuring in a major way on the agenda. How can the Taoiseach credibly object to NATO matters being discussed for instance in the European Council when he voluntarily attends this type of meeting.
Another aspect is the entitlement of this House to know precisely what took place and to have all the important relevant documents laid on the table of this House. By that I intend to judge the Taoiseach. If the Taoiseach does that and we have an opportunity to consider the documentation, all of us, in fairness, will have to review our accusation of secrecy about the Bilderberg conference. If those documents are not placed on the table of the House and if we are not given this vital information we will have to form our own opinions and confirm ourselves in our worst suspicions.
Apart from the NATO aspects the purpose of bodies like the Bilderberg group and the tri-lateral commission is to foster an international élite and to promote the interests of huge multi-national corporations. I am absolutely certain that at that gathering with all those bankers and heads of huge multi-national corporations and others of that ilk, the position of the unemployed in my constituency of Coolock did not rate as a very high priority. It would have been far more appropriate if our Taoiseach were devoting himself in any international forum to this type of problem rather than these very dangerous subjects and discussions which take place at things like the Bilderberg Conference. I suspect that the Taoiseach remains a member of that organisation for some personal political reason. I understand that that type of organisation is prepared to support particular politicians in their objectives in their own countries. Will the Taoiseach say if anything like that was involved at this conference?
No.
Can the Taoiseach expect some assistance in his own political career from these multinational friends, these international bankers? Will the Taoiseach give us a solemn undertaking that while he remains Taoiseach he will not again attend any of these meetings?
(Interruptions.)
It is a rotten script.
I do not know what your friends in the Socialist International would think of this.
(Interruptions.)
I do not think the Minister is a member, in good standing, of the Socialist International at the moment.
Terrible rubbish.
(Interruptions.)
Order, order.
(Interruptions.)
Order, order.
Before I conclude, I want to formally complain to the Chair about the manner in which this whole affair has been handled. There has been an attempt this afternoon to defeat the purposes of this Parliament. We have had a refusal by the Taoiseach to deal with parliamentary questions in the normal way and then he came in here to this House hurling personal abuse at myself and members of the Opposition——
(Interruptions.)
——and he deliberately brought in a full muster of his backbenchers to harass, harangue and barrack me while I am trying to speak.
(Interruptions.)
All these things add up to——
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. Order.
Some day, Deputy Farrelly, they might try to find a role for you in this House other than as a backbench barracker.
(Interruptions.)
Your constituents in County Meath will be glad to hear of it.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
The Taoiseach never told us who actually invited him to the US on this occasion. Did anybody invite him? Did he just go?
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy
Did you just go yourself?
(Interruptions.)
Who asked you the last time?
Who invited Jack Lynch?
The last time I went to America as Taoiseach I was invited by the President of America.
(Interruptions.)
The last time you went fund raising?
The last time I went as Taoiseach.
(Interruptions.)
Many among the general public agree with me that the Taoiseach has done considerable damage by this trip. The Taoiseach has given an impression of confusion, muddled thinking, top of the head injudicious comments. Whatever the cause, it has resulted in a serious undermining of our national position and our interests in many different areas. No one can understand why this trip was undertaken. It did not seem to have an identifiable purpose. The conclusion is inescapable. Our Taoiseach was engaged in trivial pursuits. This country has an enormous fund of goodwill in the US and Canada and it was wrong of the Taoiseach to abuse that fund of goodwill by this misdirected, misguided type of trip, this fumbling erratic carry on he has engaged in.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy De Rossa.
Game set and match to Deputy Dr. FitzGerald.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please, order. I am calling Deputy De Rossa to speak.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies, please. Deputy De Rossa.
I have attended a few school debates recently which had more order than this House.
I am doing the best I can.
In replying to the Taoiseach's statement in relation to his visit to Canada and the US I want to put on record in the strongest possible terms my protest at the manner in which the Taoiseach refused to answer any questions on his visit during Question Time. The Taoiseach's decision to make statements under Standing Order 38 on the visit instead of dealing with it at Question Time is a shabby parliamentary trick which does no justice to this House or to the Taoiseach himself. There is no opportunity in this process under the Standing Order under which these statements are being taken to question the Taoiseach directly on different aspects of his statement and to get replies arising from those questions. There are fairly large implications for the conduct of the business of this House in the manner in which it has been dealt with. The parliamentary question is one of the few rights which individual Deputies have in this House to get responses from Ministers and from the Government of the day. It adds nothing to the standing of this House to deal with it as it has been dealt with today and, indeed, it adds to the disillusionment of people outside in relation to this House and the relevance of this House.
The Taoiseach in his speech referred to the Bilderberg group in terms which would indicate that they were some kind of cosy social club or debating society in which occasionally great men of some stature come together for a cosy chat about the world, the weather and what have you, but anyone who has any knowledge of the way that the various institutions operate in our world today would not accept that explanation of what the Bilderberg group are. I must admit that I knew nothing about the group prior to a press report that the Taoiseach intended to attend this conference. Arising from that and from some information I received subsequently about the nature of this group I put a question to the Taoiseach before he left on his visit asking him to tell the House here what the Bilderberg group were and so forth. The reply I got was from the Ceann Comhairle, that the Taoiseach had no responsibility to the House for this matter. I assume that that was based on the view that the Taoiseach was attending this conference in a personal capacity. As Deputy Haughey has said, there is no circumstance that I can see in which a Taoiseach can separate his personal capacity from his public capacity or his public functions particularly when he is attending conferences abroad of the nature and stature of this group.
Hear, hear.
All other states over the years have done it. Chancellor Schmidt——
Let me say to the Taoiseach that it would have been useful if we had got these answers when we put the questions at Question Time.
That is in my speech.
If Chancellor Schmidt and others choose to do that in relation to their countries there is no reason whatsoever why we should do it also. There is no reason why we should compromise ourselves in the same way.
There is no reason why we should be the odd man out in the world, more neutral than Austria.
The Taoiseach is treating this as if the only question involved was one of neutrality and whether this State would be a member of a military bloc, but there are greater implications in that the Bilderberg group as I understand it is involved with influencing the foreign policies of the countries which are represented on it.
Nonsense.
I have here a fairly lengthy quotation——
As soon as the Deputy starts to read it I will get up.
——from The Irish Press——
(Interruptions.)
The Taoiseach is the odd man out now when he will not listen. There is arrogance.
That is Bilderberg style.
I have here a quotation from The Irish Press of Friday, 10 May 1985, which in turn quotes from a book called Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, edited by a person called Holly Sklar and published in 1980 by the South End Press in Boston. This is the only source I have come across which indicates precisely what the Bilderberg group is all about. I quote:
In 1958 the whole meeting was given over to "the future of NATO defence" and in 1961 the question of leadership of the West was split into discussions of "NATO in the world, policy of the member countries" and "the role and control of nuclear weapons within NATO.""Problems arose over the creation of common nuclear policy for the alliance without a `European finger on the trigger." Page 174.
Here is a further quotation:
By the 1970s, Bilderbergers were regularly discussing trilateralism. But, while the Trilateral Commission emphasised economic matters, military/strategic discussions were commonplace at Bilderberg.
Such differences reflect changed historical conditions. Bilderberg originated as part of the thrust toward Western co-ordination in the midst of the Cold War. Anti-communism provided the ideological justification of joint military planning through NATO. Successive secretary generals of NATO have all been regular Bilderberg attendees. The Trilateral Commission emerged at a time when intracapitalist economic and north-south (industrialised West-Third World) problems were threatening to tear the system apart.
Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission have somewhat different modes of operation. While both organisations have closed meetings Bilderberg is far more secretive in its activities.
Bilderberg does not publicly lobby for its views as an organisation in the way the Commission does. Page 176.
The Irish Press report continues:
The conspiratorial type of operations undertaken by the Bilderberg group are illustrated by the following quotations from the same book:
"The object is not to `draw the attention' of the greater population to Bilderberg activity. Bilderberg's existence is often denied, even by foreign ministry officials. Apart from planted newspaper articles, no Bilderberg publications are available to the public. The extent of media blackout is remarkable; insight into how this is achieved comes from a confidential memo of the steering group meeting in preparation of the 1984 conference at Williamsburg."
On a point of order, Standing Orders treat the situation where the Taoiseach or any Member of the Government can come into the House and address himself to a point. I am familiar with the Standing Order and I know that, while it is not expressed in the Standing Order, there is a tradition in the House that the Taoiseach or the Minister of the day who makes the statement does the House and the two speakers who are entitled to speak the honour of listening to them. Let me say in passing that I am unhappy about the situation that gives The Workers' Party the right to speak at all, but on the other hand in so far as a spokesman for that party is entitled under the Standing Orders of this House to address himself to a statement, would you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle guide me as to the precedent existing in respect of the Taoiseach or the Minister remaining to hear that speaker?
It is not a matter of principle. I have no control over the Taoiseach.
Could you give me some guidance? You have the advantage of knowing the precedents. I am asking if there is any record in this House of where the Taoiseach did not remain to hear the statements made by other speakers.
I am not aware of anything of that nature.
Thank you. It never happened before.
That is not what the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said.
I am not aware of there being such a precedent.
I have to admit that I was surprised at the Taoiseach leaving the House.
Considering he had a fortnight to spare away.
Perhaps he has urgent business elsewhere. I was quoting from this book to indicate that there are sinister undertones to the Bilderberg group, that it is not a cosy social club or debating society and that the people involved have very specific political objectives in mind in coming together. When the Prime Minister of this State attends such a conference this House is entitled to questions and answers about what took place and in what way the conference and the views expressed there either agreed with or diverged from the existing foreign policy being pursued by this State. The Taoiseach owes this House a further explanation about Bilderberg and I do not think the matter should be let lie. I intend to pursue this matter through parliamentary questions so far as possible.
Another aspect of the Taoiseach's visit to the United States and Canada was the issue of the statements he made at various points in relation to Northern Ireland and the talks taking place between the Irish and British Governments. The Taoiseach said today that he would never harm the interests of Ireland abroad. I have no doubt he means that, but he must accept that what he sees as the interests of Ireland are not necessarily the same as I see them or as other Members of this House might see them. Therefore, whether he is Taoiseach or not, he is open to criticism for what he said in either the United States or in Canada.
In relation to Northern Ireland I propose to comment not so much on what he is reported to have said but on the direction in which I think he is trying to move. As I understand it, he is trying to achieve an accommodation in Northern Ireland between the divided community to enable them to retain their aspirations, whether they be to unionism or nationalism, and to enable them to pursue their aspirations peacefully and democratically while at the same time securing peace on the island as a whole. How that can be attained is a matter for debate. Many long months were spent putting together the Forum report by the three major nationalist parties. It is fair to say that at present the Forum report is in tatters. It was presented as a concensus view of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the SDLP. Since it was published there have been wide divergences of opinions as to what it meant and how it can be expressed or analysed as between the Coalition parties — the Fianna Fáil Party and the SDLP on the one hand, supporting the Fianna Fáil line; and, on the other hand the Coalition line on the Forum report.
It is clear that the three options put forward, at least in terms of achieving a short term settlement, are not on. Whatever about the brutal way Margaret Thatcher said,"Out, out, out", it is very clear that the question of a unitary state is simply not a realistic option, the question of a federal arrangement is not a realistic option and the question of joint sovereignty is not a realistic option. This means the Government are left with the situation of trying to use the Forum report as a vehicle to make some progress with the British Government on the analysis and realities set down in that report. I broadly support the Government in attempting to do that, but I do not necessarily agree with everything they are doing in that regard.
The Workers' Party have for a long time stressed the need for a democratically devolved Government in Northern Ireland. It is our view that it is impossible to achieve peace or reconciliation either in Northern Ireland or between the people in Northern Ireland without the people there having a democratic forum in which they can discuss and order the affairs of the State. It is fundamental to the solution of the situation there for the people in this Parliament to accept the reality of the existance of the State of Northern Ireland. It does no one any good, in terms of the hopes of reaching a settlement and in many senses leads to death and destruction in Northern Ireland, to pretend it is possible to acheive a 32-county all-Ireland State in the foreseeable future. The irreconcilable constitutional differences that exist between those who are nationalists and want a united Ireland and those who are unionists and do not want a united Ireland cannot be overcome simply by expressing aspirations and declarations, and it cannot be achieved by wishing that it will happen. It has to be done on the basis of careful negotiations and consideration not only of the rights of the nationalist population but also of the unionist population.
In supporting the direction which I think the Taoiseach is moving I stress that he needs also to involve the people in Northern Ireland in his deliberations with the British Government. He needs to ensure that all the democratic parties in the North are involved in whatever agreement is reached. Otherwise he is pursuing a road which will prolong chaos, destruction and death. He should be aware that a power sharing arrangement, under whatever guise, which would simply institutionalise the sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland is not a solution either in the short term or in the long term.
The sectarian divisions are prolonging the agony in Northern Ireland. It must also be stressed that all parties in Northern Ireland — The Workers' Party are active, organised and working there — agree that there is an urgent necessity for a Bill of Rights up there. There may be different concepts of what a Bill of Rights should contain but there is broad agreement across the spectrum that there is a need for this, which would guarantee the rights of all sections of the community. That would be a basis for going forward in that State. Clearly, also, there is a need in talking in terms of arrangements — I speak of arrangements rather than solutions in Northern Ireland — to include a strong emphasis on dealing with the deplorable social and economic situation there where more than 20 per cent are unemployed, a situation which affects the Protestant community as much as the nationalists. There is no discrimination in relation to unemployment.
I think the Taoiseach will accept, privately if not publicly, that he made a serious error in attending the Bilderberg Conference as Taoiseach and that he owes the House an explanation as to what went on there. He should also give an undertaking that as long as he is Taoiseach he will not attend further conferences of this nature. The second aspect which arises is the effort being made in relation to achieving peace in Northern Ireland. I broadly support the moves being made on the basis that they are an attempt to achieve a settlement which will involve all the people in that State. They should be involved in the process of reaching agreement and, in the long run, if the Taoiseach does that he can be assured of our support in the House and in Northern Ireland.