John Bruton
Question:18 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the Government's plans to encourage talks between the political parties in Northern Ireland.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Discussions on Northern Ireland.
John Bruton
Question:19 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his discussions with the British Prime Minister.
John Bruton
Question:20 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he intends to take any initiatives to improve the climate for the success of the talks process with the Northern Ireland political parties, initiated by the British Prime Minister, with particular reference to changes in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:21 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach when it is expected that he will have his first meeting with the British Prime Minister; if, in the light of the increase in violence in Northern Ireland, he plans to bring the meeting forward; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 together.
The Government welcome the agreement reached last week between the British Prime Minister and the leaders of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland under which the leaders will now "meet to discuss obstacles in the way of further political dialogue in the hope that such dialogue might recommence at an early date". The House can be assured that the Government stand ready to do everything possible to help this process.
I spoke on the telephone with the British Prime Minister last week. I conveyed to Mr. Major the Government's welcome for the agreement he reached with the four party leaders and the Government's resolve to see to it that those who resort to terrorism do not succeed.
As Deputies will be aware, there is agreement that the Taoiseach and Prime Minister should meet twice yearly for discussions of matters of concern to our two countries. The first meeting this year would normally have taken place later in the year but, because of the changed situation since that agreement was reached, we have decided that the meeting should be brought forward. I will, therefore, be meeting the Prime Minister in London on 26 February for discussions on bilateral matters, European Community issues and other questions of common interest to our countries.
I will be accompanied at the meeting by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews and the Minister for Justice, Deputy Pádraig Flynn. The Prime Minister will be accompanied by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Brooke, MP, and the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with special responsibility for European Community Affairs, Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
The Government totally reject the view that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution can be used to justify violence. Those who have followed the path of violence are denying the fundamental democratic principles of our Constitution, which specifically and unambiguously bind Ireland to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation among nations.
In my comments last week I stated that the issue of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution was a complex one and that I knew that Unionists took exception to these Articles: equally, my comments reflected my knowledge of the views of Northern Nationalists on the Articles. I also said that, when all parties who reject violence as a means of attaining political change come together to work out structures and arrangements which would allow us to live together, in peace, then everything will be on the table.
I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I am willing to talk with Unionist representatives at any time with the aim of achieving peace and reconciliation on this island and I would like here to extend an open invitation to them to a meeting to that end.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he would agree that an indication of willingness to consider amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution might be helpful in ensuring that talks actually start? May I also ask him if there are any circumstances in which he would be willing to indicate such a willingness? In regard to the security situation, may I ask the Taoiseach if he would join with me in calling on all people who have information about crime in Northern Ireland to give it to the police on either side of the Border to ensure that those responsible for crime are brought to justice? Finally, may I ask the Taoiseach if he has any proposals to increase security co-operation or strengthen security measures to ensure, in particular, that no opportunity is available for people to use arms stored on this side of the Border or use the Border in any other way as a cover for murder and other crime in Northern Ireland?
I have already outlined to the House and the Deputy my position and the position of the Government in relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. When all parties get around the table, Articles 2 and 3 will be on the table — it is only then that they can be on the table. I do not accept that Articles 2 and 3 are the cause of the violence in Northern Ireland.
In relation to security co-operation, the position of the Government, and successive Governments, has been to afford the utmost co-operation in relation to security to ensure that men of violence are brought to justice and to use every arm of the State to ensure that that happens. The record of the Government and successive Governments in terms of bringing men of violence to justice is there to be seen.
I do not wish to repeat myself but I asked the Taoiseach whether he would call on all those who have information about crimes committed on either side of the Border to give it to the relevant security forces, on whichever side of the Border they happen to be, so that the persons concerned can be brought to justice. Would the Taoiseach agree that an unambiguous statement of that kind by all constitutional politicians would be helpful in reducing the level of murder on this island?
The Government consider that every effort should be made by everybody to help in whatever way they can to bring the men of violence to justice and to restore normality in the North. That has always been our position.
I call Deputy Proinsias De Rossa whose Question No. 21 refers.
In regard to Question No. 21, I thank the Taoiseach for announcing that the meeting with the British Prime Minister has been brought forward. I also wish to thank him for using Question Time to make the announcement rather than announcing it outside the House. I hope he and his Government will continue this precedent.
In relation to Articles 2 and 3, would the Taoiseach not accept that it is not correct that a constitutional provision should be used as a bargaining counter in regard to talks on Northern Ireland and the relationship between the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic? Would he not also accept that Articles 2 and 3 serve to distort the perceptions of people in the Republic about what the nature of our relationship should be to the people in Northern Ireland, given that the courts in the Republic have defined Articles 2 and 3 as a territorial claim and that this is repugnant to a substantial majority of the people in Northern Ireland.
I am well aware that the Unionists object to the existence of Articles 2 and 3. By the same token, the Nationalist minority object to certain aspects of the 1920 Act. It is too simplistic an approach for anyone to seriously suggest that the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 from our Constitution will solve the problems in Northern Ireland overnight; as we all know, it certainly will not.
He did not suggest that.
In earlier years, it was argued that the special position of the Catholic Church in our Constitution was keeping the communities in the North apart and was an obstacle to serious dialogue and talks between the communities there. We all know what happened when that Article was removed. Therefore, it is too simplistic to suggest that the removal of Articles 2 and 3 from our Constitution will solve the problems overnight when, as everyone knows in their heart and soul, it will not do that.
One could always remind oneself of the constitutional review committee of 1967 and the recommendations made by them. May I put it to the Taoiseach that the imperative in Articles 2 and 3 does not reflect the political reality of attitudes in the Republic at this stage? As the Taoiseach has admitted, these Articles are a hindrance to the opening of dialogue with the Unionist community. Would the Taoiseach not consider, therefore, that it is now time to have these Articles replaced by a merely aspirational Article in the Constitution?
The policy of this Government and the previous Government has been to show their continuing support for the talks process in the North. People have been talking around the table and progress has been made. We must all appreciate the new initiative taken by the British Prime Minister in calling all the political leaders last Tuesday for a meeting. As a result of that meeting these people agreed to have further meetings in relation to the obstacles that exist to the resumption of talks. That initiative must be welcomed. I am as familiar with the communities in the North of Ireland as is anybody else and I know how people think up there. Taking one side in isolation from another in terms of their thoughts and deep convictions will not lead to talks but will divide the communities even further. It is by recognising the sentiments and convictions of both sides that progress will be made. I have the greatest admiration for the Unionist community. I have done business with them in the past. They stand up for what they believe in and they respect people who do the same. I would ask the House to bear with me until I have my first meeting with the British Prime Minister to see if there are any initiatives that can sensibly bring us back to the path of peace that all of us seek.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that in saying that provisions of our Constitution will be on the table at some unspecified time and in some unspecified way in the future suggests, first, a lack of urgency in getting talks going and making progress in regard to Northern Ireland and also that any change we might make in the Constitution will not be made on its merits and because we want to make it but will be made as some form of bargaining, which would be undesirable from any point of view?
I cannot accept what the Deputy suggests, that taking the view of one community over that of the other will solve the problem in the North of Ireland. My experience of the North does not lead me to that view. I have expressed quite clearly my views and I repeat them. I do not seek, nor do the Irish people seek, dominance of one community over another. We want to move ahead in partnership and that can best be done by an approach from the bottom up and from the top down. It can be done by promoting more projects in relation to the International Fund for Ireland, the Interreg Programme and by finding ways and means of getting communities to trust each other more and to try to develop their areas and regions. That is the type of operation I would like to see on the ground. I would favour also new approaches by the British Prime Minister and myself, if that is possible, with the involvement of the European Community as Europe moves more and more towards integration and towards the removal of barriers and bitterness as well as economic and political barriers.
The Taoiseach should answer the question.
On 1 January 1993 the economic barriers between North and South will be eliminated. We will then have to look at ways and means of building new structures to try to remove the political barriers. Those are my views on this process.
The Deputy should answer the question.
My point in relation to amendment of Articles 2 and 3 relates to the effect it would have on politics in the Republic rather than how it would affect relations within Northern Ireland, important as they are. Amendment of these Articles would not be a simple solution to the problems in Northern Ireland but it would certainly alter significantly the perceptions of people in the Republic who no longer want a territorial claim on the North. They certainly have an aspiration to unity but they do not want to have a territorial constitutional claim on the North.
Questions, please.
I am alarmed at a point of view which the Taoiseach has expressed on two occasions——
We are having a statement from the Deputy.
I am coming to the point, a Cheann Comhairle, and you must give me some latitude to explain it. In a statement made by the Taoiseach at the press conference and again here in the House he is counter-posing Articles 2 and 3 with the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. What concerns me is that he is repeating word for word——
Sorry, Deputy De Rossa. I want to assist the Deputy in eliciting information but he may not go on to make a speech.
I am coming to the question, a Cheann Comhairle. Would the Taoiseach not agree that what he is doing is repeating word for word the briefing he has received not from his Department but from a group of obscurantist Nationalists who are raising fears about Nationalists having the right to an Irish passport in the event of Articles 2 and 3 being amended. It is improper for the Taoiseach to be feeding these fears on the basis of a briefing which is grossly inaccurate.
I want to assure the Deputy that I received no such briefing.
The Taoiseach's position is extraordinarily close to theirs.
I live 35 miles from the Border and am familiar with the viewpoint of the Nationalists and Unionists alike in Northern Ireland. As of now I have met no representatives of the Nationalist community but I intend to meet them as early as possible. Therefore, it is not a question of trotting out some abstract observations that were passed on to me, as the Deputy tried to suggest. I know the people on both sides of the community up there and I know what they think and what they say. If you do not understand the way people think and if you do not understand the divisions and the basic reasons for such divisions, you have no chance of finding a resolution to the very complex problem up there and more especially of putting an end to the cruel carnage that has escalated in recent weeks. I am not a mouthpiece for any particular viewpoint in the North of Ireland. I am trying in all honesty and openness to find some way to de-escalate the violence and work out a new approach to a path for peace.
I am now calling Deputy Noonan, Limerick East. The House will be aware that 15 minutes are set aside each normal sitting day for dealing with Priority Questions. I shall be proceeding to deal with these questions at 3.30 p.m. sharp.
(Limerick East): I welcome the Taoiseach's condemnation of violence in his initial reply. However, I put it to the Taoiseach that this condemnation is inconsistent with the action of a leading semi-State organisation who recently leased a hall under their control to Sinn Féin for a meeting addressed by Gerry Adams. Would the Taoiseach agree that this kind of ambivalence should be removed from Irish public life? The Taoiseach should give a commitment to the House that this will never happen again in the State sector in Ireland.
If the Deputy sends me details of the incident to which he referred I will look into the matter. I am not familiar with the circumstances surrounding it but I would be glad to look into it. In any event it is a separate question.
(Limerick East): A question on this matter in my name has been put down to the Taoiseach and the Taoiseach's office has transferred it to the Minister for Finance.
Can we proceed to deal with another question?
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach is not being informed of matters of which he should be informed.
The Deputy is deviating from the subject matter before us.
Open Government will start tomorrow.
We now come to Question No. 22 in the name of Deputy John Bruton.
Will the Taoiseach stop using phrases such as "up there" as if the North were 1,000 miles away?
Can we deal adequately with Question No. 22?
It would be better to leave it over until the next day.
Thank you, Deputy. That is the right conclusion in the circumstances. If the House so agrees we will proceed to deal with Priority Questions.
It is my wish that all my questions reappear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
We will try to facilitate the Deputy.