Vol. 416 No. 4
5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has yet met with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; if, in view of the upsurge of violence in Northern Ireland since the beginning of the year, he plans to take any initiatives which might help advance the political process there; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
27 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he intends taking any initiatives to encourage further and ongoing discussions with the UK Prime Minister/Northern Secretary with a view to achieving constitutional structures and the elimination of violence; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 27 together.
The Taoiseach has made clear the high priority attached by this Government to finding ways of achieving political progress in relation to Northern Ireland and of bringing violence to an end. The policy of the Government is to support the process of round-table talks in the search for a solution which will address the three relationships involved — those within Northern Ireland, between North and South and between Ireland and Britain, the so-called three strands.
The Government will take every opportunity to encourage agreement which will enable fresh talks to get under way and to promote a successful outcome. In this connection, the Taoiseach will be reporting separately to the House on the meeting which he had yesterday in London and with the British Prime Minister. The prospects for political progress in relation to Northern Ireland were a major topic of discussion at that meeting.
I took the opportunity afforded by yesterday's meeting to have separate discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Brooke, which dealt with the scope for political progess. I look forward to further discussions of this issue at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference in the very near future.
I was also present, along with the Minister for Justice, at a very useful meeting which the Taoiseach had this morning with the Leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, his Deputy, Mr. Roy Hattersley, and the party's spokesman on Northern Ireland, Mr. Kevin McNamara.
The Government also attach great importance to the fullest possible contact with leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach and I had the opportunity of a wide-ranging meeting with the SDLP on 24 February which dealt with all aspects of the current situation, including the prospects for political progress. We have also indicated publicly our readiness to meet representatives of the Unionist parties of Northern Ireland at any time and at any venue of their choosing.
May I ask the Minister if, since taking office, he has communicated directly with the Unionist parties and the Alliance Party specifically offering to meet them, or is the Minister simply reiterating the open public statements made by the former Taoiseach? Does he not think it would be worth-while, in the event that he has not already done so, to write directly to the leaders of those parties inviting them to meet him at a venue which would be suitable for all parties concerned? May I ask him also if he would indicate in his talks with the British Labour Party — he may feel he is not in a position to say this at present — whether or not the British Labour Party are considering a review of their policy with regard to Northern Ireland which, as I understand it, is one of actively seeking the unity of Ireland which is clearly causing an obstacle to talks within Northern Ireland at present? Finally, may I ask the Minister if he would indicate in what sense the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which has been referred to a number of times by Government spokes-persons, must be on the table?
The question is over long.
There are four parts to the question. Regarding the question of a meeting with the Unionist and Alliance Parties, as the Deputy is aware, both the Taoiseach and I have indicated, albeit publicly, that we would be willing to meet them on any part of the island of Ireland of their choosing or at any mutual venue outside this island. That stands and is a reflection of the previous Government's position in that regard. The former Taoiseach indicated there was an open door so far as the Unionists are concerned and that still stands and is part of our policy. The question of writing to the Unionists is something that, quite frankly, might be considered. I will certainly have a look at it and I am grateful to the Deputy for the suggestion. We had a very full discussion this morning with the leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Kinnock, Mr. Roy Hattersley and Mr. Kevin McNamara, in the Irish Embassy. The meeting, over breakfast, lasted for an hour and a half. The discussions were very far-ranging. As I understand it, the Labour Party have not departed from their policy, the keystone of which is unity by consent. I would have thought that that policy does not represent a threat to any tradition, as such; rather it indicates clearly what their intentions are. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in the context of Articles 2 and 3, which aspire to the integration of the national territory would be a Nationalist position. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, set up Stormont and provides for the sovereignty of Britain in relation to Northern Ireland — that would be the Unionist position. Both those positions in the second strand in the three strands of talks would be on the table in a discussion on the totality of relationships with all parts of the island. It is a practical position to take, on the one hand Articles 2 and 3, which concern the Unionists and, on the other, the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which concerns the Nationalists. To extend the matter further, if the Deputy refers to Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement he will see enshrined there a balance and a desire to bring about the situation I have just described.
I now call Deputy Bernard Durkan, if he wishes to intervene and whose Question No. 27 refers.
Can the Minister indicate whether he intends to establish contact, prior to the general election, with the various parties in the UK to ensure continuity after the general election? Does he see further scope to expand the operation of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier?
The Deputy will be aware that I was an original member of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. Within its present functions, it appears to be operating very well. Certainly it has done a number of things but more particularly it has shown our fellow trade unionists from the Westminster Parliament that we are normal human beings and we discovered that they have the same weaknesses as we have and so on. In that regard it has broken down barriers. I believe it will be very helpful and very successful. I take the view that it is not a good thing to upset something that is a success and seems to be doing good. If it is doing something else we can have another look at it. In relation to the establishment of contacts in the United Kingdom, the position is that we have just returned from those contacts. The Taoiseach has met the Prime Minister; I have met independently and concomitantly with Mr. Brooke and the Minister for Justice, Deputy Flynn, has met with Mr. Mawhinney, the Northern Ireland Minister on Security. In addition to having met with Mr. Kinnock, Mr. Hattersley and Mr. McNamara, I met Mr. Douglas Hurd at the Lisbon Conference at the Council of Ministers on last Monday week. Independently of all that, I met with Mr. Kevin McNamara and the SDLP. In the last fortnight there have been many meetings and a great deal of discussion. As I said, we have met every shade of opinion bar the Unionists. That brings us back to Deputy De Rossa's question and it is one which must be addressed.
Would the Minister not agree it makes political common sense, that if everything is to be on the table at the talks, that the Government of Ireland Act should also be on the table? Would he accept my gratitude that at the press conference yesterday evening the British Prime Minister emphasised his commitment to the Anglo-Irish Agreement? This should be of great importance in terms of what might happen after the general election if no one party are in control. May I ask the Minister to watch carefully what appears to be a developing debate in Britain in relation to devolution in Scotland and Wales and the way in which Northern Ireland might get caught up in that debate which would amount to integration. In that context, could I say, almost sotto voce, I was surprised that the Taoiseach used a particular word outside No. 10 Downing Street last night. It must have been the first time in recorded history that a Nationalist spokesman, North or South, used the word “mainland”. I assume that it was a slip of the tongue but I wonder about the thought processes that led to its use. This is something that must be watched very carefully, particularly in the context of integration to which I have already alluded.
The use of the word "mainland" was a slip of the tongue. It is a bit like the loose use of the words "the British Isles".
It is even worse.
It is not that far off the mark; one is as bad as the other as far as I am concerned but I think the Deputy can take it that it was not intentional. It is interesting that the Deputy should remark on the question of devolution in Scotland and Wales because that question was addressed this morning in our talks with the British Labour Party, without giving anything away.
I can see these small clouds on the horizon.
The Deputy is quite correct and I bow to his experience in relation to Northern Ireland. He certainly touched a chord and is on the mark. In relation to the continuation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to who may be in Government after the general election, we got undertakings — I do not know whether one can get those things in politics nowadays — and indications that the Anglo-Irish Agreement and its processes will continue apace. We received a commitment, on the one hand, from the Labour Party and from the Conservative Party on the other. Therefore the bipartisan approach, as I understand and appreciate it, is still in place. The Taoiseach will address the House on Tuesday next when the Leaders of the Opposition will have an opportunity to respond.
I call Deputy Jim O'Keeffe with a final question from Deputy De Rossa.
Would the Minister take the opportunity to confirm, in relation to Articles 2 and 3, that he sees those Articles as a political aspiration to unity rather than a legal imperative? Second, in relation to his references to the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier, would he make it clear in any contacts he may have with Unionists that all sides of this House want to see the two vacant seats which have been reserved for the Unionists filled and that we want to see the Unionists take part in the process so that they can share in what the Minister described as the good feeling which has developed within that parliamentary body?
As the Deputy will appreciate, there are vacant seats at the Anglo-Irish Parliamentary tier and, as Deputy Currie knows, there were also empty seats at the New Ireland Forum. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. We would certainly welcome the seats being filled. Once more, in common with the rest of the House, I send a message to the Unionists that if and when they are willing to take their place in those seats they will be most welcome. In relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, as I have already indicated, when we move to the second tier of the three strands of talks — the so-called Brooke initiative — Articles 2 and 3 may be discussed in conjunction with all other related matters.
May I, first, welcome the Minister's openness in responding to the questions being put to him? When the Minister replied to questions with regard to the British Labour Party he said that it was their policy to seek unity by consent. Indeed, that would be the position of virtually everyone in this House. The problem which arises is that the British Labour Party have no interim position. Their spokesperson, Mr. Kevin McNamara, has indicated that in Government they would actively encourage unity by consent. Clearly, that is causing considerable unease, to say the least, on the Unionist side of the equation in Northern Ireland. In that regard I am concerned that the relatively underdeveloped position of the British Labour Party may be causing an obstacle to the talks process in Northern Ireland. On that basis I ask the Minister to look again at the British Labour Party position and perhaps have further private discussions with them on how they may better express their position. In regard to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 and Articles 2 and 3, our Supreme Court has clearly said that Articles 2 and 3 are not simply an aspiration but a legal obligation, if not a legal pledge.
Ceisteanna, le do thoil, a Theachta.
Could the Minister say to what extent the placing of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act indicates a lack of willingness to accept the constitutional position of Northern Ireland which has existed now for close on 70 years and if this amounts to a pedalling back from the position——
This is tending towards debate. The Deputy must bring his questioning to a conclusion.
——which has been articulated in the opening clauses of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
No. That is in conjunction with the opening clauses of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and does not upset it in any respect. So far as the British Labour Party are concerned, that is their policy. They are a political party in another jurisdiction and while I would be sensitive to what the Deputy says, I am not certain that I could twist the arm of the British Labour Party spokesperson and the Labour Party in general to change their policy overnight but certainly I will tease out the views expressed by the Deputy and let him know in time the outcome of such talks. In relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and the constitutional position as articulated by the Supreme Court, I assume that the Deputy is referring to the McGimpsey case. I have nothing further to add in that regard. As I said, the Articles will be on the table in the discussions in the three strands of talks, in particular in strand two. Interestingly enough, the Deputy will have seen in the newspapers in recent days that Mr. Molyneaux has indicated that at that stage he will be prepared to discuss those and other matters.
Would the Minister not agree that he is categorically supportive of the principles adumbrated in the recent British Labour Party statement on Northern Ireland?
I would not cavil with the Deputy in that regard. It is not unreasonable that we should hope to see this island unified, and unified by consent. As I said, I have already denounced those people who seek to achieve by violence what they consider to be unity. I have already denounced those people who seek to achieve unity by violence. We are clearly on the side of the principles enunciated and expressed by the British Labour Party. I am grateful to the Deputy for raising the matter.
Question No. 6, please. Progress at Question Time today has been particularly sluggish. Let us try to expedite matters. Taking five questions in 40 minutes is not good enough.
