Vol. 416 No. 6
2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has raised with the British Prime Minister the threat to the livelihood of those in the agricultural and food industries of the Dunkel proposals to conclude the world trade talks, in light of the possibility that these matters may be raised at a G7 meeting at which Ireland will not be directly represented.
3 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the nature of his discussions with the British Prime Minister.
4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the matters discussed with representatives of the SDLP during his meeting on 24 February 1992; if, following the meeting, he will give his views on the possibilities for the resumption of inter-party talks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the matters discussed at his meeting on 26 February 1992, with the British Prime Minister; if, as a result of the meeting, any new initiatives are planned to help secure political progress and an end to violence in Northern Ireland, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement following his meeting with the British Prime Minister on 26 February 1992.
7 Mr. Barry asked the Taoiseach if he and the British Prime Minister agreed on a date for the resumption of the Northern Ireland talks.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 7, inclusive, together.
On a point of order, would it be possible for the Taoiseach to answer Question No. 2 separately, as it is on a specific matter?
I do not see anything specific in it; it is linked with the British Prime Minister's meeting.
My meeting with the SDLP on 24 February, at which I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews, provided an opportunity to obtain, at first hand, their assessment of the prospects for political progress in relation to Northern Ireland and to outline the Government's approach as set out by me in the House recently. We also discussed North/South economic co-operation.
At our meeting in London on 26 February, the British Prime Minister and I discussed a range of bilateral matters, European Community affairs, and other issues of common interest to our countries.
On Northern Ireland, we were in total agreement on the need to take forward political dialogue in the three-stranded talks and we pledged the support of our Governments for this process. I conveyed to the Prime Minister my Government's appreciation of his initiative in meeting in Downing Street, for the first time since 1976, the leaders of the four main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland and our welcome for the agreement he reached with those leaders under which they would meet to discuss obstacles in the way of further political dialogue. Deputies will be aware that, in furtherance of their agreement with the Prime Minister, the party leaders met last Friday and indicated that they see no obstacle to the resumption of talks as soon as possible. The Government very much welcome this propitious development.
The Prime Minister and I also discussed the recent violence in Northern Ireland and its appalling toll of death, bereavement and destruction. We reaffirmed our determination to work together, through co-operation in all areas, including security, so that those who are engaged in terrorist activities are fully dealt with under the law, and that terrorism does not succeed.
We also affirmed our joint commitment to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and agreed that it would continue to be implemented in full unless it is transcended by new and better arrangements.
We continued our discussions at a working dinner. The Prime Minister was accompanied at this dinner by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Brooke, and the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, MD, and the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Tristan Gasrel-Jones, MP I was accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Deputy Pádraig Flynn. Our discussions covered European Community and international issues, as well as further consideration of Northern Ireland matters.
I outlined to the Prime Minister the importance Ireland attaches to the Maastricht Treaty and our initial appreciation of the Commission proposals for the Delors package mark II. I also set out for him our concerns in relation to the agriculture aspects of the GATT negotiations and as regards the Commission's proposals on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. The British side conveyed their views on Delors mark II and on the likely priorities of the UK's Presidency of the Community in the second half of this year.
The Prime Minister and I agreed to remain in touch and to continue the understanding about meetings at least twice yearly. These meetings will normally alternate between Dublin and London.
While in London I also had a very useful meeting with the Leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Neil Kinnock, MP, who was accompanied by his Deputy, Mr. Roy Hattersley and the party's spokesman on Northern Ireland, Mr. Kevin McNamara. I outlined the Government's approach to the Northern Ireland question and our hopes that political dialogue would commence as soon as possible. We also touched on EC concerns.
My meeting with the Prime Minister provided an early opportunity for me to renew my acquaintance with Mr. Major. We have the shared objective of seeing that yet another generation is not afflicted with a repetition of the suffering and deprivation of the past 22 years of violence. I look forward to working with the Prime Minister to that end and achieving progress through the political process — and the peace and reconciliation desired by the vast majority of the people in these islands.
On behalf of my party may I welcome the fact that discussions are being resumed between the parties in Northern Ireland? I am sure that view is shared by all sides of this House. Are there proposals to have a further meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference before either the British general election or the end of April, whichever is the later? In regard to the subject matter of Question No. 2, did the British Prime Minister indicate to the Taoiseach that his Government were opposed to Delors mark II, which involves a 35 per cent increase in own resources for the Community? Is the Taoiseach aware that if that package is not approved, there will be no funds available for compensation under the MacSharry package and that this would have very grave consequences for the Irish economy?
There will be a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference before April; one is scheduled for Friday next, 6 March. In response to the Deputy's second question let me say, the British and Irish Governments have different interests, as the Deputy will appreciate in relation to Delors mark II. Clearly the British Government see the increase sought by President Delors in his package as being excessive, while we want to see it maintained as far as possible.
Will the Taoiseach clarify two matters: first, did the question of an internal settlement in Northern Ireland arise in his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, and if so did the Taoiseach express a view on its acceptability or otherwise? Second, will the Taoiseach outline what obstacles, in his view, were removed over the past number of days to facilitate the talks in Northern Ireland and whether he and the British Prime Minister played a role in removing those obstacles to facilitate the recommencement of talks, which we all welcome?
In regard to the Deputy's second question, clearly the calling of all political leaders in Northern Ireland to a meeting at Downing Street had the effect of focusing their minds on the recommencement of talks. We are all glad that talks have recommenced. We are aware that the British Prime Minister and the Leader of the British Labour Party made statements to the effect that irrespective of the results of the general election, the talks should continue on the same basis as prior to the election. I know that written commitments to that effect are being sought at present.
I am aware also that talks are scheduled to take place very shortly after the Anglo-Irish Conference meeting on Friday.
In reply to the Deputy's first question, I should like to say we were not dealing with the specifics of an internal settlement; we ranged over a variety of topics and we did not get down to any specific detail.
The Taoiseach indicated in his statement after his meeting with Mr. Major that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was on the agenda. Could he now indicate what aspects of that Act were placed on the table and whether he believes they conflict in any way with aspects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, specifically article 1 of that Agreement? Is the Taoiseach seeking a written statement from the British Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the basis of the recommencement of talks, which I hope are underway again, and their continuation after the British general election which will be held shortly? When discussing the Maastricht Treaty with the British Prime Minister did the Taoiseach raise the fact that Britain opted out of the Social Charter aspects of the treaty and how that will impact on jobs and the social concerns of workers in Ireland? Does he see this having an impact on Ireland?
Part of the discussion that took place related to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, but, as I said in this House before, my approach is to be fair-minded and open in discussions, recognising the differences and the diversity of the traditions in both communities. In that context, I demonstrated clearly that my approach was fair and equitable. I do not see any conflict in discussing aspects of the 1920 Act and article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In fact article 1 of the Agreement accepts that there are differences in approach.
As regards the Deputy's question on the Maastricht Treaty, we discussed the referendum on this matter to be held by the Irish Government later in the year and also the possible holding of referenda in France and Denmark as well.
It is quite clear that Britain opted out of the Social Charter and we will be dealing with this question again under the British Presidency, if not beforehand.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that the Anglo-Irish Agreement effectively supersedes the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, in that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was explicitly approved by the British Parliament? Second, does the Taoiseach agree that no matter how the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, is interpreted it does not have the same constitutional imperative force as our courts have decided Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution have?
The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as we all know, is the basic legislation which partitioned this country. Every initiative that has been taken so far, up to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the three strands approach to talks at present, has clearly failed. I see no serious conflict with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in going back to analysing the problem from the start. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can, of course, be expanded and enlarged as we go along and now that the strand one talks are about to start again we hope that strand two can start as soon as possible after strand one. We will work along those lines through political dialogue. The explanatory memorandum which accompanied the 1920 Act showed the thinking at the time about the setting up of a Council of Ireland and the devolving of various policy matters to the Council, such as fisheries, railways and common administration in relation to animal disease. There are many interesting aspects to be looked at.
Regarding the subject matter of Question No. 2, in view of the serious importance for Ireland of the extra financing for the Community in the Delors package, does the Taoiseach propose to take any steps to persuade Prime Ministers of other member states who have so far indicated opposition to these proposals to change their minds? Apart from his discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, has the Taoiseach any plans to meet Chancellor Kohl, who has indicated that he too is opposed to the Delors package? If that opposition were successful it would have disastrous effects on the Irish economy.
The Deputy and the House can be assured that all steps necessary to persuade everybody and anybody in relation to it will be taken. The matter was the subject of discussion at the General Affairs Council on Monday and we will continue to lobby, everywhere we have to whenever we have to, regarding the approach of other member states to the Delors plan.
Does the policy on Northern Ireland which the Taoiseach outlined on behalf of his Government at his meeting with Prime Minister Major concur completely with that outlined and pursued by his predecessor since 1987?
We reaffirmed our total commitment to the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and our approach to the three strands of talks. We were not then aware of the probable resumption of those talks but we welcome them and hope they can proceed on the basis envisaged.
The Taoiseach would have to agree that the placing of the 1920 Act on the agenda was a departure from the previously stated policy of the Government. I would ask him to expand on his view as to the aspects of that Act which will be on the table. It is fine to talk about the co-operation which was envisaged under that Act; that is the kind of co-operation we would envisage in any event, with or without the 1920 Act. Could the Taoiseach explain in more explicit detail what specific aspect of the 1920 Act he wants tabled as part of the bargain in having Articles 2 and 3 also on the table? Perhaps he would give an answer to my earlier question with regard to guarantees from the British Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Neil Kinnock. Is he seeking a written commitment from them or is he satisfied with the private commitment he has received from them with regard to the basis of talks after the forthcoming British general election?
Regarding the latter part of the Deputy's question, both leaders have already made public statements in regard to the situation post-election. They are being asked by the parties in the North of Ireland for written commitments to reaffirm that position. I leave it at that. Regarding the further details sought by the Deputy, this was an introductory meeting. Our thoughts and our plans on various structures will be developed as we go along. I can reassure the House that along with the resumption of the three strands of talks both of us agreed that we would keep in touch on a regular basis and watch developments as they take place. We are not necessarily bound to stick with the two meetings which have become institutionalised. We can have as many meetings as are thought desirable as occasion arises and we will keep in close touch in that regard.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's discussions with the British Prime Minister and the 1920 Act, did he raise the question of the monstrous "check point Charlie" arrangements along the Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Would he bring to the attention of the British Prime Minister that this is an unfriendly act and a vote of no confidence in our security arrangements along the Border? I ask the Taoiseach to question whether, under the 1920 Act, the British Government have authority to close the Border during the hours of darkness. Would the Taoiseach care to comment?
The Deputy is raising a rather specific matter worthy of a separate question.
It is a very important question.
All the more reason it should be a separate question.
It arises out of discussions between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and the 1920 Act. Deputy Gallagher will confirm the inconvenience it causes.
The Deputy has made his point.
I must return to the question of the 1920 Act.
Repetition is not in order. Time for Questions is very precious and you are engaging in repetition.
I am not engaging in repetition. I intend to approach the question in a slightly different way. Articles 2 and 3 which the Taoiseach has offered to put on the table refer to the territorial claim by this State with regard to Northern Ireland. The 1920 Act is the basis in legal terms for the existence of Northern Ireland. Is that the fundamental issue which is at stake when he places this item on the agenda? Is he now saying he does not accept the constitutional position of Northern Ireland?
The Deputy should be fully aware that any discussions in relation to Articles 2 and 3 and the 1920 Act will be on the table at the end of the day. That has already been made clear and I again confirm it. The question of the concerns of both communities will be put on the table at the same time. That has been my approach and it is a fair, open-minded and equitable approach when we reach the table for final discussions.
Did the Government's policy on or attitude to internment in the North form any part of the discussion with the British Prime Minister?
The question of security in general terms arose. There was no specific discussion on internment. The Prime Minister made it clear at his press briefing afterwards that as far as he was concerned internment was there to be used if thought necessary. With regard to other security matters, there were complimentary remarks to the Irish Government and the security forces here for their continued co-operation. Many of those——
Why do they build these monstrous "check point Charlies"?
——matters will be returned for discussion on the agenda of the Anglo-Irish Conference on Friday.
(Limerick East): I put it to the Taoiseach that the introduction of the Government of Ireland Act to the discussions has no basis in reality and that, in effect, it is a political makeweight to protect the Taoiseach from criticism from greener members of his own party at a time when he is prepared to make a concession on Articles 2 and 3.
I want to make it abundantly clear that the question of Articles 2 and 3 is the same as it always was. It will be considered on the table in the final analysis when everybody gets to the table — then and not until then. I think everybody is quite clear where I stand on that.
Is the Taoiseach speaking personally or on behalf of the Government?
Questions Nos. 8 and 9 have been postponed until next Tuesday. Question No. 10.
