John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the discussions concerning the future of Northern Ireland.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Talks.
Dick Spring
Question:4 Mr. Spring asked the Taoiseach if, having regard to previous commitments he has given, he has any plans to consult Opposition party leaders about developments in Anglo-Irish relations, particularly in regard to Articles 2 and 3 of Bunreacht na Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Peter Barry
Question:5 Mr. Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on progress in the Northern Ireland talks.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans to initiate procedures to secure the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in view of the importance these Articles have assumed in the current talks involving the Northern Ireland political parties and the British and Irish Governments; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed at his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, on 25 September 1992.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if the comments attributed to him at a function in County Tipperary (details supplied) represent Government policy on the talks on Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, together.
The Government are pleased that the political dialogue between the Irish and British Governments and the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland is continuing. We are, of course, committed firmly to the talks which, as the House is aware, seek to achieve a new beginning in the relationships within Northern Ireland; within the island of Ireland; and between the peoples of Britain and Ireland. The Government view the talks as offering the potential for the people of these islands finally to bridge the divide across historical antagonisms which have brought so much bitterness and pain to ordinary men and women in our different countries.
My strongest hope is that the talks will be used by the participants in the full consciousness that the people of Northern Ireland cannot be asked to bear another 23 years of violence. The talks must be about peace rather than Protocol and procedures. Deputies will be aware that the talks, while in progress, are subject to the rule of confidentially which the Irish side has observed at all times. However, I can say that the talks resumed with a Strand Two sub-committee meeting in Belfast on 1 September and, at the plenary session on the following day, it was agreed that much of the work should be done within a committee with a reduced number of delegates from each group. The Strand Two discussions have continued since then, including three days of meetings in Dublin, and have worked steadily through the agenda originally agreed on 1 July by all the parties. The second meeting of Strand Three took place in London on 11 September. The Irish and British Governments continued their work on the Strand Three agenda and agreed to propose an early liaison meeting on Strand Three issues with the other four parties to the process. This meeting took place in Belfast on 16 September. The third meeting of Strand Three took place in Dublin on 22 September.
As to Articles 2 and 3, I need not recall here the reason for their place in our Constitution. With Article 29, they reflect a view widely and deeply held by Irish people everywhere.
The talks process mirrors this historical reality and seeks to balance the many elements within and between each of the three central relationships. In short, the Government support and advocate the agreed position of the constitutional Nationalist parties of Ireland as set out in paragraph 5.2.4 of the Report of the New Ireland Forum — namely, that both the Nationalist and Unionist identities must have equally satisfactory, secure and durable expression and protection in the political, administrative and symbolic domains.
As part of this approach, the Government have consistently said that Articles 2 and 3 must be treated with reference to other constitutional positions which include the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
As to consultation with Opposition party leaders, I said last April and on 1 July in this House that I will keep the Leaders of the main parties informed confidentially of the progress of the talks from time to time.
At our meeting in London on 25 September, the British Prime Minister and I discussed a range of issues including European Community matters, particularly preparations for the special meeting of the European Council to be held on 16 October, progress in the three-stranded talks process, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and other issues of common interest to our two countries.
We discussed the prospects for ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and the wider agenda of ongoing Community business to be taken forward under the British Presidency. We agreed that the Community should also proceed with other crucial business, including the completion of the Single Market and the negotiations on the future financing of the Community and preparations for enlargement.
On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister and I reviewed the talks and we pledged the continuing support of our two Governments to the process. We confirmed our commitment to the full implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, including the principle of holding regular and frequent meetings of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. We also reaffirmed our readiness to consider a new and more broadly-based agreement or structure if such an agreement can be arrived at through direct discussion and negotiation between all the parties concerned. In order to facilitate the talks process, a second and final extension of the interval between Intergovernmental Conferences was agreed. The next meeting of the Conference will take place on Monday, 16 November.
At the meeting over lunch, the Prime Minister was accompanied by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, MP, and by the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones, MP. I was accompanied by the Minister for Justice, Deputy Padraig Flynn.
I am calling the Deputies in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. I call Deputy John Bruton.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it is extremely important that an agreement be reached in the talks process and that, against the background of 3,000 deaths in Northern Ireland in the past 20 years, a breakdown in these talks would be a tragedy for this country? Would the Taoiseach agree that all parties must look not back but forward and must be generous in seeking to modify their own positions in order to accommodate others rather than looking to the historic justifications for their own positions? Would the Taoiseach agree that there is, therefore, a heavy responsibility on him as the representative of this State at this time to be flexible and show generosity in these discussions and not take the view that others must make the first move before he will make any?
I fully accept that there is a heavy responsibility on me and indeed on everybody participating in this process to find a solution and the way we have seen for the past 23 years is not the way forward that any of us want to see for the next 23 years. We have approached these talks very constructively and will continue to do so. We hope and expect that everybody else will do the same and that with goodwill on all sides we will be able to make progress.
I would again urge the Taoiseach to consider the question of consultation or at least briefings for the Leaders of the Opposition parties in this House because the approach of all in this House in relation to these talks has been constructive. I put it to the Taoiseach that the tenor of the discussions, particularly the leaks and incautious remarks, some of which verged on the antagonistic and the arrogant, have not been helpful. What we as participants in these discussions should be concentrating on are the areas of common ground and not the areas of division which seem to have bedevilled these talks. Perhaps the Taoiseach will agree that all the participants have to be seen to be setting out to reconcile our differences not to entrench our difficulties as has come across in the leaks that have taken place.
I agree fully with what Deputy Spring said in relation to the leaks and the problems they have caused to these talks but we have not been responsible for these leaks. I deplore them. They are certainly doing more damage to the talks than helping the political views of a particular party or person. I do not think that is the road to progress and it is not the way the rest of us want to travel. I was delighted that despite very extreme provocation the talks continued in Dublin and have resumed in Belfast and that is the way we want to see them going forward.
Having said that, the House should appreciate that the ground rules for these talks have been accepted by all the parties participating in them and there is no room for, nor would we accept, anybody trying to insert new conditions or preconditions to these talks as they go along. We all accepted the rules that were laid out in 1991 by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Peter Brooke. That is what everybody agreed and that is the basis on which the talks should continue. We can all expect that from time to time there will be outbursts but what is important is that the talks should continue.
In his initial reply the Taoiseach said that the objective of these talks was to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and that a vacuum in the political sense in Northern Ireland would only play into the hands of people who are not interested in peace. The Nationalists in Northern Ireland feel that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is their guarantee and continuing postponements of meetings under that agreement are not conducive to building confidence among the Nationalist community. Will the Taoiseach agree that no further meetings will be postponed and that the meetings will be held as laid down in the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
The Deputy can be assured that I fully recognise the importance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In no way will I allow that it should be diminished in any way or that anybody should even think in terms of its being dismantled and thrown away. I am sure the Deputy will also appreciate the many calls on me to ensure that the talks process was kept going in recent times. I took a decision despite threats that the talks would break down if a definitive date were set for a meeting under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I regard the Anglo-Irish Agreement as highly important and it will stay in place unless a better agreement is forthcoming from these talks.
If I understand the position correctly, Articles 2 and 3 are on the table in the talks that are taking place. Would the Taoiseach therefore explain his statement in Tipperary on 26 September that Articles 2 and 3 are not for sale and that they are in good hands? Does this mean that the Taoiseach is withdrawing Articles 2 and 3 from the talks in Northern Ireland? May I also ask the Taoiseach if he accepts that there can be no possible arrangement or solution in Northern Ireland without guaranteeing the democratic rights of all traditions in Northern Ireland and that, therefore, there has to be compromise on all sides if such a solution is to be found and that intransigent statements such as "Articles 2 and 3 are not for sale" only lead to concern and unease among those we are hoping will also compromise their position in order to reach an agreement? Finally, may I ask the Taoiseach if he would clarify what is meant by the statement in his reply today that Articles 2 and 3 reflect the views of all Irish people everywhere? The fact is they do not; there are statements that——
The Deputy has asked a number of questions. I am seeking brevity by reason of the large number of questions tabled to the Taoiseach.
The fact is the majority of Deputies in this House, based on statements by the Fine Gael Party, the Democratic Left Party, the Labour Party and the Progressive Democrats, have said quite clearly that Articles 2 and 3 should be changed——
I think the Deputy has made his point. I call on the Taoiseach to reply.
——and do not reflect the views of the majority of people on this island.
First, I refer the Deputy to my reply and to a misrepresentation of my reply by him to the House. I said, "As regard Articles 2 and 3, I need not recall here the reason for their place in the Constitution. With Article 29, they reflect a view which is widely and deeply held by Irish people". I did not say by all Irish people——
Continue the statement.
——rather I said that it is widely and deeply held and I genuinely believe that. There are many Members in this House who would agree totally with that view.
The fact is that nearly one million people do not accept——
Order, please.
The Deputy misquoted the Taoiseach.
I did not.
The Deputy should not misquote me. As regards the other statements they have also been part published but, be that as it may, it is open to any person from any party to the talks to introduce any item in relation to the Constitution. This goes for Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which led to partition of this country. Our approach has always been the same; it has been consistent and even-handed in relation to the discussions on Articles 2 and 3 and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. That is our position and the talks provide for that.
Deputy De Rossa rose.
I call Deputy Quinn whose Question No. 8 refers.
Would the Taoiseach accept that one million people have a different tradition to our own——
Order, Deputy De Rossa will resume his seat forthwith.
——that they are Irish people and do not accept Articles 2 and 3 as a legitimate expression of their tradition?
Deputy De Rossa, Deputy Quinn will be heard.
They are a significant section of this community and should be taken into account.
I have three questions, if I can put them seriatim to the Taoiseach. As I am very anxious that he should not be misquoted, would he confirm that the report in the Sunday Independent of 27 September is an accurate description of what he said; second, if so, would he indicate how Articles 2 and 3 are not for sale if everything is on the table and, third, would he indicate what the philosophy behind Articles 2 and 3 might be and in what way are they in safe hands?
Suggestions have been made from many directions down here that Articles 2 and 3 should be changed and given away in advance of any movement in the talks. This was asked for by certain people at the talks. I want to make it clear to everybody that we go along with the ground rules which were agreed by everybody involved in the talks, no more, no less and, consequently, every aspect of constitutional matters and of the Unionist and Nationalist identity are up for discussion. That is what is taking place. As regards the remarks I made in Tipperary, as I said, they were reported in part only and were incomplete——
Is it accurate and is it fair to you?
As I said, the remarks that were reported are accurate while some have been left out.
I am giving the Taoiseach an opportunity now to elaborate.
It is up to somebody else to elaborate because my views on Articles 2 and 3 are no different now despite the provocation from others to try to get me to change them in advance of the talks. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I believe that if people down here genuinely think that if we were to remove Articles 2 and 3 now that we would solve the problems in Northern Ireland they are sadly mistaken. If we do not approach both communities in an even-handed way or if we try to solve the problems of one side by ignoring the problems of the other——
They might even be for sale at the right price.
Let us hear the Taoiseach's reply without interruption.
The two identities must be identified clearly and justice must be seen to be done. We must try to find a formula so that the two communities can live together. We should not adopt a simplistic approach and try to suggest that if we were to remove Articles 2 and 3 that we would solve all the problems in Northern Ireland. That is not acceptable.
Deputy J. Bruton rose.
Deputy Bruton, I hesitate to permit another round of questions for the obvious reason that they must be to the disadvantage of all the other questions tabled to the Taoiseach.
With all due respect, Sir, I represent 55 Deputies in this House and I put down just one question. I think I am entitled to ask more than one supplementary question.
If I permit the Deputy to ask a supplementary question I shall have to permit all the other Deputies who tabled questions to put questions also.
Deputy Dukes asked a supplementary.
A brief question from the Deputies concerned, and when I say brief I mean brief, relevant and succinct.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he is aware that the basis on which all these strands of discussions are taking place is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that the Taoiseach would not necessarily be sacrificing anything definitively by indicating a clear willingness to make appropriate amendments to Articles 2 and 3 if other agreements were also entered into by others? Would he agree that what is necessary——
I did ask for brevity.
Would he agree that what is necessary here is a signal from the Government so that others would be in a position to make concessions in turn and an agreement could be reached? That is my first question.
I am sorry, Deputy Bruton, but I asked for brevity at this stage because of my desire to get through as many questions to the Taoiseach as possible. I was hesitant to allow a second round of questions and I only did so on the definite understanding that we would have brevity.
I appreciate your anxiety——
Deputy Bruton, either you comply with the Chair's ruling or I proceed to another question.
Does the Taoiseach believe that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, was the basis on which Stormont was abolished, and that it was the use of those powers that enabled Stormont to be abolished? May I ask him what he would wish to put in its place?
I am afraid that we are having a multitude of questions.
Second——
I am very sorry, Deputy, but this will have to await another time——
What other time will there be?
There are many other opportunities open to the Deputy to raise such matters in the House.
We will not be allowed to put questions of this kind for another four months.
He can do so by way of a motion or a substantive motion, an Adjournment Debate or the like.
Sir, I feel——
I appeal to the Deputy to co-operate with me. Clearly, he is not doing so.
I have to say, Sir, that you are being unfair.
We will let the House decide that at any given time. Deputy Spring.
Do not tempt me.
You are welcome, Deputy, if you feel it is justified.
May I have an answer to the questions that I have put, please?
In relation to the talks, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and it is open to everybody participating in the talks to raise constitutional or any other questions at any given time. That is the basis on which the talks are proceeding. We have put forward constructive papers during the course of the talks both last week and the week before and I think the people who are genuine see them as constructive and signalling movement. We are awaiting an adequate response to them. We also look forward to other parties participating in the talks and putting forward their views on new institutions and on what might lead to changes in the future. We will come together to assess where progress can be made.
Deputy Spring.
May I have an answer to my second question?
I shall be very brief, Sir. I am aware that the Anglo-Irish Conference are to meet again in mid-November——
On the 16th.
——but may I ask the Taoiseach if that is meant to be taken as a time frame for a conclusion of the present talks or is it envisaged that the talks will continue beyond that date?
There was a strong view that they should be given that period of time to try to advance from the position they were at and that it would take five to six weeks to do this. The House should recall that in July we agreed to a postponement of the Anglo-Irish Conference. The view was held by many parties at that time that the talks were likely to proceed during August. This meant in effect that five weeks had been lost and the purpose of the extension between now and November is to replace the time that was lost. It was also important that I show goodwill and good faith towards the talks, and that we give a reasonable time.
To come back to the question raised by Deputy Barry, it is equally important that the Anglo-Irish Conference is seen not to be set aside or in any way diminished. There were developments in the North of Ireland in relation to violence — there was an escalation of violence especially from the Loyalist side — and an Anglo-Irish Conference meeting was necessary to address the change in pace of violence up there, which we all deplore. Consequently, in my discussions with John Major, the British Prime Minister, we discussed the matters that needed to be taken care of. We agreed that 16 November was a suitable date for the meeting and that date is not changeable. On that day we will see what progress has been made in the talks and will evaluate the position. The Anglo-Irish Conference will take place on 16 November.
Does Deputy Barry wish to intervene?
No.
May I ask the Taoiseach if he regards as Irish the million or so inhabitants of Northern Ireland who describe themselves as Unionists — the vast majority of these people define themselves as Irish — and, if so, does he not believe that by relieving their anxieties in offering to change Articles 2 and 3 it would eliminate a major obstacle to progress towards a solution in Northern Ireland? No-one believes that the removal of Articles 2 and 3 alone will bring about a solution but they are a major obstacle. Finally, would the Taoiseach not agree that the alteration of Articles 2 and 3 from a territorial claim to an aspiration would end the distorted view in the South of Northern Ireland?
Of course I regard the one million Unionist people as Irish. They live on the island and they have to be accommodated on this island, but I do not believe the removal of one anxiety to try to pacify another is the real way forward. I am quite certain, and I am sure many Deputies in this House would agree, that we have to be extremely careful in the balanced approach we make to both sides of the political divide and to the two identities up there. We want to ensure that we do not open a door to further violence either on the Nationalist or the Unionist side. Constitutional politics has taken over and we want to ensure it holds its place at the centre of the stage. That is what I am there to do and I am working for nothing else but peace on this island of Ireland.
In the light of the exchanges that have taken place could the Taoiseach confirm that in the event of a satisfactory outcome of the total talks Articles 2 and 3 might perhaps be altered or, to use the Taoiseach's charming Republican phrase, could be up for sale? Is that a correct interpretation?
That is a hypothetical question from the Deputy. Articles in the papers by his leader reflect what I believe is a very sensible pragmatic approach to the question of Articles 2 and 3. In those articles he cautioned that we should not rush into any immediate changes.
A final question from Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla.
Are we not going to get an answer?
As Deputy Barry pointed out, the Taoiseach said in his reply that the purpose of these talks is to bring about peace. That was a very significant statement because it is the first time I have heard it said in regard to these talks, that they are about the totality of relationships between all the people on this island and so on.
Ceist, le do thoil.
Does the Taoiseach believe that the purpose of these talks is to provide an interim solution which would bring about peace or does he continue to pursue the final solution of the totality of relationships between all the people on the island?
I am seeking in these talks a final agreement on the totality of relationships. I do not believe that interim peace, with the prospect of violence breaking out again in a short time, is the real answer to our problems. We have an opportunity now to try to settle the historical differences on this island and that is the objective I have set for myself. I am surprised at Deputy Mac Giolla's statement that this is the first time he has heard the word "peace" mentioned in relation to these talks. It was the first word I mentioned when I took over as Taoiseach. I decided I would set out to find a new path to peace and I am staying on that road.
Question No. 9 in the name of Deputy John Bruton.
I would like to ask one question.
I invited the Deputy to ask a question earlier.
This is the first time the Leader of the Opposition has been interrupted when questioning the Taoiseach about Northern Ireland affairs, and I regret you had to do so.
It was for very good and obvious reasons.
It was not for good and obvious reasons.
It was for good and obvious reasons.
It was not, Sir.
It involved a second round of questions; I asked the Deputy to be brief but he was not brief.
It is the only time I remember the Leader of the Opposition being interrupted when questioning the Taoiseach on Northern Ireland affairs.
I asked Deputy Barry earlier if he wished to intervene and he said no. Now he has come in to criticise the Chair; is that the position?
That is correct.
If the Deputy wants to criticise the Chair he should do so in a positive manner.
I will not withdraw my remark: it is the first time I have seen this happen. May I ask the Taoiseach if he would consider rephrasing what he said earlier — I presume it was a slip of the tongue — that the Unionists must be accommodated on this island? The New Ireland Forum clearly states they have rights here which we stand over.
I recognise they have rights. The Deputy misinterpreted what I said. Of course they have rights on this island. What we want to do is find a structure by which the two identities can be recognised and find a new way to live in peace on this island. That is what I am trying to do.
We are not accommodating the Unionists.
They belong here.