John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the action, if any, he proposed to take to have the Northern Ireland talks resumed.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Talks.
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, he is contemplating taking to extend the scope of the discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference meetings under the aegis of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in regard to his recent address to the Cáirde Fáil dinner in which he said that the process of dialogue in Northern Ireland must be restarted, he intends to take any specific initiatives to encourage the reopening of the dialogue; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:9 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the Government's proposals, if any, for reform of the Constitution; if the Government has any proposals to review Articles 2 and 3; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Austin Deasy
Question:10 Mr. Deasy asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to hold a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together, When the last round of talks ended on 10 November 1992, the participants issued an agreed statement in which the Irish and British Governments expressed the view that further political dialogue was both necessary and desirable while the four Northern Ireland parties agreed with this view and undertook to enter into informal consultations to seek a way foward. At my meeting with the British Prime Minister in Dublin on 7 December 1992, we reaffirmed our commitment to work towards the resumption of the dialogue.
The Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-97 makes clear this Government's determination to work for an early resumption of political dialogue with the aim that all of the relationships involved will be comprehensively addressed in a spirit of openness and innovation; that the Government are ready to discuss every issue and to incorporate all agreed changes. On 12 January, I reaffirmed in this House the Government's deep commitment to the establishment of peace in Northern Ireland through the negotiation of a balanced settlement. I repeat that commitment here today against the sombre background of the numerous further deplorable and heart-breaking incidents of loss of life, on both sides of the beleaguered community in Northern Ireland, we have unfortunately seen over the period since then.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs had an informal meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 22 January to review the prospects for a resumption of the talks. The position was again reviewed at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference on 3 February. These meetings reiterated the determination of both Governments to promote a comprehensive political settlement which would address the three central relationships. The conference meeting confirmed the readiness of both Governments to demonstrate openness, flexibility and imagination in their efforts to promote such a settlement in consultation with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and agreed that every effort should be made to create conditions under which further talks could take place at an early date.
Therefore there can be no doubt regarding the Government's resolve to work earnestly to achieve the earliest possible resumption of the talks process. We do so in the firm belief that a lasting settlement is profoundly desired by the vast majority of people from both traditions on this island. The realisation of this desire can stem only from a comprehensive and engaging dialogue. It is for this reason that the Tánaiste has indicated his desire for early meetings with the Northern Ireland parties. I very much hope that this will happen.
The Government's position in relation to constitutional reform, with particular reference to Articles 2 and 3, is outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government. This makes clear the Government's willingness to discuss all constitutional issues and to initiate and incorporate change in the context of an overall settlement. It also states:
Since the final outcome of such negotiations will need to be acceptable to the people North and South, we will seek any necessary endorsement in a referendum for an agreed package, which achieves a balanced accommodation of the differing positions of the two main traditions on constitutional issues, and creates structures which will bridge divisions and promote reconciliation between the unionist and nationalist traditions and ensure enhanced co-operation between both parts of Ireland;
Regarding the scope of the discussions in the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference, Article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement sets out the matters with which it would deal, political, security, legal and the promotion of cross-Border co-operation.
Within this ambit, the range of matters and issues dealt with has been extended at several stages, most notably following the review of the working of the conference published in May 1989. The conference meeting on 3 February considered a joint paper on economic and social topics which might be discussed at future conferences, including business co-operation and tourism, enterprise and employment, science and technology and inland fisheries, to name but a few. The follow-up will be covered in a report the secretariat was asked to prepare. The Government will aim at the fullest possible extension of the work of the conference, within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the most constructive move his Government could make to get formal talks restarted would be to make a clear statement that it would definitely be willing not just to discuss the matter but actually to recommend a change in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution as part of an overall settlement?
I have already made very clear the Government's willingness to discuss all constitutional issues and, let me emphasise the following words, "to inititate and incorporate change in the context of an overall settlement that is balanced in regard to the differing positions of the two main traditions in Ireland on the constitutional issues involved." The Programme for a Partnership Government gives a commitment that such a settlement would be put to the people in a referendum. I believe this is a forward looking and open position. It is fully consistent with the agreed understanding that nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the talks as a whole.
Deputy Proinsias De Rossa, whose Questions Nos. 8 and 9 refer.
In stating that all constitutional issues are up for discussion, is the Taoiseach referring only to the Constitution of this State or is he also talking about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom? Does the Taoiseach regard the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as part of that constitutional issue?
I have at all times made it clear that it is open to every party to the talks to raise any issue that they wish to raise. That includes constitutional issues both from the Irish constitutional position or the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. The principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed still holds. The talks process recognises the requirements for a lasting settlement through its focus on seeking to balance the many elements within not alone the relationships between the communities in the North of Ireland and the relationships between the North of Ireland and the Republic, but the relationships between here and Great Britain. If a durable settlement were to emanate from those talks, which I know everybody in this House aspires to, and if that settlement were to lead to lasting peace and stability on the island, there has to be a balanced accommodation of the differing positions of the two main traditions in Ireland on a constitutional basis.
Order. I now call Deputy Austin Deasy, whose Question No. 10 refers.
I am a bit confused. Am I to take it that the Taoiseach considers that a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 is desirable? If that is what is implicit in the Taoiseach's answer, it is contrary to his speech in Nenagh some weeks ago in which he ruled out any referendum on Articles 2 and 3.
Questions not comments.
Can we take it that the Taoiseach favours a referendum?
I think Deputy Deasy is trying, as some of his colleagues did before, to quote part of what I said at a function in Nenagh. The position is unchanged. We realise that a lasting solution to the problems of this island must recognise both traditions. We have continuously said that both constitutional positions would have to be taken into account in any settlement that was going to last and bring peace to this island. We are all trying to pursue the objective of peace at this time. I have said continuously, and repeated in a speech at Bodenstown in the latter quarter of last year and many times in the House, that we are open to try to find an accommodation that would bring lasting peace. I have no plans to hold a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 in advance of any settlement that may be arrived at.
Deputies J. O'Keeffe and O'Malley rose.
Order, a number of Deputies are offering. I will call them if they will be brief. I call, first, Deputy O'Keeffe.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that it is absolutely necessary in order, to avoid confusion, that he make a clear and explicit statement on this issue to this House? At one stage he said Articles 2 and 3 are not for sale. Now he is being given the opportunity to state specifically that he will recommend changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution as part of an overall settlement. Could the Taoiseach clearly say "yes" or "no" to that?
The only one who is confused is Deputy O'Keeffe. I set out the position quite clearly and plainly. I have tried to be helpful in relation to it. I have expanded on the matter and if the Deputy does not understand——
In one word, "yes" or "no".
I think the Deputy would agree with me that if any new agreed political arrangments are to gain the legitimacy and consent that some of the older ones have conspicuously lacked——
I do not want an explanation——
Put down that script and tell us what you think.
If the Deputy does not want an answer that is fine.
I am calling Deputy O'Malley.
If these talks are resumed, as all of us hope they are, what form does the Taoiseach envisage they will take? Will they be in largely the same form as they were before or will he suggest that they be in a different form and, if so, what?
It is a bit early to say what form they may take. The Tánaiste has extended invitations to political leaders in the North of Ireland. He has had some responses so far. All of us in this House would be hopeful that those informal talks would get underway to try to find the best way to resume the talks. They do not necessarily have to follow the previous format.
(Limerick East): Is the Taoiseach going to maintain special responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs and Anglo-Irish affairs as his two predecessors, Mr. Haughey and Dr. FitzGerald did, or on this occasion will Anglo-Irish affairs and Northern Ireland affairs be the responsibility of the Tánaiste?
The Deputy should be aware from the previous administration which I led that Northern Ireland affairs were the responsibility of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy David Andrews. The same applies in this Government. We have already established a committee of the Cabinet involving the Minister for Justice, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself to deal with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
(Limerick East): To be quite explicit about it, do I take it that the Taoiseach is not retaining the special responsibility which former Taoisigh, the then Deputies Haughey and FitzGerald, did in respect of Northern Ireland affairs and that primary responsibility now lies with the Tánaiste?
If the Deputy is trying to insinuate I will not be involved, I believe in devolved responsibility. In relation to Northern Ireland or any such issues, the Deputy can take it that the Taoiseach will be fully on top of any arrangements that may be put in place in relation to the future of the talks.
(Limerick East): The Taoiseach is not answering the question.
I am now calling Deputy Mary Harney.
If the Deputy is asking if I take a different view and approach to the extent that I have demonstrated so far, yes I do.
I call Deputy Mary Harney.
(Limerick East): With respect, I have just one brief supplementary. I am not trying to make a contentious point, nor am I trying to intervene between the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. I am simply trying to clarify if there is a departure from the practice that pertained in Deputies Haughey and FitzGerald's time.
There is a lot of repetition. It is a luxury we cannot afford at Question Time.
May I ask the Taoiseach if the Government of Ireland Act is still on the table? Will it be in order for the Tánaiste to allow his Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to deputise for him in the event of him being unable to attend the Northern Ireland talks?
I am surprised that the Deputy should raise a matter like this on the first day of the new session. The first I heard of the Deputy's desire for participation in the talks in the last Government was when I read of it in The Sunday Tribune.
Do I understand from what the Taoiseach has said that in circumstances where the two sovereign Governments and representatives of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland agree on a package of agreement, that package will be put in a referendum to people in this part of the country and possibly in the other part also and that will involve substitution of Articles 2 and 3? May I have a straight answer to that? Secondly, may I remind the Taoiseach that it is almost 25 years ago since the start of the civil rights campaign in Northern Ireland. It is 21 years since the British took over direct responsibility in Northern Ireland. Yet there are still serious abuses of civil rights within that jurisdiction.
Ceist, le do thoil.
Could we have a guarantee that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will be fully implemented and utilised to see that these abuses are remedied once and for all?
The Deputy can be assured that the Anglo Irish Agreement will be worked fully and effectively as it has been in the recent past. We will expand it in whatever way it is possible to do so within its parameters. In relation to constitutional matters, I have said time and again that all constitutional matters are on the table for discussion and can be raised by any party.
The Taoiseach does the process no service by not coming out straight on this issue——
The Deputy, more than anybody else in this House, would agree that a balance must be restored between recognition of existing constitutional realities and acknowledgment of the value of a future that we believe would be best for all people of this island. He recognises exactly what an equitable solution will mean at the end of the day. That is what we seek. Restoring peace to this island is the first priority.
I want to bring these questions to finality.
The one thing we are all united about in this House is that we want peace on this island. The difference arises as to how we achieve it. The Taoiseach indicated that he is anxious to create the conditions in which these talks may get under way. In that spirit, and the declared spirit of generosity, would he identify the Articles of the Irish Constitution he feels could be changed at the end of the process of discussion?
That is a separate question. There are many aspects of the Irish Constitution that many Deputies might have differing views about and that is an issue for the future; it is not an issue to be addressed today.
Would the Taoiseach agree that his failure to give unambiguous answers to questions today is a lost opportunity and that if he were willing to speak in plain language about his intentions in regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution he would undoubtedly get a response which would lead to much earlier recommencement of these talks than would otherwise be the case? Does the Taoiseach not realise, leaving all party considerations aside, that he has an opportunity that he should not cast aside simply because he cannot quite make up his mind?
If the Deputy is suggesting that the simple solution to the complex issues that have gone on for so long and are rooted in centuries past is changing of Articles 2 and 3 then I sadly disagree with him.
That is a simplistic answer.
Everybody who studies and knows the complexities is aware——
The ball is in the Taoiseach's court.
——there has to be a fair and equitable approach and solution to the situation. Deputies can be assured of that.
That is a disgraceful performance.
(Limerick East): In view of the way the Taoiseach is talking I would prefer to see the Tánaiste in charge, having sole responsibility. We might get somewhere then. The Taoiseach does not even know the language.
Ceist.
I have taken it much further than the Deputy's party took it and I will take it further.