Vol. 425 No. 7
40 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the initiatives, if any, he proposes to take through the Anglo Irish conference with a view to advancing the peace process in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
48 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has issued a formal invitation to the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party for talks on the future of Northern Ireland; and if not, when he proposes to do so.
69 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the prospects, if any, of recommencing talks between political parties in Northern Ireland and the Governments of both Ireland and the United Kingdom.
73 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, in the context of resumed Northern Ireland talks, he is willing to recommend changes to the present working of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution as part of an overall settlement.
74 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in relation to his recent statement that constitutional change would accompany a settlement of the Northern Ireland conflict, he was referring to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
75 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew; if, in the light of the meeting, he will give his assessment of the prospects for resumed talks between the political parties in Northern Ireland; the steps, if any, the Government intends to take to facilitate the reopening of dialogue; if his attention has been drawn to the reported comments by a person (details supplied) that there could be no hope of political progress unless the Government was prepared to sponsor legislation for a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 40, 48, 69, 73, 74 and 75 together.
Since asuming office, I have been engaged in a detailed review of the prospects for a resumption of political talks on the future of Northern Ireland.
I had the opportunity for a thorough discussion of this matter at an informal meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Dublin on 22 January and at a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference which took place in London on 3 February.
I have made clear to the Secretary of State the Government's determination to work for the earliest possible resumption of political dialogue. I can confirm that this objective is fully shared by the British Government. We wish to see progress towards a comprehensive political settlement which will address all the main relationships and which will bring lasting peace, stability and prosperity.
When the last round of talks concluded, the participants recorded their view that further dialogue was desirable and necessary and they agreed to join in informal consultation with a view to finding a way forward. I have signalled the readiness of the Government to enter consultations immediately with a view to achieving a basis for further talks. I have made clear on a number of occasions my desire to sit down face to face with Unionist leaders to hear their concerns at first hand and to discuss the way forward. I very much hope that this invitation will be taken up, and will be making appropriate contacts to examine how this can best be achieved.
The Programme for a Partnership Government sets out in some detail the objectives which the Government will seek to attain in a renewed process of dialogue. We are committed to pursuing them in a spirit of openness and honesty, showing a willingness to discuss all constitutional issues and to initiate and incorporate change in the context of an overall settlement. We are working towards an accommodation between the two traditions in Ireland, based on the principle that both must have equally satisfactory, secure and durable political, administrative and symbolic expression and protection. We are committed to seeking 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 which will bridge divisions and promote reconciliation between them.
The talks process so far has made us all aware of the strong views of the Unionist parties on Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution and I accept these are among the issues that will have to be addressed and resolved in renewed talks. The talks also confirmed, however, that there are two conflicting views on Articles 2 and 3 as between the two communities in Northern Ireland. The search for accommodation must take account of this dimension also. We cannot hope to reach a solution by addressing the concerns of one side only.
Constitutional issues cannot be dealt with as abstractions divorced from the realities on the ground in Northern Ireland. It is precisely because of the need to consider the practical and the political context, and to reconcile the positions of both communities in Northern Ireland that further dialogue and negotiations are necessary. As the Programme for a Partnership Government made clear, we are ready to initiate and incorporate change in the context of an overall settlement, but it is reasonable to expect that any changes would flow from such dialogue and negotiations rather than be made a precondition for them.
Will the Tánaiste clarify for the House, first who is responsible for the development of policy on Northern Ireland and, second arising from the confusion generated by an earlier reply from the Taoiseach, whether he is prepared to accept that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution are a major problem for one of the communities in Northern Ireland and that, as part of an overall settlement not coupled with other issues, he would be prepared to recommend changes in Articles 2 and 3?
First, as Minister for Foreign Affairs in this Government I have day-to-day responsibility for matters pertaining to foreign affairs and for matters pertaining to Northern Ireland. As has been announced, a sub-committee of the Cabinet has been formed, involving the Taoiseach, myself and the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice has particular responsibility in relation to security matters, which the Deputy will be aware of. Obviously, Northern Ireland policy is a constantly evolving process. In relation to Articles 2 and 3, in relation to a range of issues, the Deputy will be aware of the statements I have made — the press statement I made in London last week and the press conference I attended after the meeting of the inter-governmental conference. I have said very clearly that Articles 2 and 3 are a source of difficulty to the Unionist community. I have also said, and made it very clear, that I want them to come and talk to me.
I think that no politician in this island can take upon himself to refuse to come to any discussions which might be helpful to the future of this island. What is happening in Northern Ireland on a daily basis is far too serious to allow it to continue. In that respect I believe that at the earliest possible opportunity all politicians on this island must sit around the table to resolve the difficult issues.
Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, welcomed what he described as a new sense of realism on the part of the Irish Government in its approach to the Northern Ireland issue? If he is so aware, would he agree that this new sense of realism must contrast with the previous policy? Would the Minister put his finger on what it is that is different about his approach from that followed by the Minister of the outgoing Government prior to his appointment?
In the first instance I can inform the Deputy I have had two meetings with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The first was an informal meeting in Dublin to look at the agenda and the prospects for getting dialogue resumed. The second was a formal meeting in London in relation to the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It was outlined at the conclusion of that meeting that the Intergovernmental Conference will meet on a regular basis. The Deputy will appreciate that I was not privy to the talks on the last occasion. In fact, there is a possibility that the Deputy has more information about them than I have because his party leader and his colleague, Deputy Molloy, were involved in those talks.
I have made it very clear, since taking responsibility for the Department of Foreign Affairs and responsibility in relation to Northern Ireland, that I will leave no stone unturned in my approach to Northern Ireland because I feel that Northern Ireland and the deaths and murders there are a shame on this island. It is the responsibility of all politicians in this House and politicians in the North, and the British Government share our responsibility, to bring about dialogue and get politicians back working around the table. I am going to pursue that and, in relation to remarks made by the Secretary of State at our first meeting, we both resolved to have a determination to apply all our energies to bringing about some progress and dialogue to tackle these problems.
I accept fully the Minister for Foreign Affair's good intentions in relation to this matter. It appears that Articles 2 and 3 will have to be changed if there is to be progress. Whether it is at the beginning or at the end of the process, it is inevitable that they will have to be changed. Given the declared intention of the Minister and the Taoiseach that they want to create the conditions for these talks to get underway, would it not make sense for the Minister to take the opportunity, which the Taoiseach refused to take today, and state explicitly that Articles 2 and 3 will certainly be considered for change in the expectation that this will overcome the current difficulties and get these talks underway to see if we can make progress to bring to an end as soon as possible the appalling carnage that is taking place in Northern Ireland?
I have sought to make it very clear that we are prepared to discuss all constitutional issues and to initiate and incorporate change in the context of an overall settlement. I believe that is a clear commitment to meaningful negotiations with the Unionists, including their concerns in relation to Articles 2 and 3. I do not think it is helpful that preconditions are put down by any party or potential party to the negotiations. At this stage the responsibility should be on all politicians to get around the table and discuss the matters which are causing the problems on this island.
I would like Members to help me deal with the remaining two Priority Questions. We have a time limit.
I note the Minister for Foreign Affairs' commitment to work as hard as he can towards achieving a solution in Northern Ireland and I wish him well in that task. Does he not accept that his reluctance and that of the Taoiseach to be specific in relation to Articles 2 and 3, as opposed to the general commitment about review of the Constitution which might or might not include Articles 2 and 3, is now a barrier to the resumption of talks? It would be helpful if he overcame this reluctance and stated here in this House that Articles 2 and 3 will be modified in the context of an overall solution.
I appreciate the spokespersons for Foreign Affairs and for Northern Ireland in the other parties, have a very important role to play in relation to the dialogue that may ensue. We have to deal with the realities on the ground, both in Northern Ireland and in the South. Change in relation to the Constitution may well have to be part of the way we deal with the underlying reality of two strongly conflicting views about the status of Northern Ireland. In that respect, it is not helpful to assume that there is a magic wand in relation to Articles 2 and 3. That is not going to solve the problem. I want to approach the difficulties and problems with all the cards on the table. I have repeated on many occasions, and will continue to do so, that constitutional change may be necessary. I want to discuss with my fellow politicians on this island their approach to those difficulties and with other politicians as well. That is absolutely vital and essential.
In the context of the last set of talks, the Minister is aware there was a difference of opinion between the parties on whether there would be constitutional change or merely that there could be constitutional change. I note that the Minister in his reply used the phrase "there might well be". Will he indicate that if a settlement, which was acceptable to the people North and South, came into existence there would be a willingness on the part of the Government in the Republic to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution.
From my understanding of the debate that took place during the last talks in relation to "could" and "would", it was unhelpful. It was cross-purpose and of no help to anybody involved. I have outlined that there is a commitment by the Government to look at the constitutional change that is necessary. There is a responsibility on all politicians on this island to look at what is necessary because there will have to be changes on all sides. That is my approach and I will pursue that.
The Minister indicated that it is unhelpful for any side to lay down preconditions. That approach is a mistake because there are inbuilt preconditions on every side in relation to these talks. The continuation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a precondition of the Irish Government. I do not think we should go down that road. We should take the statements of the various people who have problems in Northern Ireland at face value. It is not helpful to try to knock the argument in relation to Articles 2 and 3 by pretending that it is being offered as some kind of magic wand; it is not. Even if an agreement were reached tomorrow it would still not be a solution. It will take time for agreements to work their way through and for attitudes to change. Could I ask the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste——
A Freudian slip.
The Deputy will have four years to find out.
I ask him to say now that it would be in the interest of the health of the politics of the Republic of Ireland for Articles 2 and 3 to be changed because they no longer reflect the view of the vast majority of the people in the Republic. If they were changed there would be a sigh of relief in the South as much as in the North.
The Deputy is arriving at conclusions which I am not sure are politically or scientifically based. I have said quite openly that we are prepared to discuss constitutional change. It is very obvious that there are politicians on this island, political parties and their supporters who have serious difficulties with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. I believe it is in everybody's interest that they come and discuss those difficulties. We will look then at what is necessary to resolve those difficulties. I will not be found wanting in resolving those difficulties.
Members will appreciate the time available to us for dealing with Priority Questions is well nigh exhausted. However, I will with the approval of the House, dispose of Questions Nos. 76 and 77 on the understanding that one supplementary question from Deputies concerned will suffice.
And you will allow that?
Yes, indeed, Deputy.
No other priority?
