Jim O'Keeffe
Question:3 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach if he has any proposals to meet the leaders of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Talks.
My door will continue to be open to leading representatives of the Unionist community. Both the Tánaiste and I have made it clear on different occasions that we would be willing to meet the Unionist leaders without preconditions to discuss the future of this island. However, as far as I am concerned, rather then repeating the invitation at this time, and recognising that high profile meetings with the head of the Irish Government has always presented difficulties to Unionist leaders over the past 19 years, my first priority is to get a resumption of the Northern talks under way as soon as possible.
The arrangements which I made last year for the conduct of political dialogue, which consisted of appointing the then Tánaiste, Deputy Wilson, to lead the Government delegation to the talks, proved highly satisfactory and enabled much progress to be made. For the first time a Unionist party delegation came to Dublin for meetings with the Government in Strand 2, in conjunction with meetings in Belfast and London. I envisage similar arrangements, involving the present Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, when talks resume. In anticipation of that, the Tánaiste has himself invited Unionist leaders to come and talk with him, and I hope they will avail of that offer.
In view of the way that my speech here last week has been misrepresented, I would like to make a few points relevant to the resumption of political dialogue with the Unionist parties, which is what I presume lies behind this question.
I want to reiterate the point that was well received in many quarters elsewhere, but largely ignored here, that we totally condemn and reject violence from whatever source in an evenhanded and totally responsible way. I said that "a Unionist life is just as sacred as a Nationalist life". I also repeated that this State was not a safe haven for terrorists. In addition, both the Minister for Justice and myself confirmed that the extradition laws would be tidied up, as had previously been agreed. Deputies will have noted that when an attempt was made in the House of Commons to criticise this aspect of my speech, the British Prime Minister told the Unionist Party "not to confuse the actions of a minority with the views and instincts of the majority of the people. I do not believe the majority of people in the Republic of Ireland support the activities of the IRA, and I believe that their response to recent events is a clear illustration that this is the case". The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, Mr. Ivan Lawrence MP, stated on the BBC on 1 April that my speech was "a welcome restatement" of a previous undertaking. I was glad to note that the Ulster News Letter reported my speech under the headline, “Reynolds rejects `safe-haven' slur”, and mainly dealt with what I said on the subject of violence. It was a pity that the print media down here paid little attention to this part of my speech or to the strong emphasis I placed on the yearning for peace.
The same Unionist newspaper in an editorial referred to another passage in my speech in the following way:
In the Dáil yesterday Taoiseach Albert Reynolds put into words what sensible people had known all along: Articles 2 and 3 of the Éire Constitution will remain in place until the nuts and bolts of a comprehensive and watertight agreement have been signed, sealed and delivered.
The way I put the point last week was that "constitutional change must be placed in the context of a broad-ranging agreement, that includes a balanced constitutional accommodation, one that not only recognises and respects the importance of the present wishes of a majority but also the validity and legitimacy of an agreed Ireland as a long term goal". I also said that the Government proceed from the basis that both traditions have a permanent place and permanent rights on this island that must be firmly guaranteed in any settlement.
Unionist MP, Mr. Ken Maginnis, strongly attacked my speech, and claimed that it represented a slamming of the door in the face of Unionists. That is absolutely untrue. It would help to put his reaction in context, if Deputies were aware that three days before I spoke, the same MP attacked me roundly in the columns of the Ulster News Letter of 29 March in effect for a softly softly approach, for Pontius Pilate posturing, for displays of hollow sentiment and so on. I think it is a fair conclusion that in the present electoral context anything I could have said, was going to attract a strong attack from certain quarters. Deputies opposite should not be naive about this. The Leader of the Alliance Party, Dr. John Alderdice, in an interview on Radio Ulster on 3 April attibuted “that kind of reaction” as being:
really to do with the fact that most politicians do not see full-blooded negotiations starting again certainly this side of the local government elections.
Dr. Joe Hendron of the SDLP also as reported in the Irish News last Friday described my speech as “very positive”, and said that it had “articulated the views of the Irish nation which included the Nationalists in the North”. Dr. Alderdice in the interview I have mentioned also accepted that not enough attention had been paid by the other community to the anxieties of Nationalists, for some of whom the Constitution “stands as a sort of security, as a sort of guarantor of their Irishness, of their part of the Irish nation”, a similar point to the one I was making here last week. I understand very clearly the real anxieties of both communities.
If Unionists want to join in helping to find a new formula for peace through the political process, if they want a new agreement to replace or transcend the Anglo-Irish Agreement, if they want a new constitutional accommodation, then they must accept that this can only happen when they rejoin the other willing parties at the negotiating table. I hope that the Opposition parties in this House will encourage them to do so, because that is a very clear priority for the people of the whole island. Sectarian murders on both sides will solve nothing.
But at the end of the day, as I pointed out in my speech and as is also set out in the agreed Programme for Government, we can proceed in two ways. We can, through resumed political dialogue, seek a comprehensive new political settlement; that is clearly our preferred option. Indeed, as I made clear last week, the Government are deeply committed to the achievement of a lasting political settlement which will accommodate the two traditions in Ireland on equal terms and which will bring about a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland, and between the peoples of these islands. We are not engaged in a process of dictation to or domination of the Unionist community. However, in the absence of new agreed arrangements, the two Governments will continue to operate fully and develop the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to pursue North-South co-operation vigorously. The Unionist parties will have a vital role in determining the road that is to be followed by the two Governments.
I am glad it now appears that the Taoiseach accepts that his speech last week was not helpful to the process of reconciliation. Would he accept that, for the future — I say this as someone who genuinely wants to see talks resumed, who wants to see meetings with the Unionist leaders and wants to see a solution — it would be most helpful if there were to be no further speeches of the "Articles 2 and 3 not for sale type" which we had in the past? Will the Taoiseach, in his future dealings with Northern Ireland, in particular in his comments addressed to the Unionist parties, adopt an open, generous approach, one showing at least an understanding of their position?
I reject totally what Deputy O'Keeffe said. From the day I assumed office as Taoiseach I made abundantly clear what was my position. I said my approach would be even-handed, firm and fair, recognising the anxieties, concerns and fears of both communities. I live 35 miles from the Border and have been travelling back and forward across it all my life. My children spent holidays up there over many years. I have many friends on both sides of the political divide. I understand exactly and quite clearly what is the position. I have never changed my stance one iota from the beginning, that we have to tackle this problem with an even-handed approach, recognising the fears, anxieties and concerns of both communities. Otherwise, we will not reach a settlement. If one considers one side and not the other one will end up without any solution, instead another 23 years of violence, which is what we all want to avoid. It is a serious misapprehension on the part of anybody to suggest that I do not understand the anxieties of both communities, having mixed with them and done business with them over my lifetime.
The Taoiseach should have thought of that on Thursday last.
May I put it very seriously to the Taoiseach that it was a reasonable interpretation on the part of many people that his speech last week was in fact deliberately designed to close off the option of reasonable talks with Unionist leaders in Northern Ireland——
That is scandalous.
——from that point of view. Does the Taoiseach accept that an approach is necessary——
Let us avoid repetition.
——that will at least show a clear understanding of their position and if that takes place there will be a better chance of such talks getting under way?
It is amazing how, when extracts are read out of various people's reactions to it how people, writing editorials in a different part of this island, can take different views. However, that is a matter for others to interpret. I have had plenty of contact with people in the North of Ireland from both communities since and know exactly what they are saying. They all want to find a new formula for peace; peace is the priority. It would be helpful in all circumstances if in the first instance we all left aside the parts that divide us and sat down and agreed the parts that unite us. That would be a sensible and pragmatic approach. If one wants to interpret what a Loyalist newspaper was saying, then they were saying something like "no settlements".
Would the Taoiseach agree that the quotations he gave from Northern newspapers were ones that paid tribute to him for his views on violence? I share the Taoiseach's view, that he is not ambivalent on the matter of violence. But would he agree that, in relation to political matters, his speech was very unhelpful and did not receive any praise either in Northern publications or from Northern Unionist politicians? Would the Taoiseach say when we can expect the new Bill to tidy up — as he called it — our extradition laws? I am sure he will agree that the Garda are doing an outstanding job in apprehending those who are wanted in connection with serious crimes here and in Britain but that we need to give them the legislative framework to ensure that nobody walks free on the basis of a technicality. Can the Taoiseach inform the House when precisely that Bill will be introduced; for example, are we talking about April, May or June?
That is a seperate matter. We are now having an extension of this question.
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, but the Taoiseach referred to extradition in his reply.
That may be so.
He did.
Just to be helpful in this regard, I should say it is almost complete and will be introduced early in the next session. May I repeat part of my answer for the benefit of Deputy Harney who apparently did not hear what I said. I said:
The same Unionist newspaper in an editorial referred to another passage in my speech in the following way:
"In the Dáil yesterday Taoiseach Albert Reynolds put into words what sensible people had known all along: Articles 2 and 3 of the Éire Constitution will remain in place until the nuts and bolts of a comprehensive and watertight agreement have been signed, sealed and delivered".
In the course of replying the Taoiseach indicated his understanding of how people feel in Northern Ireland. He must be aware that the whole question of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is fundamental to that understanding. In that context, when he referred to achieving "an agreed Ireland as a long term goal" what precisely did he mean? Is he proposing or hoping for a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland — Joint sovereignty, continued sovereignty by Britain or sovereignty on the part of this State?
I said from the beginning that all constitutional matters should be on the table. I have not changed my position one iota. "An agreed Ireland" is an agreed Ireland, which is that we would all like to see the communities on this island that have been divided for so long in the North of Ireland come together and work out a solution for the future of his island in a new accommodation. My experience is that there are many thousands of tolerant people who live ordinary lives and that there is a great community spirit in most communities in Northern Ireland. A small number of people on both sides are committed to violence but what about the hundreds of thousands of people who live ordinary lives, who are tolerant in their approach and good neighbours? There are inter-marriages and a great community spirit. If we can bring violence to an end that society will develop in its own way. Our priority should be to bring it to an end, to bring peace to that society from which many things can then evolve. People on both sides of the political divide yearn for peace. Therefore, we should not set down preconditions when our priority should be to get the talks going to find a peace formula.
In view of the tone of injured innocence in which the Taoiseach delivered his first reply, will he agree that he was obviously stung by the question? Will he further agree, having regard to the fact that they had to trawl through so many editorials to find the odd favourable reference, that the consensus was that his speech was not helpful? In view of this would he not like to tear up that speech and try again in a more measured way? Finally, in view of what the Taoiseach said a few moments ago, will he in future resist the temptation, to which he has given in quite often, to use as a term of abuse the statement "somebody elsewhere in this House understands the Unionist point of view"?
It is not a term of abuse; I have never had any difficulty in understanding the Unionist point of view.
The Taoiseach has done it several times in a most short-sighted and partisan way.
Deputy Dukes asked some questions and he should listen to the replies.
Some of my best friends in Northern Ireland are Unionists; some of my best friends in business for many years are members of the Unionist party and I have no intention of being partisan. Of course I can accept that some people who have read my speech will not agree with it but that is democracy.
Does the Taoiseach want me to quote it?
They are entitled to their view. However, if Deputy Dukes extends to me the courtesy of not interrupting, which is what he continues to do when he does not get the answer he likes, I will tell him that it was a balanced speech. It contained 11 pages about violence and I did not hear anyone in this House or anywhere else comment on it except to create the opposite view.
It had a chip on each shoulder.
I do not have a chip on my shoulder in relation to it. I have an open mind and I know exactly the position in Northern Ireland; no one should try to create the impression that I do not.
If the Taoiseach has, as he said, such a high opinion of Unionists why has he used the term "Unionists" as one of abuse and applied it to his political opponents in this House as he did less than four months ago in respect of myself? In regard to the Government of Ireland Act which the Taoiseach says he wishes to have on the table, what precise changes is he seeking?
I have made it quite clear that negotiations should not take place across the floor of the House or in the public arena but at the table. I will not set out details or be enticed into setting down preconditions in relation to what should be done; I have set out the way in which we believe the talks should be approached. To respond to Deputy Bruton's first comment, he knows quite well that on that occasion I was quoting from a newspaper and that I did not say it.
With approval.
It was stated in a newspaper.
That is a fact.
We have now devoted over 34 minutes to three questions. This is not good enough.
Sorry, Deputy Cowen?
He said it was a fact.
Now we have confirmation.
(Interruptions.)
I will take three brief questions from Deputy De Rossa, Deputy Cullen and the Deputy on my left.
The Taoiseach indicated that he would see it as unhelpful if anyone involved set preconditions. My purpose in asking the Taoiseach the question was to define, if we can, that an agreed Ireland in the long term does not imply a united Ireland as a precondition. Will the Taoiseach confirm that it does not imply a United Ireland?
I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I will not set out the details but if the Deputy reads the explanatory memorandum to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, he will see what the aspirations were then and the thinking behind it. The negotiations should take place at the table and I do not believe in setting preconditions. The parties opposite learned a hard lesson when they set preconditions in regard to negotiations — they ended up on the other side of the House.
We have no regrets; the Taoiseach is welcome to his company.
Will the Taoiseach accept that there is a difference of approach and emphasis between the two parties in Government towards Northern Ireland? Did the Tánaiste agree with the contents as well as the spirit of the speech the Taoiseach made here last week?
The Deputy need have no fears about the approach of both parties in Government. We spent a long time putting our policy together and it is set out clearly in our Programme for Government. Both party leaders and Members of both parties fully understand our approach. On the contrary, there is a vast difference in the approaches adopted by the Opposition parties. Two of the parties want, unilaterally, to get rid of Articles 2 and 3. If I interpret him correctly Deputy Bruton was not saying this but last week he raised the question whether internment could be justified in present circumstances.
What does the phrase, emanating from the Labour Party, "flexible creativity" mean in regard to Northern Ireland?
How will the Taoiseach maintain his evenhanded approach going into the talks when it is obvious there is a wide divergence of opinion and interpretation within the ranks of the parties in Government?
Fine Gael may have those problems on many issues——
We are talking about the Taoiseach's problems.
——but we have no such problems, we know exactly what is stated in the Programme for Government and Government policy. We are pursuing those objectives.
A final question from Deputy O'Keeffe.
(Interruptions.)
May I say, genuinely, to the Taoiseach that if he wants to make any further comments on Northern Ireland——
Questions, le do thoil.
——he should first put some thought into it and produce a speech that would be welcomed, politically, by somebody other than Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin? This is not the kind of speech we expect from the Taoiseach and I ask him to ensure that we do not hear it again.
Questions.
I do not think it would be possible for any individual to produce a speech that would be welcomed by everybody. I do not set out to ensure that Gerry Adams — he is not a member of Parliament now although he was at one time — approves of my speeches. The Deputy should refrain from making such insinuations or connections because he knows quite well my position in relation to violence.
Deputy Cowen, yourself and Gerry Adams.
Let us now come to deal with questions nominated for priority chun Aire Cosanta agus Aire na Mara.
The Deputy is lucky that he is in a privileged assembly; say it outside.
As is my wont when we come to priority questions I have to say that some 20 minutes only are provided for them. Let us strive earnestly to dispose of the five questions within the time laid down in Standing Orders. I know that I repeat this every day, ad nauseum perhaps, but it is a necessary duty to ensure fairness and impartiality.
Brevity in Ministers' replies.