Vol. 429 No. 6
7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in regard to his recent speech to the Fianna Fáil Easter Rising Commemoration, he will outline the way in which unilateral change in our Constitution would provide a new recruiting ground for terrorism in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the recent statement welcoming the call by the British Prime Minister for a resumption of the political talks in Northern Ireland, he has any plans to meet Mr. Major to discuss the prospects for talks; if he plans any other initiatives to remove any obstacles to the resumption of talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the nature of the changes he is seeking in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if, following his speech at an Easter Rising commemoration in Arbour Hill, it is the Government's view that Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution are an issue at the moment.
11 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if, during his recent visit to Northern Ireland, he gave or received any indication of a change of policy in relation to Northern Ireland and Anglo-Irish relations; if he expects any developments to follow; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
12 Mr. O'Malley asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the Taoiseach's recent statement that Articles 2 and 3 had not been an issue at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement, nor at the 1985 Hillsborough Agreement, he accepts that, in the light of the subsequent McGimpsey Supreme Court judgment which ordained that the so-called territorial claim enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 is a constitutional imperative, this is bound to alter political perspectives of these Articles, and that they do not accord with the principle of unity by consent only, enshrined in Clause 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 12, inclusive, together.
I would refer Deputies to my reply to parliamentary questions in the House on 10 February last when I stated that the Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-97 makes clear the Government's determination to work for an early resumption of political dialogue with the aim that all of the relationship involved will be comprehensively addressed in a spirit of openness and innovation; and that the Government is ready to discuss every issue and to incorporate all agreed changes.
I have repeated on many occasions my view that all constitutional issues should be on the table so that, in the words of the Programme for Government, a balanced accommodation of all constitutional issues could be arrived at. If other parties wish to discuss Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, it is only reasonable that Northern Nationalists would wish us to discuss the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which is at the origin of the partition of Ireland. As I stated in my Dáil speech on 1 April, the partition of Ireland was presented in 1920 and reluctantly acquiesced in on the basis that it was a temporary expedient and that Ireland should be united under a single parliament in the long run. A Council of Ireland, the provisions for which were carried over into the Treaty of 1921, was to be established to facilitiate progress towards that end, through developing functional co-operation. The spirit of that compromise was subsequently lost or abandoned. Our Constitution was formulated in 1937 against that background. A new and balanced accommodation of all constitutional issues will need to take all these factors into account.
I gave no speech at the Arbour Hill commemoration, but spoke briefly to a reporter afterwards, which, I assume, is what Deputies are referring to. I was repeating a point made in the course of my Dáil speech. The underlying point is surely obvious. If we in this part of the island appear to walk away from constitutional nationalism by unilaterally abandoning our long-standing position with regard to Northern Ireland, the only form of nationalism left in entire possession of the field is a violent form of nationalism, which we all repudiate.
The Supreme Court judgment of 1 March 1990 clarified that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution must be read in conjunction with Article 29, namely that Irish unity may be pursued by peaceful means only and that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not — I repeat "not"— inconsistent with the Constitution and in particular with Articles 2, 3 and 29. Moreover, the Court's other conclusions included that Article 3 of the Constitution does not permit the enactment of laws applicable outside this jurisdiction.
There is therefore absolutely no incompatibility between Articles 2 and 3 and Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Therefore, it is strange to suggest that these Articles of the Constitution do not accord with or are inconsistent with the principle of unity by consent. In fact, the Supreme Court found in effect that the Articles did not need to be altered, by reason of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There is nothing inconsistent with a constitutional imperative or goal being bound by the principle of agreement and consent in its implementation.
I reiterate the Government's commitment 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 people of these islands.
I was very pleased to note the remarks of the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, during his recent visit to Northern Ireland in relation to a resumption of the talks process. In welcoming the Prime Minister's remarks, I stated that I had no doubt but that there would be full consultation between the Irish and the British Governments about any new initiative to reactivate the talks. There is an agreement in place whereby the Taoiseach and British Prime Minister meet twice yearly to discuss matters of mutual interest. Under this agreement, I last met the Prime Minister on 7 December 1992 here in Dublin. A date for our next meeting will, in accordance with normal practice, be announced close to the time of the meeting. I expect the meeting to take place around June.
I visited Derry on 16 April 1993 to attend the launch of the Secretariat of the Donegal, Derry, Strabane, Limavady Cross-Border group. During my visit, I met Lord Arran, Parliamentary UnderSecretary of State, who was deputising at the launch for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, MP. I also met the Leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume, the Deputy Mayor of Derry, Mrs. Annie Courtney, the Unionist Mayor of Limavady, Mr. Norman Reynolds, as well as other public and local community representatives in the north west region. I had an informal exchange of views with these individuals and others on a range of matters, including the development of the region, and the prospects for increased cross-Border co-operation in the context of the Single Market. I found these exchanges most useful and informative.
A number of Deputies have tabled questions on this subject. I shall call them in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. Incidentally, in accordance with our new Standing Order, thirty minutes is available to the Taoiseach which has practically expired at present. Therefore, I would ask for brevity in dealing with supplementaries.
I should like to address questions to the Taoiseach in regard to Questions Nos. 7 and 8. Is the Taoiseach seriously suggesting that the only factors deterring most Nationalists from joining the IRA in Northern Ireland at present are Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution? That is what he implied in his Easter commemoration address — that if those Articles are to be changed in any way they would create a new recruiting ground for the IRA. Would he explain why he believes that to be the case? In stating that he hopes all constitutional positions will be discussed in the course of the talks, will he say whether he is aware that over the past weekend Sir Patrick Mayhew has said quite clearly that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland will not be changed and that it is foolish to expect that it will be changed and that, therefore, this question of expecting that Northern Ireland in some way will be brought into some form of a united Ireland is foolish? Will the Taoiseach say whether he intends to meet Mr. Gerry Adams and, if not, will he inform us why he does not intend to meet him?
I want to repeat for the benefit of Deputy De Rossa who apparently did not listen too attentively to what I said—
I was listening.
——that I gave no address at the Easter commemoration ceremony but simply answered a reporter's query. Second, it is my firm view that if we were to follow the course now being advocated — I think, only by Deputy De Rossa on behalf of his party, in the South — to unilaterally abandon Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, that would certainly be very helpful to the IRA recruiting campaign. That is my strong view. Deputy De Rossa may differ from it and he is entitled to do so. I might add that I had no meeting with Mr. Gerry Adams.
Why?
I did ask the House for brevity in regard to the new conditions applicable to the Taoiseach's Question Time which is of half an hour's duration only.
Does the Taoiseach not feel anything at all of the misery, bereavement and pain of so many victims of the political vacuum filled by terrorists in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years? Does he not recognise — from what we observed in this country over the past few weeks — that the people of this State now want urgent movement, not bland, historical verbiage; in particular, that they want him to show real leadership on this issue by breaking the log-jam preventing the resumption of the talks, by saying simply that, if there is a settlement, he will be prepared to re-cast Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution to demonstrate that people's lives matter more than territorial claims?
How often do I have to come into this House to say — as I have said externally, and as I said from the first moment I was elected as Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and Taoiseach — that it was and is on the top of the list of my priorities. That is why I have devoted to much time and energy to it. The Deputy may not be aware but I should say I meet people regularly, on a confidential basis, from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. The first priority for all of us should be to endeavour to achieve a formula for peace because one will not get any agreement unless such a formula is to bring about peace. Therefore, the fist priority is to endeavour to create an environment in which to find such a new formula for peace. That is why I am proceeding along that path. The Deputy should be aware also that I made it very clear in my address at Bodenstown last October that, in the event of a broad-ranging agreement with new acommodations, such can be put by way of referenda both North and South. How often do I have to repeat that?
Did the Taoiseach detect a response to the emphasis he placed on his personal assessment of Anglo-Irish relations, with particular reference to the talks or structures to be agreed at some later stage? Did he detect a response on the part of Nationalist or Unionist politicians in favour of his, or perhaps the Tanáiste's, emphasis on that issue?
It was very interesting to listen to people from both communities in the North of Ireland, both down here and on my visit to Derry. Indeed, I said some time ago here that I believe there is a shift in the political landscape in the North of Ireland, that the people on the ground in both communities who are at the receiving end of the violence being perpetrated want to find a formula for peace. I should stress that this applies to people in both communities.
——and try to build on that.
That is what I am endeavouring to do and will continue to do. I might add that I do so behind the scenes, sometimes seven days a week, and will continue to do so. That is what the people in the North of Ireland, from both communities, want me to do. I might add that, in my view, the simplicity of talking about unilateral changes in Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution, as representing a formula for peace, is misguided.
How does the Taoiseach claim that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, are not inconsistent with one another when they say quite incompatible things, one being that Ireland is one country and the other that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people there?
What I am stating is what the Supreme Court stated when they found, as a result of the McGimpsey brothers' seeking of a declaration that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed that claim — as I am sure the Deputy is aware — in July 1988 and the brothers appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. On I March 1990, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and found that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not inconsistent with Articles 2 and 3 and 29 of the Constitution; that Article 3, pending unification, prohibits the enactment of laws applicable in Northern Ireland and that the Agreement was not concluded in disregard of the interests of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. I am not saying this; that is the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the Supreme Court found that there was a constitutional imperative on the Government and this House——
Order; the time limit fixed in our revised Standing Orders for dealing with Taoiseach's questions is now exhausted and, therefore, I am proceeding to deal with questions——
I have two questions down.
I know that, Deputy but I am bound by the Standing Orders of this House.
On a point of order, may I respectfully ask if you would in the future when the Taoiseach proposes to take a large number of questions together which would result in there being an inadequate opportunity to ask supplementary questions allow the Taoiseach to take those questions and postpone them until the following day? It is unacceptable that the discussion on an issue of this importance should be foreshortened. I should have an opportunity to ask my supplementary question.
The Chair is merely administering the rules of this House. I am now proceeding to deal with questions——
On a point of order, Sir——
The Deputy may not persist in raising points of order when he knows that the Chair is factually correct in interpreting the Standing Orders of this House.
I am sure the House will agree that the matter is of sufficient importance to allow the Taoiseach to answer one more round of supplementary questions from Deputies who went to the trouble of putting down questions, bearing in mind that the House has not met for the last two weeks and that many serious things affecting Northern Ireland have happened since then.
If Members are dissatisfied with the Taoiseach's replies they have a remedy.
We have supplementary questions that we want to put to the Taoiseach.
In accordance with our Standing Orders, I am now proceeding to deal with questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Question No. 19.
