Jim O'Keeffe
Question:1 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach whether the agenda has been agreed for his meeting in December 1993, with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. John Major; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with British Prime Minister.
As I indicated in reply to Dáil questions on Tuesday 16 November, the next meeting between the British Prime Minister and myself will take place in Dublin in December. That still remains the position. The date will be confirmed simultaneously in Dublin and London closer to the time of the meeting.
The agenda for the meeting has yet to be finalised but will focus on matters relating to Northern Ireland. Other bilateral matters are likely to be covered, including European Union issues and other questions of common interest.
I am sure the Taoiseach will be glad to take the opportunity to congratulate the UK authorities on the seizure of arms bound for the Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland. The fact that these arms were being sent to the Loyalist paramilitaries is, if nothing else, an indication of the even more dangerous situation developing there.
The Taoiseach gave the standard reply in regard to the date for the meeting. Does he not accept that there is confusion in the public mind and that he should clear it up? Will the Taoiseach clarify the position in regard to the document which was leaked to Emily O'Reilly of the Irish Press last week?
The Deputy has asked about an agenda. He is now bringing in extraneous matters.
The document that was leaked to Emily O'Reilly has much to do with the meeting between Prime Minister Major and the Taoiseach.
It is a separate and distinct matter, Deputy.
It is central to the whole question of the meeting.
Let us stick to the subject of the Deputy's question.
I want to see the person involved in the leaking of the document traced and fired. The last question I want to put to the Taoiseach arises from the speech by the Unionist Leader, Mr. Jim Molyneaux, in the House of Commons yesterday when he spoke about the anxiety of the people he represents and the need to stabilise a dangerously volatile situation in Northern Ireland. Can the Taoiseach, by word or deed, indicate how he might reasure the Unionists?
On behalf of the Government I congratulate the British Security Forces on intercepting such a large and deadly consignment of arms which clearly would have been used to kill and maim innocent people. It is a sign of the full co-operation that exists between the security forces in both jurisdictions in intercepting arms wherever they come from and whatever community they are consigned to.
As to the date for the Summit between the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major and myself, it is not unusual for a date not to be mentioned; it is the practice. Let there be no confusion. I expect this Summit to take place as early as possible in December, but I recognise that at that time diaries are under some pressure. The British budget will be dealt with during the next week and will not be finalised until the subsequent Monday at which, probably, a vote will be taken. Then the European Summit looms. I assure the House that there is nothing sinister about the fact that a date has not been mentioned. Undoubtedly we will reach agreement on a date and on an agenda.
In regard to the statement by Mr. Jim Molyneaux in the House of Commons, the Government's proposals and the peace initiative are grounded on two important principles, agreement and consent. Consequently I cannot accept that there should be any fear or suspicion of the initiative for peace. Last Thursday about two million people from every walk of life stood in silence at 1 o'clock in support of a peace initiative. That must be a powerful mandate for all political leaders and it is incumbent on all political leaders to reflect on that widespread support and respond to it. Unionist fears in this regard are groundless because the peace proposals of the Irish Government have been signalled as not predetermining the future, not prejudicing the outcome of any future talks. It is what we have said it is, a movement for peace. Who can be afraid of peace?
I have not the slightest doubts about the Taoiseach's good intentions. Would he not agree that the biggest enemy of peace is fear and misunderstanding of the intentions of others and that therefore his meeting with Mr. John Major to make decisions should be preceded by face-to-face discussions between his Government and the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland and between the parties representing the two communities in Northern Ireland so that people do not have to rely on media reports, leaked or otherwise, to discern other people's true intentions?
Invitations have been extended to Unionist politicians in the North and, so far, they have not responded to them. The Tánaiste and I, either of us or together, would prefer to sit down across the table from Unionist leaders and respond to any fears or suspicions they may have about hidden agendas, etc. We have not been given that opportunity. In the absence of that, I and the Tánaiste have taken every possible step to convey the information we have available to people we meet from different walks of life. In recent weeks I have had meetings with community leaders, with churchmen and Church leaders in relation to this peace initiative. I will continue to have such meetings. I have availed of every avenue of communication that has been opened up. The Irish Government has made every effort to convince the people in the North that their fears are unfounded, that the peace initiative is what it says it is. We are asking for peace, that people stop killing people. I cannot understand how anybody could be against that when there are no conditions attached to it. I appeal to anybody who can help in the communication of that message to do so.
In regard to what Deputy O'Keeffe has said, the leaking of such a document was not help and has done nothing but stoke up fears and suspicions. That document has nothing to do with the peace initiative. It is a working document that was being prepared by officials with a view to a future talks process which is separate from what we are trying to do now, that is, stop the killing of people and let the talks process take its course.
Deputy J. Bruton rose.
I want to disabuse Members of the notion that we can debate this matter today. There are ample ways and means of dealing with matters appertaining to Northern Ireland, as the records of this House show.
As a political leader in this House who has met members of the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP and the Alliance in recent times, I can assure the Taoiseach that there is as willingness on the part of those three parties to come together. Unfortunately, there appears to be a gap which they are unable to bridge by face-to-face discussions. I hope the Taoiseach will persist in his efforts to have face-to-face discussions with the Unionists because I think both sides will find they have more in common than they realise.
Will the Taoiseach accept that it is dangerous to set conditions for achieving peace? That has been done already and that is why the Unionist community are so frightened. Will the Taoiseach accept that violence is not some virus; if the paramilitaries wish they can stop the violence and give us peace and the choice is theirs? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the leaking of the document which raised fears in Northern Ireland was not done by established civil servants who have served this country loyally for many years and over whom a cloud now hangs?
I have no idea — I wish I had — who leaked the document. The investigation into the leaking of that document is continuing and I do not intend to comment on it except to say that it raised sicions and fears. That is what we are earing from Unionist politicians during the past four to five days. There was a different mood within that community up to recent days. The leaking of that document has contributed to the uncertainty and the fears that exist within that community. I wish to take this opportunity to say to them that their fears are groundless in relation to the peace initiative. We are not asking them to make any commitments in regard to the future. We are setting out a proposal for the stopping of killing in the North of Ireland which is universally supported throughout these islands. The leaking of that document has, unfortunately, that undesired effect and anyone who can help assuage the fears in that regard should do so. I know the House is united on that.
Until such time as the Unionists decide to talk to us I must rely on community leadership and so on to get the message through. I do not believe that to fall back on the talks process, as some suggest, would alone constitute an adequate response to the yearning for peace that exists in both parts of this island and throughout Britain. I believe that the mood for peace exists. The crying out for peace exists and we should all fall in in full support behind it and not try to raise unnecessary fears in a community that has nothing to fear from the peace initiative.
I would have thought it was unnecessary to urge Members of this House to support peace. It is on the record that all Members support peace. It is difficult to understand the distinction the Taoiseach makes between a peace process and a talks process and how one cannot have any effect on the other. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Summit will proceed in December or at some future date once both Governments have reached a position where they can make decisions in regard to political progress in Northern Ireland?
I have never said that one would not have an effect on the other. I have always said — I believe this to be true — that if we had a permanent cessation of violence it would vastly improve and in fact transform the environment in which peace talks and political talks aimed at a political settlement could take place. That has always been my strongly held view. The difference is that two processes are being pursued at present. One is an initiative to get a cessation of violence — to get the paramilitaries on both sides to stop killing people. The other process, which is a much longer drawn out one, is being carried through by Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Ancram, Mr. Chilcot and others. Having bilateral meetings with the various political leaders, the Anglo-Irish Conference and the talks that continue behind the scencs seek to achieve a level of consensus within the parties that will enable them to come back to the table to talk about a long term political settlement, distinctly separate from trying to get an immediate cessation of violence by the paramilitaries on both sides. That is what I have said time and again. The British Prime Minister has made that call on a number of occasions. We want the men of violence to turn their backs on violence and to turn back to the conference table. We have said that as soon as there is a permanent cessation of violence there will be a seat at the conference table for everybody to make their input and debate what the future of Ireland should be, what future there is for every community, accepting the diversity of culture, tradition and political views. That is the only way forward and that is the way we wish to see it proceed.
The Taoiseach indicated that he had made an offer to the Unionist parties to meet him. In that context, if they are unwilling to come to meet him did he offer to go to meet them on their own ground to discuss the difficulties between the parties?
It is well known that I will go anywhere any time to talk peace with any of those political leaders. When there was some doubt as to an invitation issued earlier by the Tánaiste, the Tánaiste repeated that invitation. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind as to where we stand in relation to meetings which may be held at any time and in any place on a peace initiative. The longer-term talks process is a separate operation and we will make any gestures that are required in that regard.
Would the Taoiseach travel to Belfast?
I join with the Taoiseach and other Members who paid tribute to the intelligence services in Britain, Poland and, in all probability, in Northern Ireland. I shudder to think what use could have been made of the two tonnes of explosives, not necessarily in Northern Ireland, but elsewhere on the island. Do the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste appreciate the damage that was caused by the irresponsible and deliberate revelation of that document? Can we have an assurance that if the person who leaked the document is caught that his or her head will roll? I draw the Taoiseach's attention to what is happening not only in Northern Ireland but in Britain. The phrase, play the Orange card, has not yet been used but some people are coming dangerously close to it and also to the concept of "an acceptable level of violence". I remind the Taoiseach, and ask him to remind the British Prime Minister, how much damage those two concepts have caused in the past. No matter what is happening this is a time for steadiness on the part of the Government and the Government acting as a unit. While there are dangers in all ways forward, the greatest risk is delaying.
Regarding Deputy Currie's last sentiment, the last thing I said to the British Prime Minister is that I believe time is not on our side. The more time deliberations take the greater the risk of different obstacles being put in our way such as that which happened in the past few days and could happen any day. Regarding the question of steadiness and unanimity, I assure the Deputy and the House that the Government is totally ad idem in its approach to try to stop the killing in Northern Ireland. We rely on community leaders to join with us in trying to remove any suspicions or fears that may exist in people's minds in that regard.
I want to assure everybody that the Irish Government, in putting forward our proposals — and they are our proposals — for a cessation of violence, takes into consideration the fears and suspicions that may be there. We also make sure that at all times we accept our obligations under international agreements. For the benefit of Unionists, what that means is that there has to be consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland to any change in the status of Northern Ireland. I do not know what fears and suspicions exist other than in relation to that matter. I have given an assurance in this regard on a number of occasions, as has the British Prime Minister. Fears are groundless. We should proceed with our proposals and finalise them as soon as possible.
I want to bring this line of questioning to finality. We have already devoted more than 20 minutes to this one question. I call Deputy Michael McDowell for a brief and relevant question.
Will the Taoiseach assure the House that the leaked document was not circulated for consultation purposes among any of the parties in Northern Ireland?
A very limited number of people had access to the leaked document. It was not presented for circulation to the Government and I certainly did not read the document. I am not aware that it was given to any political leadership in Northern Ireland or anywhere else.
Does the Taoiseach assume that that did not happen?
The Tánaiste, with outside help, is conducting an investigation in regard to the leaking of the document.
The Taoiseach said that the date for his meeting with the British Prime Minister will be announced simultaneously in London and Dublin closer to the date. Will he tell the House whether he expects the meeting will take place before the next European summit? Having regard to the record of the Irish public service, does the Taoiseach not accept that the leaking of the document was a political act and that any inquiry undertaken should focus on that presumption?
As I have already said, I do not intend to comment at this stage. A full investigation is taking place into the matter and I will be only too glad to report back to the House when that investigation is complete.
I join with Members who have expressed their appreciation of the efforts of the security forces to uncover the horrendous cache of arms and explosives that would have been brought into this country to kill and maim innocent people. When speaking about the dual process of peace and talks the Taoiseach said that the talks process is being organised by Sir Patrick Mayhew and others. Does the Taoiseach believe that in the talks process no party should have a veto and that the talks should continue with or without participation of all parties? Orange cards and vetoes should not be played at this stage.
That is most unproductive.
I have said on a number of occasions, and I repeat here today, that I do not believe any party should have a veto on the talks process, nor should anybody have a veto on the pursuit of a peace initiative. Both are equally important.
Hear, hear.
I am bringing this matter to finality. I now call on Deputy Mitchell, who has been offering for some time. I will then call Deputy De Rossa and we will have a final question from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.
Would the Taoiseach not accept that both he and the Tánaiste are making far too many statements on this matter, giving many hostages to fortune? Would he not accept, for instance, that his denial in Derry last week of having read the document disclosed by Emily O'Reilly beggars belief or indicates that he is not in charge of this matter? Does he not believe that such denials undermine his credibility and belief by the Unionists in other things he says?
Deputies have veered very far from the subject matter of this question.
I will never shirk from telling the truth. What I said in Derry I repeat here: that this document did not have political backing or political status. It did not have Governmental status because it was not presented to or discussed by the Government. I went on to say that I had not read the document. I do not accept what Deputy Mitchell is trying to insinuate that by telling the truth when asked questions in some way undermines my position.
The difficulty is that these statements are open to that interpretation.
Let us listen to the Taoiseach's reply.
Both the Tánaiste and I are ad idem in promoting a peace initiative and the talks process. The Tánaiste successfully engaged in such an exercise in Washington last week and we will continue to do that. These are Government initiatives and we will pursue them because we believe it is right and proper to do so. There is overwhelming support for the pursuit of a peace initiative and the resumption of talks, which will be done whenever Sir Patrick Mayhew and his people are in a position to reconvene those talks.
In replying to questions the Taoiseach said he has proposals for a peace initiative. To whom is he making these proposals? Are they for the response of the British Government or of the IRA or Loyalist paramilitaries? Will the Taoiseach indicate what are these proposals other than a requirement that the IRA or Sinn Féin will not be involved in talks unless they call a ceasefire, or is that the only condition involved? Would the Taoiseach not agree that appeals for peace have been going on for 25 years and that the fear being engendered relates to the secrecy surrounding the conditions that may apply to peace? The arms cache found by the British security forces gives good cause for fear. It is not a question of people being afraid of peace but rather that the price paid for peace may result in a much deeper and wider conflict.
There is such a wide selection of questions there that one wonders where to start.
Start at the beginning.
The proposals for a peace initiative are being discussed between the British Government and the Irish Government. In relation to a cessation of violence, both the British Prime Minister and I have called on a number of occasions on the men of violence to turn their backs on violence and to choose the constitutional political route. As we said in the Brussels communiqué, in those circumstances both Governments would respond in an imaginative and generous way because we believe that the overwhelming desire of people is for peace.
Apropos of Deputy Burke's question, would the Taoiseach agree that talks of vetoes is unhelpful, because if any peace process is to work both communities in Northern Ireland must in practice, if not in theory, be willing to buy into that process and accept a solution?
Deputy Bruton is reading into that answer something that he should not be reading into it. The British Prime Minister has made a similar statement in relation to the talks process. There is no point in raising hares that are not there——
Exactly.
There is no point in the Deputy raising them. I am making statements about the factual position and I am trying to be as helpful as I can.
I understand that the question of the leaked document is to be raised on the Adjournment of the Dáil tonight by my colleague, Deputy Bruton, and therefore I will leave that matter to one side. Will the Taoiseach outline what he hopes to achieve from the meeting with the UK Prime Minister? What is his objective or what does he believe will be a satisfactory conclusion to that meeting?
I do not believe it would be helpful to even try to speculate. Deputy Mitchell has just said that he believes that too many statements are being made and too much speculation is taking place and that that is raising fears.
Deputy O'Keeffe asked me to speculate on the outcome of the meeting but I have no intention of doing so. I am looking forward to the Summit and to having a good meeting with the British Prime Minister. I will be glad to report back to the House after the Summit.