Vol. 436 No. 5
2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach whether, in the context of his meeting with UK Prime Minister Mr. John Major, he will take into account the speeches of Northern Ireland Leaders, Mr. John Hume and Dr. Ian Paisley, at their Annual Conferences over the weekend; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the demarcation between his Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of policy on Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.
The House can be assured that, in the context of the forthcoming series of meetings between the British Prime Minister and myself this month, all recent developments pertaining to Northern Ireland will be taken into account.
With regard to responsibility for Northern Ireland policy, I set out the position in this regard to this House on 27 April 1993.
Under the Constitution the Taoiseach, as Head of Government, is given ultimate authority, and therefore ultimate responsibility, in relation to the overall operation of the Government. I therefore have an overseeing role and a corresponding involvement in all major policy areas, such as Northern Ireland, economic issues and European Union affairs.
The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs has direct functional responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs. In his role as co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, set up under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he has immediate responsibility for the implementation of that Agreement in all its aspects and in relation to particular issues which arise in Anglo-Irish relations from time to time.
The Tánaiste and I are at one in our policy approach to a resolution of the Northern Ireland conflict. We are totally committed to the parallel pursuit of the peace and talks processes. This position is fully supported by the entire Government.
I should say, first, that I am glad the meeting is going ahead on Friday and I hope it will be a great success. Will the Taoiseach clarify a number of points for the House? Can he explain why it is necessary to have a series of meetings? How many such meetings are envisaged and over what period will they take place? Will they solely be between the two Governments? Will the Taoiseach also deal in his reply with the intervention made by the US President, Bill Clinton, and outline the background to this? Was an approach made by the Government to President Clinton and, if so, to achieve what purpose? Finally, it is understood that President Clinton said to John Major that he wants him to go a further mile on the road in the peace process. Does the Taoiseach agree that if there is to be success all politicians will have to go further?
Is it an Irish mile?
The personalities referred to in the question are Prime Minister Major, John Hume and Dr. Ian Paisley.
A series of meetings is envisaged and they will span the month of December. The first working meeting is due to be held on Friday. The Deputy asked why there was a necessity to have further meetings. This shows the earnest of the two Prime Ministers to continue to devote all their energies towards trying to find a successful resolution and to put forward a formula for peace. The first meetings is on Friday. It will be a working meeting. We will review progress at the Summit in Brussels and then move on to a further meeting. It will all depend on progress and progress must be made. I do not measure the amount of progress that still has to be made in terms of an Irish mile or an English mile.
In relation to President Clinton, the Deputy surely has enough imagination to know that actions of President Clinton arose out of a recent visit to the White House by the Tánaiste and a meeting between him and President Clinton in regard to Anglo-Irish policy.
Will the Taoiseach elaborate on his comments that he has overall responsibility and the Tánaiste has responsibility for operational matters? Had the Taoiseach seen in advance the six principles outlined about a month ago by the Tánaiste in the House?
The answer to the second part of the question is yes. In relation to the overall responsibility, that arises under the Constitution. I will read it again for the benefit of the Deputy. Under the Constitution the Taoiseach, as head of the Government, is given ultimate authority and therefore ultimate responsibility in relation to the overall operation of Government. I therefore have an overseeing role and a corresponding involvement in all major policy areas such as Northern Ireland, economic issues and European Union affairs. It is quite clear where the division is. The Tánaiste's responsibilities are set out quite clearly. He is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and he has full responsibility in that Department.
I think the Taoiseach is very wise in looking for a series of meetings rather than raising the expectation that he can deal with all the business at one meeting. I fully support what he is trying to do and I think he is being very sensible about it.
Would he agree that it is important that any declaration he is looking for from the British Government is seen to be a balanced one, that no community in Northern Ireland misinterprets it or sees it as threatening or as cuttingh them adrift in any way, and that to ensure that that happens he should use the extra time that he now has to be sure that he has direct face-to-face consultations with both communities in Northern Ireland so that they understand fully what is going on and do not fear things just because they have not been told about them directly?
I thank the Deputy for his support of our approach to this series of meetings. I can assure him that the proposals that the Irish Government has before the British Government in this respect are fully balanced. They take into account the fears and insecurities of the Unionist population in relation to what they might think is a threat to their future and their position. The same goes for the Nationalist population. It is a fully balanced approach and, to be quite honest, I cannot see how either community, if they are being sincere and objective in their analysis of those proposals, could make any claim that they are in any way injurious to their present or future position. This is purely a formula for peace. Political solutions can be sought thereafter in the talks process that it is hoped can get under way. The proposals in relation to peace certainly threaten nobody. They are grounded on agreement and consent as far as the Unionist population is concerned. We will use every opportunity that is available to us to communicate those assurances to both communities.
Is the Irish Government asking the British Government to acknowledge the right of the Irish people as a whole to self-determination in return for acknowledging that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority there? In other words, it is a "sale and lease back" arrangement that we are asking the British Government to agree to?
It belittles the proposals we are making to describe them as a "sale and lease back arrangement." I will not describe the proposals and I will not accept that description of them either.
Will the Taoiseach elaborate on what we are looking for?
It is a matter for negotiation between the two Governments and the Deputy will know about it when we reach what we hope will be a successful conclusion.
Will the Taoiseach deny that we are asking the British Government to agree that the people of Ireland will be allowed self-determination for the island as a whole in return for giving a guarantee to the Unionists that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without their consent? Is that the position?
The position has been stated and re-stated. I think Deputy Harney may be reading too much into some newspaper comments, especially the British onces.
I want to call the Deputies concerned, Deputy De Rossa and Deputy John Bruton.
I wanted to contribute.
I will call the Deputy. I am sorry, I did not observe him.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the besetting fear of the Unionist community is that a deal is being done behind their backs or over their heads? No matter what the Taoiseach puts on paper, and no matter how fair it appears on paper, it will be misunderstood and misinterpreted unless it is explained to them, face to face, that there is no threat. Could I use this House to urge the Unionists to talk to the Taoiseach and urge the Taoiseach to make every possible effort to talk to them? Could I urge the SDLP to talk to the Unionists rather than talking to the Irish Government which is talking to the British Government which is, in turn, sending messages to the Unionists? This sort of circular communication does not promote understanding. Will the Taoiseach make every effort possible to ensure that everybody is involved in this process, that everybody feels part of it and that nobody feels that anything is being done behind their backs?
I certainly concur with the Deputy's sentiments in this regard. I can assure him that every effort is being made both by me and the Tánaiste to talk to every representative of the Unionist population who will come to talk to us.
The Taoiseach should go and see them. If he can go to London, he can go to Belfast.
I said in this House on a number of occasions that I will go anywhere at any time to talk to Mr. Jim Molyneaux or any member of the Unionists and the Tánaiste has also made known his position in that regard. When I spoke to the British Prime Minister the night before the last, I said that he should take the opportunity of acquainting Mr. Molyneaux and the Unionist members of the House of Commons with exactly what is involved in the proposals. I am not trying to do a secret deal behind their backs. I would be only too delighted to sit across the table from them and discuss it. Every time I have had that opportunity with any community leader or anybody else and they have asked pertinent questions I have told them the position, they have gone away quite happy. Mr. John Alderdice is a leading example. He sat down with me and asked questions, and he went away happy that their future was not threatened. We are doing everything we can. I repeat that offer here today. Either I or the Tánaiste will go to any place at any time to talk to any of the Unionist politicians who choose to talk to us. Indeed I have always urged the SDLP to talk to and communicate as much as possible with the Unionist community as well because they are the two communities that will have to live together and reach an accommodation of both traditions.
We will continually urge that, but I want to repeat that there is no hidden agenda as far as the Unionists or the Nationalists are concerned. It is a straight, open and balanced deal with a little compromise on everybody's part and that includes our part as well.
The Taoiseach has said that Friday's meeting will be the first of a series. Does he expect that there will be a communiqué of any kind following Friday's meeting? How many meetings does he expect will take place and at what intervals — weekly, fortnightly or monthly? At what point does he foresee that these meetings will reach a conclusion?
In relation to reaching a final conclusion, the Taoiseach has stated that this is a peace process as distinct from the talks process. Can we assume that what the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister are attempting to do is to find conditions which would be acceptable to the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries to stop their campaigns, and could he indicate what condition, other than a requirement to enable them to sit at the negotiating table for a cessation of violence, does he believe it is possible to achieve which might satisfy both sets of paramilitaries?
I will not speculate on the number of meetings that may be required. We will see what progress can be achieved at the meeting, progress to the next meeting and, in the interim, work behind the scenes will continue. As Friday's meeting is a working one Deputies should not look forward to the usual long communiqué. There will be other items, such as the forthcoming Summit in Brussels and the GATT negotiations, that will require discussion. However, the main item on the agenda is the search for a peace formula between the two teams, comprising the two Prime Ministers, the Tánaiste and the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Minister for Justice. There is no point in speculating on how many meetings will take place, we will judge the progress made at each meeting. We are trying to find a formula for peace that, I hope, will command support across both communities and both sets of paramilitaries because the paramilitaries on both sides are causing the violence. As I said on a number of occasions in this House, if one set of violence is said to be reactive to the other there is no point in trying to stop violence on one side if there is no hope of stopping it on the other. Consequently, that is the search going on and the search that people throughout the length and breadth of the country and in Britain want to see us pursue and succeed in achieving.
I am sure all Members, including the Taoiseach, would have welcomed a meeting on Friday and a communiqué which would have contained the basis for a permanent cessation of violence. In the circumstances the Taoiseach's judgment must be respected in terms of what he has told the House he wishes to achieve and I agree with his objectives. I wish the Taoiseach the very best in the discussions and, in doing so, I am sure I speak not only on behalf of Members of the House but for the majority of the people in the North and the majority of people on this island. The Taoiseach mentioned there will be a number of talks. I hope we will be in a position to enjoy a happy and peaceful Christmas in a way that has not been possible for the past quarter of a century.
I thank the Deputy for his good wishes and goodwill and I know they are representative of Members of the House and outside. However, this is a long and difficult road, it will not be an easy one and we never thought it would. There will be a number of road blocks along the way. The reason a summit is not being held on Friday is that a good deal of work must be done on the ground to have a successful Summit. This is a particularly difficulty issue and I was not satisfied a sufficient amount of work had been done in advance of it. That is why I sought a series of meetings as a more sensible and pragmatic approach to the problem to show that both of us have put it at the top of our agenda and are agreeable to commit a good deal of our time to trying to find the formula that everyone hopes we will find.
It is clear that the Taoiseach has the good wishes and support of all Members on this side of the House, perhaps more so than from those behind him, in the attempts to reach a fair and just settlement. From the point of view of keeping an all-party approach on the issue, has the Taoiseach given any consideration to reporting to the Dáil after those meetings or how he will ensure that Members will be kept fully informed?
I will consider the Deputy's point. I know Deputy O'Keeffe will agree that this is a very sensitive subject. I will make the judgement after the meeting and, if I believe it is a useful exercise to go through with, I will bear in mind what the Deputy said.
