Jim O'Keeffe
Question:1 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach if he will publish the correspondence between himself and Sinn Féin President, Mr. Gerry Adams; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Joint Declaration on Peace in Northern Ireland.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach his views on whether further clarification of the Joint Declaration by himself and the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major of 15 December 1993, either by himself or by Mr. Major is now necessary; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on whether there are three parties to the armed conflict in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he has had any further correspondence with the President of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams.
Mary Harney
Question:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he remains satisfied that there should be no deadline on a response from Sinn Féin to the Joint Declaration by himself and the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, of 15 December 1993.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
As I indicated to the House on 26 January, I received on 12 January a letter signed by Mr. Gerry Adams, in which he raised a number of matters pertaining to the Joint Declaration. These generally related to the issues, notably self-determination and consent, which I have addressed in my post-Declaration statements to the Dáil and Seanad, in my recent address to the Irish Association, and in my speech at the Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh Memorial Dinner. He also raised allegedly contradictory interpretations by the two Governments, and the further steps envisaged in the peace process.
On 28 January, I sent a letter and a memorandum containing a detailed response to Mr. Adams which dealt with many of the principal points he raised in his letter and in his public speeches. I have sought to provide as much explanation and clarification as possible in order to assist the process of deliberation, by trying to clear up any genuine doubts or confusion regarding aspects of the Declaration.
In my letter I expressed my conviction that the Joint Peace Declaration provides a framework for democracy that is fair and balanced for all, and which deals with the key principles involved in the situation. However, naturally, I could not pre-empt matters that are properly the subject of future all-party negotiations. I put a strong positive case for acceptance of the Joint Peace Declaration.
The accompanying memorandum deals more specifically with the points raised, along the lines of my public statements and speeches since 15 December 1993. Nevertheless, I do not intend to depart from the long-established practice of respecting the confidentiality of correspondence between the Taoiseach and another party.
Comprehensive clarification has been given, as incorporated in my letter and in the numerous public statements which both I, the Tánaiste and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have made. It is important to recognise that the Declaration can be clarified or explained authoritatively by either Government. In this context, let me state clearly that none of my public statements relating to the contents of the Declaration has been rebutted by the British Government. It is my hope that all these detailed explanations and elaborations will expedite the process of deliberation, and that the process of internal debate within Sinn Féin and the IRA will lead to a response soon.
It is a matter of fact that there is a British military presence in Northern Ireland. There are also two sets of paramilitary organisations, Republican and Loyalist. I have already said that there can only be a mutual process of demilitarisation through confidence-building on all sides. What is needed is a basic framework of democratic principles for peace and political progress, that apply equally and impartially to both communities, which will allow a permanent cessation of violence on all sides.
I have said before that the Government has not set a specific deadline for a response from Sinn Féin. We understand that the process of internal discussion, debate and consideration takes time in the particular circumstances.
Nonetheless, I look forward to an early and, I hope, positive, response. Naturally, much attention is focused on the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis at the end of this month and perhaps some response may be forthcoming by around that time. I have said on many occasions that no party or parties can have a veto on political progress. In the meantime, preparations for the resumption of the three strand talks process continue between the two Governments.
I will be calling Deputies in the order in which their questions appear before me on the Order Paper. I call, first, Deputy O'Keeffe.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Will he accept, from the point of view of reducing suspicion and building trust and confidence, that a case can be made for publication of the correspondence between himself and the President of Sinn Féin and that to a degree it enters into the public domain? Would the Taoiseach say this, not in any accusatory sense, but from a genuine feeling that it could help to build trust and confidence not to have documents that at present are confidential or secret? I encourage him to rethink his approach on that matter. On the question of the position of the Nationalist minority, on the one hand we have cast iron guarantees on the central issue so far as the Unionists are concerned — the question of the continuance of the union unless a majority in Northern Ireland decide otherwise — but can the Taoiseach now say loudly and clearly, on behalf of the Government, that he is fully satisfied the Declaration respects fully the Nationalist minority's sense of identity and aspirations, culture and traditions and equally guarantees their economic and political rights?
Will the Taoiseach comment on the report in the Irish Independent this morning that it may be a small minority that is holding up the acceptance of the Declaration? Does he agree that it is totally wrong that a very tiny group should virtually hold the country North and South to ransom because they are not prepared to row in with the huge majority on this island?
In regard to the latter part of Deputy O'Keeffe's question, I have no evidence to support the speculation in one of the daily newspapers. Consequently I do not propose to speculate on that speculation.
In regard to the other aspects of Deputy O'Keeffe's question, in the Declaration there is clear recognition by the British Government of the rights and identity of the Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland. They can rest assured that their full rights are recognised impartially by the British Government, the equal rights of the two communities are clearly enshrined in the document and that they can pursue their legitimate political objectives through the democratic means. Whatever agreement is reached between the two traditions on this island, the British Government has, for the first time, said it will underpin it and legislate for it.
As to the publication of correspondence, the well-known principle has always been adhered to that correspondence between any party and the Taoiseach remains confidential and I do not intend to depart from that very dearly held principle.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the main problem for Sinn Féin seems to be the question of self-determination? Indeed, the Taoiseach said this is one of the matters on which Mr. Adams sought clarification. Does the Taoiseach accept, from the comments made by Mr. Adams in the United States and supported by Mr. McGuinness last week, that Sinn Féin believes that a minority on the island as a whole cannot have a say in relation to constitutional change? That being the case, will the Taoiseach confirm that in his correspondence with Mr. Adams he indicated that he believes there can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the wish of the majority there?
I have always made clear the Government's position in relation to self-determination and the definition of it. Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement enshrines the principle of consent. There is no departure and will be no departure from the principle of consent. The Deputy can feel assured on that point.
On the other point, I do not propose to comment on statements or parts of statements made by Mr. Adams in the United States. I will await the response to clarifications that were sought from me and which were given.
Does the Taoiseach accept as true the statement made by Mr. Gerry Adams while in the United States that Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA are two entirely separate organisations?
I do not propose to comment on that statement any more than on any other statement of Mr. Adams. I got a letter from Mr. Adams to which I have responded and I await his response in relation to where his organisation proposes to go from here.
Will the Taoiseach join me in expressing the hope that the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis will repeal its standing resolution to the effect that all Sinn Féin candidates must support the "armed struggle"?
I have already made it quite clear, without even waiting for the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis, where I stand in relation to violence and that I genuinely believe there should be a permanent cessation of violence in relation to all matters of conflict on this island.
The Taoiseach referred in his response to there being three parties to the conflict — the British Army, the Loyalist paramilitaries and the IRA, the Republican paramilitaries. Does the Taoiseach accept that the British Army which is the legitimate army of Great Britain, there under the authority of the Minister of Defence of the British Government, cannot be equated with the IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries? Would he accept that using language that equates the three is unhelpful?
It is a matter of fact that there is a British military presence on the streets of Northern Ireland. It is also a matter of fact that there is violence coming from two paramilitary organisations, but I want to put it clearly on the record of this House, as I have done on many occasions, that I and this Government fully support the impartial enforcement of the rule of law both North and South and that I condemn illegal violence from wherever it comes.
On the basis of the Taoiseach's reply, Mr. Adams has now received the clarification he sought. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is now no necessity for clarification and therefore no reason for a continuing demand for clarification from either Government? Would the Taoiseach further agree that his statement yesterday to the effect that talks in the absence of a cessation of violence could not resolve various issues that would arise in talks is effectively handing a veto to the paramilitary organisations?
I and the Tánaiste have made it clear on a number of occasions that the Government's position is that no political organisation should have a veto on the talks or on political progress in Northern Ireland. That is our position; it has always been our position and it will remain our position. On the question of clarification, I have given extensive clarification. The Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, has made it clear that he will respond in public speeches to some of the issues that have been raised with the British Government. In the last few days he has put it on the record that the British Government will be persuaded by an agreement among the people of Ireland, among the two traditions on this island and that the British Government will legislate for and underpin whatever agreement emanates from those discussions. He has referred also to some other aspects. Some of the issues that have been raised are matters for discussion and debate when all parties are around the table and some of the issues are for negotiation with the British Government after a cessation of violence has been declared. The Declaration stands on its own feet. It is not, and never was, put forward as an overall solution to many of the issues that are being raised. Those issues are rightly to be negotiated around the table with other parties present. Some of the issues are matters for the two Governments individually and collectively, but they are not matters that can be dealt with in advance of the acceptance of the conditions of the Declaration, namely, a permanent cessation of violence.
Mr. Séamus Mallon has on a number of occasions quoted from what he has said is paragraph 5 of the Hume-Adams Agreement. Would the Taoiseach confirm that this is an accurate quotation and that there is no difference between that paragraph 5, where there is reference to the Taoiseach, and the Downing Street Declaration?
I have at all times said that I would not get involved in the Hume-Adams talks. It is a matter for them to publish any documents in their possession if they wish. That remains the position. I made it clear from the start that we would not publish that document.
Allow me to look to the future, hopefully a peaceful one. The Taoiseach is to meet with the UK Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, next week, when, presumably, Northern Ireland will figure largely on the agenda. Can the Taoiseach indicate what will be his objective at that meeting? Does he intend to focus on the Downing Street Declaration and its aftermath or will preparations be made for a resumption of the three strand talks? What is the immediate future in that regard?
Discussions are continuing between the two Governments in relation to the resumption of the talks process. The meeting on Saturday week between the British Prime Minister and me and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will involve monitoring the position, updating ourselves on the matter, a general review of the progress of the Declaration and how we should proceed in regard to the three strand talks process.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the nature and extent of the coverage given to the visit by Mr. Adams to the United States was very damaging? Was the Government consulted before the visa was granted?
As the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs said, time and time again, this was a matter for the American Administration. It made its decision and that was that. We do not tell foreign Administrations what decisions they should take or expect them to tell us what decisions we should take. The question of the extent of coverage is a matter for the media and the US Administration did not have control over that.
I will remind the Taoiseach that December was not the first time the British Government stated it would facilitate, by way of legislation, the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland who want to be part of a united Ireland. Does the Taoiseach share my concern — and that of many people inside and outside this House — that democratically elected leaders, the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Taoiseach, should be played with for so long by somebody who believes that the armalite has equal value to the ballot box and that it is time it came to an end?
That question is unnecessary because the Government has repeatedly made it clear that it does not go along with any point of view which states that the armalite and the ballot box should be used to pursue political means. The purpose of the Declaration was to signpost and show a new way forward for the pursuance of legitimate political objectives for the Nationalist community because they have been dominated for a long time, and although Stormont has been dissolved many people in the North would like to have it restored, even at this late stage. We have never encouraged violence as a way of pursuing legitimate political means.
Deputies John Bruton, Harney and De Rossa rose.
I want to bring questions to the Taoiseach to finality. I will hear three brief questions from the Deputies who have risen in their places.
Will the Taoiseach agree that there is growing impatience because there has been no discussion between the Northern Ireland political parties in the three strand talks process for the past 15 months and that this has created a huge political vacuum which has been filled by the Provos, which is unhealthy? Will the Taoiseach say when he would like to see the three strand talks recommence?
Does the Taoiseach consider it incredible that no representations were made to the American Administration in regard to Gerry Adams's visit in view of the fact that successive Irish Governments have campaigned vigorously in the United States in regard to preventing IRA fund-raising and that some Irish diplomats have been involved full time in that matter? That has been an ongoing concern of Irish Governments——
I ask for brevity at this stage.
——and for the Taoiseach to claim he does not make any representations to the US Administration in respect of a matter of that kind is unbelievable.
The Deputy is making statements instead of answering questions.
The Deputy's comment is unnecessary and runs counter to the facts, as he is well aware. We appreciate the clear support for the Peace Declaration of the American Administration by President Clinton and those who were signatories to the attempts to secure a visa for Gerry Adams to enter the United States. That was the position and continues to be the position. Deputy Bruton knows as well as I that financial support from the United States to a large extent has dried up and——
Until last week.
——I do not believe it will be resumed. There is no evidence to suggest that last week will make any difference to the position.
I call Deputy Harney.
What about the talks process?
We are ready at all times to pursue the three strand talks process. We have always said we do not regard the Peace Declaration as standing in the way of the resumption of talks. The two are complementary and not in conflict with each other. Consequently, the position has progressed with the Peace Declaration and there is a new starting point for the three strand talks process.
In response to my earlier question, the Taoiseach stated that it would not have been appropriate to lobby the American authorities in relation to Gerry Adams's visa. Did the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs not inform this House that they were lobbying the American authorities in respect of visas for Irish soccer fans wishing to travel to the World Cup? Surely it was irresponsible of the Taoiseach and the Government not to lobby against the granting of that visa which has done a great deal of damage to Ireland in the United States.
I did not say it would be inappropriate for the Irish Government to lobby the US Administration in respect of the matter; I said we had taken the view that the final analysis is one for the American President and Administration and that is exactly what happened. We will continue to do our best in respect of securing visas for people wishing to attend the World Cup.
Pontius Pilate.
Facts.
A final question on this matter, please.
In relation to the talks process, does the Taoiseach agree with the statement by Sir Patrick Mayhew that the Declaration should not be seen as an alternative to talks? Will he clarify — to use the phrase that has many connotations at this stage — his statement that the Declaration provides a new starting point for the talks? Is he implying that the ground already covered in the three strand talks will be set aside or will they restart from the point at which they finished?
I never said that the Peace Declaration was in conflict or in competition with the three strand talks process. Our position has always been that if we could get agreement on the Declaration it would provide a new and peaceful environment and give the talks process a better opportunity of success. I want to make it clear that a certain amount of ground has been travelled in respect of the Declaration, it would be incredible if we ignored how far we have gone in that regard and recommence the talks process at the position we were at prior to the Declaration. The Government is committed to the three strand talks process and is ready to participate as soon as other parties are ready to do so. That was our position before the Declaration and it is still our position.
In referring to the repression of the Nationalist people in the North, will the Taoiseach accept that during the past 25 years the SDLP has done far more to lift that repression than Sinn Féin.
There is no doubt about that.
I tabled a simple and straightforward question to the Taoiseach asking if he was consulted by the American Government or Embassy about the issuing of a visa to Mr. Adams and for some peculiar reason it has been transferred for reply by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I am sorry, Deputy Deasy, we must adhere to the question before us.
It relates to the question before us.
I am proceeding to Question No. 6——
Will the Taoiseach answer that question?
——in the name of Deputy Jim Higgins.
The Taoiseach avoided the question.