Jim O'Keeffe
Question:1 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the result of his discussions with British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with British Prime Minister.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach if he has arranged a further meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major.
Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his London meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, on Saturday 19 February 1994, on their review of the current status of the Joint Declaration of 15 December 1993, and its potential for bringing peace to Northern Ireland.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed at his meeting in London with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major; the new initiatives, if any, that were agreed to further the principle of the Joint Declaration of 15 December 1993; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The British Prime Minister and I held an informal meeting in London on Saturday last. It was in addition to the twice-yearly formal meetings between myself and the British Prime Minister. We were joined in our discussions by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
At our meeting, we primarily reviewed developments relating to the Joint Peace Declaration and examined the prospects for a resumption of the three-strand talks process. In this regard, both sides exchanged views on the means to advance jointly our shared objective of lasting peace with justice.
The Prime Minister and I reaffirmed our total commitment to the Joint Declaration. We agreed that its principles will be the defining point of departure for both Governments towards a new political framework founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island and between these islands. The two Governments are in agreement that the Joint Declaration will form the anchor for a resumption of the three-strand talks process. Such a resumed process would seek to develop the progress already made.
The Prime Minister gave an unequivocal reaffirmation of his commitment to build up the declaration. As he said in a statement after the meeting: "We see the Joint Declaration as a foundation stone for the future approach of both Governments". Sir Patrick Mayhew's recent statements on it have contributed to its fuller understanding.
The Prime Minister and I agreed that the setting of a fixed deadline for a definitive response to the declaration would not be helpful. Having regard to the difficult and delicate process of deliberation currently under way in the republican movement, there are reasonable grounds to hope that this process may yet yield a positive response, in terms of bringing an end to violence. However, both Governments are determined that no party will be allowed to exercise a veto on political progress. Such a development would contravene the overwhelming desire among the people in both parts of this island for a lasting peace. The durability of such peace can only be assured through the achievement, by agreement and consent, of a comprehensive political settlement.
The Prime Minister and I agreed to give fresh impetus to a resumption of the three-strand talks process in the context of the declaration. To this end, officials from both sides will meet to work on a possible framework document for new talks in preparation for the next Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference meeting scheduled to take place on 10 March.
In our discussions, the Tánaiste and I also raised concerns which have been expressed by various Northern parties over the report published on 20 January by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland. This report contains recommendations for new parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland. Although acknowledging the independence of the Boundary Commission and that these proposals are provisional at this stage, we stressed the importance of maintaining some degree of fair proportionality regarding the parliamentary representation of the two communities.
It would be premature at this stage to make practical arrangements for a further meeting with the British Prime Minister. Our next meeting will take place at a time considered by both as being most useful to the advancement of peace and an agreed political settlement. In the meantime, the two Governments will continue to keep developments under close and constant review.
Is there general acceptance by both Governments that it seems unlikely Sinn Féin-IRA will accept the Downing Street Declaration? Second, arising from discussions last weekend was any time-frame established for the three-strand talks process? Is this process being held up for reasons other than the failure of Sinn Féin-IRA to declare a cessation of violence? Third, arising from the controversy of the BBC "Panorama" programme last night was the Taoiseach given any briefing by the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, as to what exactly the British Government had told Sinn Féin about its long term policy on Northern Ireland?
I have nothing to add to the third part of the Deputy's question on what was or was not said at particular meetings.
The three-strand talks process will resume as soon as all parties — or most of the parties — are in a position to do so. Both Governments and their Prime Ministers made it clear on Saturday that no political party will have a veto on the resumption of those talks. We are glad that the basis for the resumption of talks has been clearly defined: the peace declaration will be the starting point and the principles enshrined in that declaration will form the basis on which the talks process on a three-strand basis will proceed. It will not be on a single strand basis as some have been speculating for the past number of weeks. The air has been cleared in regard to the basis for the resumption and nature of the talks. There is agreement that the principles and parameters of the peace process will be the starting point for talks of a deeper nature than heretofore. Both Governments are still hopeful that there will be a positive response from the Republican movement but, like everybody else, we can only speculate on that matter.
Does the Taoiseach support the resumption of talks even without a cessation of violence?
I have always said that I never saw the talks process in opposition to the peace process; I always held the view that if the talks could be resumed in a peaceful environment they would have a better chance of success. I still hold that view but I will not hold up the talks process waiting for this to happen.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the demand for clarification from Sinn Féin and the IRA in relation to the Declaration has now been fully met by both the Irish and British Governments and that, despite this, it is clear that neither Sinn Féin nor the IRA intends to accept the Declaration? Will he indicate how soon he expects the three stranded talks to commence and does he foresee a timeframe being set within which those talks might conclude given the necessity to ensure that the desire for peace enhanced by the Declaration is not lost?
It would be unrealistic to set a specific deadline for the completion of the talks process which can get under way as soon as everyone is ready. In this regard the liaison committee is due to meet shortly. On the question of clarification which has been sought from both the British and Irish Governments, I have dealt with the matter very extensively in regard to the clarification sought from the Irish Government. The statements made by the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, on Saturday and the many statements made during the past ten days or so by Sir Patrick Mayhew should go a long way towards clearing the air in relation to the explanations and clarification sought from the British Government but I am not aware of any matter on which the Republican movement is seeking detailed clarification from the British Government. In any event it is a matter for it; it is not a matter for me to comment.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is important that the three stranded talks get going so that there can be true reconciliation between the traditions on this island in the absence of violence? In that context does he agree it is important that the talks start before politicians in Northern Ireland start campaigning for the Euro elections and get into "campaign mode"? Will he help that process by tabling Irish Government proposals, particularly with regard to the protection of the Nationalist identity in Northern Ireland? This is something the Government should do in Strand Two.
The Government has never sought to delay the resumption of the talks process and will not seek to delay it now. Other parties in Northern Ireland said they were not prepared to go to the table for one reason or another. The problems have to be ironed out by the British Government and those parties. We will start work in the liaison committee as soon as possible. I agree with the Deputy that there is a need for reconciliation between the two communities and the sooner this process can start at a political level the better because the 25 years of violence have driven those communities apart. The problem is that there is a division between the two communities and we will have to see how we can bring them closer, to work together and to get rid of the fears and suspicions.
I am keen to have the issue of clarification dealt with once and for all. I understand that the Leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume, has renewed his call to the British Government for clarification. Is the Taoiseach aware of the aspects Mr. Hume has in mind or does he feel that full clarification has been given at this stage and that no further clarification is necessary?
He does not understand what Seamus Mallon is saying.
I will try to clarify the matter for the Deputy. On the question of clarification sought from the Irish Government, I have dealt with the matter very extensively and I am not aware of any particular point on which anyone is looking for further explanation or clarification. On the question of the British Government's attitude, fears and suspicions exist not alone in the Republican movement but also in the Nationalist community. People want the British Government to make more definitive statements on the Declaration and its commitment to follow through on what is stated in it, especially in paragraph 4. On Saturday the British Prime Minister made it very clear that he and the British Government are totally committed to the Declaration. This should allay the concerns which have been expressed. In addition, Sir Patrick Mayhew dealt with many points arising from the Declaration in the various statements and interviews he gave during the past ten days. I am not aware of any particular aspects on which further clarification is required. I am aware that John Hume made a statement on a television programme on Sunday but I am not aware of the details.
Let us not forget that there is a time limit attached to Taoiseach's questions today, 30 minutes only. I want to bring in the Deputies who are offering, if they will be brief.
Does the Taoiseach envisage the three stranded talks process getting under way by Easter?
Let us hope they will; it will not be our fault if they do not.
Will the Taoiseach indicate if the condition which applied to the last series of three stranded talks, that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed, will also apply to the three stranded talks which I hope will get under way soon? What is the status of the statement which formed the basis for the three stranded talks in the first instance given that the Taoiseach said today that the basis for the next set of three stranded talks will be the Declaration?
The ground rules laid down in March 1991 — that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that there should be no pre-conditions — will apply to the resumption of the three stranded talks process. Both Governments have agreed that the principles laid down in the Declaration will be built on in the new talks process.
I welcome the Taoiseach's remarks which I interpret as meaning that the Downing Street Declaration will form the basis for any three stranded talks in the future. Has he received any assurance from the British Prime Minister which he considers to be watertight in relation to that matter because this is absolutely essential? Second, does he agree that clarification is now required from Sinn Féin and the IRA as to the difference between the Hume-Adams agreement, which they accepted formed the basis for a cessation of violence, and the Downing Street Declaration which would justify, morally and politically, the loss of a single life?
I did express a hope for brevity.
Will we say clearly that we will not be held to ransom for much longer?
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is an unequivocal yes. I will quote from the statement made by Mr. John Major after our meeting: "We see the Joint Declaration as a foundation stone for the future approach of both Governments." There will be a three stranded talks process, not one strand in isolation. The three stranded talks process is the anchor on which those talks are grounded. I agree with Deputy Currie that after the Declaration there is no justification for the taking of a further single life in the pursuance of the legitimate objectives of either the Nationalist or Loyalist communities, if the Declaration is studied in depth and all the explanations put side by side. It is very difficult to understand how anybody could justify continuance of an armed conflict in circumstances in which not alone are the rights of both communities recognised by the British and Irish Governments on an equal basis but in which political objectives of each are recognised as legitimate and capable of being pursued in the democratic process with the condition that there be a permanent cessation of violence. There is a solemn declaration by the British Government that it is a matter for the Irish people to decide the future of the two communities on this island and that whatever agreement comes from that, a sovereign united Ireland or otherwise, both Governments will underpin it and legislate for it. In those circumstances it is difficult to see how anybody could justify the taking of a single life in the pursuit of political objectives that can be pursued and solved through the democratic process.
Will the Taoiseach agree that on the essential elements of self-determination and consent there is not that much difference between the Downing Street Declaration and the Hume-Adams agreement?
Both in this House and elsewhere I have always refrained from commenting on the Hume-Adams agreement. It is a matter for the two people concerned whether they publish it. I go along fully with the suggestion that there is no justification for taking any further human life in the pursuit of political objectives that can be otherwise pursued. Everybody accepts that coercion will not achieve the results people think it will. We have had 25 years of violence and it has not achieved the political objectives everybody said it would achieve. There will be no military victory on either side and common sense dictates that the only way forward is to get around the table, especially when there is no impediment and when both Governments have said they will be persuaders to finding an agreement between the two people on this island. It is the only commonsense way forward. I appeal to everybody to see it in that light and to stop the violence once and for all.
Will the Taoiseach agree that, if we are to have peace and reconciliation, it is important that both communities should feel truly at home on the island and that they should realise and have it demonstrated to them that the only way durable progress can be made is by constitutional methods? Will the Taoiseach agree that to achieve those two objectives, the Irish Government should table proposals within the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement or strand two to specifically protect the Nationalist identity in Northern Ireland with regard to matters such as the position of the Irish language, the teaching of history, the use of the Irish language in road signs and other tangible and visible recognitions of the fact that there are two identities in Northern Ireland? Will he agree that should be done now to show that constitutional methods can work and achieve something and that other methods do not?
Will the Taoiseach also agree he should look for concrete results in regard to the representations he made about constituency boundaries in Northern Ireland, because if we are to have a select committee in the House of Commons with virtually no representation — or only one representative from one community in the North — that will send all the wrong signals? Will he agree that although such a committee is justified it is important it is composed in such a way that both communities are seen to have adequate representation?
I made it quite clear at the meeting on Saturday that, at a time when the debate was continuing on the Downing Street Declaration, perceptions were most important as far as both communities were concerned. The objective is to remove the distrust and suspicions that have existed over decades — and even centuries — in both communities. It is important that both communities reject coercion as a means of achieving their aims. It is also important that both communities learn to live together and that the identity of each community is recognised as legitimate. The challenge to all is to find a method by which the identity of both communities can be accommodated. We must accept the diversity that exists in the two cultures. That is the job ahead of us in the talks process. The Downing Street Declaration went a long way. It is a historic moment and Governments have gone further than any previous Governments. That is recognised by the vast majority of people on this island; 87 per cent of the Nationalist community contribute to that view as well. We must find accommodation for all indentities and cultures and promote economic, cultural and social co-operation in future to demonstrate that the political means is the way to advance and find solutions to problems, not the bomb and the bullet.
Has the Taoiseach any concrete proposals——
A Cheann Comhairle——
Miss Harney rose.
Order. The time for dealing with the Taoiseach's questions is running out. There are two remaining questions which the Chair wishes to dispose of. If I am to hear the three Deputies they must, of necessity, be very brief and I will insist on that.
I will be as brief as possible. In reply to the questions, the Taoiseach indicated that he would be making representations with regard to the proportionality of representation of the people of Northern Ireland in the context of elections to Westminster. Will he agree it would be in order for him to suggest that elections to Westminster from Northern Ireland should be by way of single transferable vote in multi-seat constituencies and that this would overcome the obnoxious practice of seeking to try to count heads by religious denomination?
Quite a variety of issues are now being raised.
I have already made clear to the British Government, and so has the Tánaiste at the recent Anglo-Irish Conference, my views on the Boundary Commission and the perception of the end result of its deliberations. The present proposals are not the end result. The Boundary Commission is an independent commission. There is an appeals mechanism and I understand full use will be made of it in submissions from the SDLP about the number of seats, and the representation likely to result if boundaries are left as they are. I agree with Deputy De Rossa that with the present boundaries we know what the result will be; the breakdown will follow the pattern it has always done. We would love to break that pattern but it will take a long time to do it.
The Taoiseach referred earlier to the necessity to preserve the cultural diversity of both communities in Northern Ireland, and I agree with him. Will he agree the only way that can be done is if there is self-determination for North and South respectively as the agreement indicates and not self-determination for the island as a whole?
Paragraph 4 of the Declaration makes it quite clear where both Governments stand in relation to it. The people of the whole island of Ireland have already determined their views and wishes in the context of support for the Downing Street Declaration. Ninety-seven per cent of people in the South have determined that it is the road they want pursued and 87 per cent of the Nationalist community in the North have indicated the process they want pursued; even on the Unionist side there is a minority in support of this course. The aspect of self-determination is clearly spelt out by the people on this island, North and South.
Is the Taoiseach aware that under the Anglo-Irish Agreement the Irish Government is entitled not just to make the representations to which the Taoiseach continually refers, but to make actual proposals? When will he make proposals to protect the identity of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland? Will he make proposals to change the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission so that both communities are adequately represented?
The Government loses no opportunity at any meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference to advance the fears and the position of the Nationalist community and we will continue to do so at every available opportunity.
That is not an answer.