Vol. 439 No. 5
2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach whether the latest statements of the Sinn Féin President, Mr. Gerry Adams, gave him cause for belief that the Joint Declaration by himself and the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, of 15 December 1993, will be accepted by Sinn Féin/IRA; and the steps, if any, he proposes in the absence of such acceptance.
3 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach his views of the prospects for acceptance by Sinn Féin of the Joint Declaration by himself and the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major of 15 December 1993, in the light of views expressed at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis at the weekend; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the Government's view of Sinn Féin deliberations on the Joint Declaration by himself and the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, of 15 December 1993, at their Ard-Fheis; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, together.
As the House will be aware, the British Prime Minister and I agreed at our meeting on 19 February that the setting of a fixed deadline for a definitive response to the declaration would not be helpful. This still remains the position. However, repeated opinion polls have shown beyond doubt that there is, throughout this island an overwhelming and unprecedented desire among the Irish people for a just and lasting peace, following on the Joint Declaration. There is consequently a public expectation that an early decision will be taken on a complete cessation of violence, so as to open the way to the next stage of the peace process set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the declaration. At the same time, however, the British Prime Minister and I have expressed our determination that the two Governments will not allow any party to exercise a veto on political progress.
To this end, we commited ourselves at our meeting ten days ago to give fresh impetus to a resumption of the three-stranded talks process, and work towards this objective is already under way. It has been made clear by both Governments that this process of political dialogue will remain anchored in the principles of the Joint Declaration, and the framework for the talks will be on the basis of the 26 March 1991 statement. The Irish Government will not entertain a one-sided approach that downgrades the Irish dimension and makes any discussion of it contingent on the prior achievement of an internal settlement, and that is totally contrary to the framework and the spirit of the declaration. I find it somewhat ironic, given that such deep significance was attributed by certain parties to the difference between two verbs in the autumn of 1992, that the Ulster Unionist party sets out its position on an Irish dimension in A Blueprint for Stability in the following way: “An improved future relationship between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic could be developed within the terms of the Blueprint”. A “would” was the very minimum that one might have expected.
Northern Ireland belongs equally to both communities and we must do justice to both traditions. As the Joint Declaration states, agreement must be "based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Northern Ireland". Given that for the present a majority wishes to retain the constitutional link with Britain, there must at the least also be North-South institutions and structures which reflect the Irish identity, strongly felt by a substantial proportion of the population. The Anglo-Irish Agreement in part meets that need and it will remain until something at least equally satisfactory is offered in its place. In the context of our commitment to proceed jointly towards a comprehensive political settlement achieved by agreement, it would have been helpful, if a clear understanding of Sinn Féin's intentions had emerged from the party's weekend ard-fheis. I have noted both positive and negative statements made on that occasion, but I had said all along that I did not expect a full formal response at the ard-fheis to the Joint Declaration.
The issues raised by Sinn Féin have already been extensively clarified in my public statements on the declaration and also in private correspondence transmitted to Mr. Adams. While I do not propose to repeat the clarifications already given, it may be useful to emphasise again the following points:
First, as I have said on a number of occasions, the declaration can be clarified authoritatively by either Government. None of the clarifications which I have publicly provided has been repudiated by the British Government. In fact, quite the opposite has been the case. Prime Minister Major's Irish News article on Friday last, Sir Patrick Mayhew's recent speeches and Mr. Douglas Hurd's speech on Wednesday last all harmonise with my own statements on the declaration, and should go a long way towards redressing the Nationalist perception that the British Government did not recognise their nightmare of injustice, fear and suspicion.
Second, as I said in my address to the Association of European Journalists on Thursday, it is not true to claim that Unionists have been given a veto on British Government policy in the declaration. The declaration does not prohibit the present or a future British Government from adopting a united Ireland as a long term policy aim, should they so decide. Sir Patrick Mayhew, on behalf of the present British Government, stated on Wednesday last: "If the people of Ireland, North and South, do agree that a united Ireland should happen, then the British Government is bound to introduce the legislation necessary to give effect to that wish". Where does the veto come into play in that situation to prevent the British Government from taking such action?
The requirement of consent is an obligation on both Governments under a binding international agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That obligation is separate from the British statutory constitutional guarantee, enshrined in their legislation since 1949, and in which, of course, the Irish Government is not involved. As I have stated previously, acceptance of the principle of consent to constitutional change in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been found by the Supreme Court in 1990 to be fully consistent with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. The exercise of self-determination concurrently is not some external disabling condition improperly imposed by the British Government. Acceptance of the necessity of consent is inherent in the position of all democratic Nationalists on this island. It is the way that a majority of the Irish people, through their elected representatives in Nationalist parties North and South, have already freely decided without external impediment that our national right to self-determination should be exercised. What is important for us is not any British constitutional doctrine, to which by definition we do not subscribe, but the manner in which the Irish people's acknowledged right of self-determination is to be freely exercised, without external impediment, as underwritten by the British Government in the Peace Declaration. The Joint Declaration accepts that Irish unity would be achieved only by those who favour this outcome persuading those who do not, peacefully and without coercion.
I welcome confirmation by Sinn Féin given over the weekend, in response to a speech of mine last Thursday, that it is their view as well that the present Protestant and Unionist majority in Northern Ireland cannot or should not be coerced into a united Ireland. At this stage, therefore, it is recognised by virtually everyone that a forced unity without majority consent in Northern Ireland is neither practicable, learning from the experience of Northern Ireland itself, on the basis of the Taoiseach's position set out in paragraph 5 of the Peace Declaration. In the light of that and of my analysis here this afternoon, it does not seem to me that a continued abstract insistence on the principle of self-determination by the Irish people as a whole voting as a single unit any longer represents a justifiable obstacle standing in the way of acceptance of the Joint Peace Declaration and of bringing the violence and killing to an end.
Reasonable grounds still exist, I believe, to hope that a positive response to the peace process may yet be forthcoming.
Let me say before I hear the Deputies concerned that 30 minutes only are provided for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. Does he not accept that things have moved on from the "theological" debate on the issue of self determination and that a new strategy is necessary to deal with the bleak scenario in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the continued non-acceptance of the Downing Street Declaration by Sinn Féin-IRA is a postponement of the golden opportunity for peace and in the absence of that peace dividend the Ulster Unionist Party's proposal for an internal settlement is clearly a retreat to a political cul de sac? Would he agree that the situation might be different if the Ulster Unionists had been treated a little better when they came to Dublin in a different frame of mind a year and a half ago to discuss North-South relations? In seeking a cessation of violence and realistic proposals from all parties for a political settlement in the North, does he see the need for his Government to pursue a new strategy and spell out detailed political proposals for a settlement? Does he genuinely believe there is a realistic prospect of the three-strand talks process getting under way in the short term?
Deputy O'Keeffe raised a number of questions. I reiterate that the British Prime Minister and I agreed in Downing Street last Saturday week that the three-strand talks process would be the vehicle for the resumption of talks between all the parties and that the framework of the Peace Declaration would be the starting point. It is regrettable that the Official Unionist Party has taken the view that it should seek an internal settlement. I do not have to explain to anybody in this House that this was a dismal failure in the past. In the last week or so Sir Patrick Mayhew stated: "We cannot revert to a system of government in Northern Ireland with which only part of the community can readily identify". I agree with the Deputy that that is the road to nowhere in trying to find a solution to the problems in Northern Ireland; in political terms, it is a Cul de Sac. I have no doubt that the British Government will reassess its position on the talks with the political leaders and parties. The Government is totally committed to a resumption of the three strand talks process and it will not accept an internal settlement. The only way to proceed is on the basis of the three strand talks process. We are waiting to hear from the British Government as to its views on the current situation. We hope in due course there will be a positive response to the Downing Street Declaration from the Republican movement which will ultimately lead to a permanent cessation of violence.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is obvious from statements made at the ard-fheis during the weekend that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Sinn Féin are incapable of delivering an IRA ceasefire, that they are deaf to logic or reason or even to democratic wishes of the vast majority of the people on this island and that it is time both Governments acted decisively to get the three strand talks process underway? In that context will he adopt the same detailed and patient approach that he has adopted so far towards the IRA in ensuring that the Official Unionist Party takes part in the three strand talks process and is not cut adrift? It is of the utmost importance that all democratic parties, whatever our differences, should sit down and talk about how we can build a new future for Northern Ireland.
I am in favour of the parties sitting down at the table to work out the future for Northern Ireland. Let us hope that the Official Unionist Party is adopting a position in advance of the European elections. I found some of the statements made by both individuals at the Sinn Féin ard-fheis during the weekend to be positive and some to be negative.
It was only for the optics.
It was positive on the one hand and negative on the other.
Neutral.
Listening to "Morning Ireland" yesterday one would have been curious to know the implications of what Mr. McGuinness had to say. It could have been interpreted as a new way forward or as a way of getting off the hook; only time will tell.
Is the Taoiseach aware that he is a fisherman?
One could fall for anything.
Let us hear the Taoiseach's reply without interruption.
I do not accept that either Government is allowing any political party to stand in the way of progress. We have indicated already where exactly we see the talks process going in the future and we are totally committed to this. On the question of whether people are in a position to make decisions for the Republican movement, I am not going to speculate; I will await the response. I will show patience to all parties because if the end objective is peace we should show patience to everybody concerned.
Does the Taoiseach accept that Sinn Féin has had ample opportunity during the past few weeks to renounce violence and that it has chosen not to do so? Does he agree, regardless of whether the guns are outside the door or down the road, that there should be no negotiations with any party until it renounces violence?
I have stated that on a number of occasions and my position has not changed one iota.
Has Sinn Féin's position changed?
The Deputy should not ask me what its position is; he should ask them. I have outlined my position on the resumption of the talks process. We have set out the conditions and they have not changed one iota and will not change.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the statement made by the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, in the Irish News last week. It was the first time such a statement had been made by a British Prime Minister. Only a short time ago this would have been hailed as a tremendous achievement in the development of relationships between our two countries. That statement was——
I want to help the Deputy elicit information but at this time we must proceed by way of supplementary question. The Deputy may be aware that quotations are out of order at this time.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the statement made by John Major is of historic importance? He said that it was not his Government's job to tell the Irish people what they should do or to dictate to them.
I admonish the Deputy for quoting. He is flouting the authority of the Chair.
I have no wish to do that but I would like to put the statement on the record. Does the Taoiseach agree with the British Prime Minister, who said that it was not the policy of his Government to dictate to the Irish people as to where their future lies? Does the Taoiseach agree that this includes the Unionist-Protestant people of Northern Ireland and that those of us who claim that Republicanism, going back as far as Wolfe Tone, forms part of our heritage would strongly resist any attempt to coerce any section of the people and that true Republicans ought to remember this? I agree with the Taoiseach that the same patience should be shown to the Unionists. Does he agree that they do not always know what is in their best interests but that they should be able to work this out for themselves in consultation with the rest of us?
Let us not forget the time factor involved in dealing with questions to the Taoiseach.
I agree with the Deputy that the British Prime Minister's statement was most helpful. I took the opportunity during our meeting in Downing Street the previous Saturday to bring to his notice — the Tánaiste did likewise in his meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew — that there were genuine fears and suspicions among the Nationalist community that the British Government was not fully committed to the implementation of the principles enshrined in the Peace Declaration. I asked the Prime Minister to take every opportunity to allay those fears. He readily replied that he and his Ministers would. He also said that he had received an invitation to write an article in the Nationalist newspaper in Northern Ireland and that he would make this clear in that article. Similar statements have been made not alone by Sir Patrick Mayhew but also by Douglas Hurd. These statements should go a long way towards allaying genuine fears and suspicions among the Nationalist community. I have described this as the Nationalist nightmare. This conflict has gone on for centuries. It beats me that people are being so impatient and think we can settle it once and for all in a matter of weeks. This cannot be done.
People are dying. That is the reason we are so impatient.
We should be realistic. I know that people are dying and, like everybody else in this House, I have condemned violence——
Put pressure on Sinn Féin to renounce violence.
——but I am not going to forfeit any possible opportunity to secure peace on this Island by not showing patience for two to three weeks.
It is now only three to four months to the European elections.
Let us hear the Taoiseach.
Sinn Féin is not dictating to me. It is not dictating to either Government, it would not be allowed to.
It is dictating the pace of the whole thing.
People in this House should have patience and realise that 90 per cent of the people want peace and a cessation of violence——
We know that.
——and that we will respond to that expectation and leave no stone unturned to find a formula that will bring a permanent cessation of violence. If Opposition Deputies have different views, let them express them.
Order, please. I am prepared to hear brief questions from the three Deputies who tabled questions on this subject.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that on his visit to America he will bring home the point to President Clinton and the wider American public that Sinn Féin/IRA have no mandate for violence? In the light of the courageous stand taken by Ulster Unionists after the Downing Street Declaration, has the Taoiseach any thoughts on how he might encourage them back to the talks process even if he has in mind an interregnum until after 9 June for that purpose? Will the Taoiseach consider meeting Mr. Jim Molyneaux or any of the Unionist leadership to discuss the situation?
We are ready to meet the leadership of the Unionist parties anywhere and at any time. During my visit to the United States I will take every opportunity to ensure that the American people are fully aware that Sinn Féin/IRA have no mandate from the Irish people for violence. We have said that repeatedly and will continue to do so. It is clear where the American administration stand. It delivered a clear message to Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin at the end of his visit to the US that it fully supports the Peace Declaration and called on Sinn Féin and everybody else to support it. There is, therefore, no doubt in anybody's mind where the American administration stands on the problems of Northern Ireland. As recently as last night President Clinton, during a visit by the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, reaffirmed that position of full support for the Peace Declaration. Despite the wishes of some people that we should declare the declaration dead, our statement from Downing Street last Saturday week was clear: the declaration is here to stay and the principles enshrined therein will form the basis of the next round of talks.
Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House that his refusal to accept the putting in place of internal arrangements in Northern Ireland as a precondition does not mean he is precluding such internal arrangements as part of the outcome of the three-stranded negotiation process?
I am not precluding any internal arrangements that may arise in the three-stranded talks process. I should not need to remind Deputy De Rossa that the last time this was put to the Irish people was at the time of the treaty. We know that the intentions behind the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, were not fulfilled. If the intentions expressed then in the House of Commons and in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, had been pursued we would be in a different position today. However, they were not. Is the Deputy seriously suggesting that we again go over the course that has been tried and failed? The Government has no intention of travelling that road again.
I made no implication or suggestion of that kind. The Taoiseach should listen to the question.
I listened; the Deputy did not like the answer.
Who is dictating the pace of current political development, if not Sinn Féin?
The two Governments.
Is it not the case that the core of the problem is that we have given a veto not to Sinn Féin/IRA but to a small minority within Sinn Féin and the IRA? Did the Taoiseach hear the views expressed by Fr. Faul in the last few days that these agitators in west Belfast will not give in because they stand to lose too much power and money? Will the Taoiseach comment on that undemocratic situation?
I have always believed that if we got to the stage of permanent cessation of violence elements on both sides, for their own reasons, would not join in. That problem will have to be dealt with by both Governments. Perhaps Deputy Mitchell has better information than the rest of us about who within the Sinn Féin movement is for or against violence.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the warning by the Leader of the Alliance Party, Dr. John Alderdice, that the Unionist leadership would be outflanked if he pursued Sinn Féin alone and did not carry on with the three-stranded process has now been proven correct and that we are now seeing the process falling apart due to the Government's single-minded concentration on Sinn Féin?
There was no single-minded concentration by this Government on Sinn Féin. We looked at the conflict in Northern Ireland and the parties to that conflict. We have never pursued one to the exclusion of another. If Deputy McDowell cares to read the declaration again, he will see that, after paragraph V, there is a list of rights which, I would remind the Deputy, are the rights freely expressed by the people close to paramilitaries on the Unionist side. Lest the Deputy think that we are talking to one party to the exclusion of another, we are talking to all the people who can give their views. We took a balanced approach and we will continue to do that.
The Taoiseach is mesmerised by Sinn Féin.
Do not be flattered by praise from them.
Not a single voice was raised against the IRA campaign last weekend.
We now come to questions nominated for priority.
