Jim O'Keeffe
Question:5 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to visit Northern Ireland and meet with political leaders there.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will be in a position to present terms of reference to the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to Opposition leaders when he meets them.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:7 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to meet the leaders of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.
As I informed the House last week, the proposed Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is intended to bring the peace process to the next step consequent on a permanent cessation of violence. It is my belief that a clear declaration to this end would enable the Forum to realise its maximum potential in the context of our efforts to achieve by agreement a durable peace and an equitable political settlement. A decision on peace is therefore required, so as to facilitate the full participation by all parties as set out in paragraphs ten and 11 of the declaration. Paragraph ten states of course that participation is open to all democratically mandated parties on this island, which show a clear commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and to the democratic process.
Paragraph 11 of the declaration makes clear that it would be open to the Forum to make recommendations on ways in which agreement and trust between both traditions can be promoted and secured. Its central purpose therefore would be to assist the process of healing the divisions among the people of this island. In my speech to the Dáil on 17 December last, I set out in more detail my views on the purpose of the Forum. I will consider carefully any points which the Opposition party leaders may put forward in the course of their forthcoming meeting with the Tánaiste and myself, as well as the views of other prospective participants north of the Border. I have already spoken in a preliminary way to the leaders of the SDLP and Alliance parties.
On the question of possible meetings with the Unionist parties, the Tánaiste and I have made clear on many occasions our readiness to meet the Unionist party leaders, or any other Unionist politician, at any time and in any place. Indeed, in the past few months, I met regularly with a number of leading representatives of the Unionist and Protestant community in the North. I am firmly of the view that such direct discussions do enhance mutual understanding, and help to dispel any misconceptions which may exist. The deeply-held and sincere views of either party are not prejudiced or undermined in any way by such dialogue. Indeed, such contacts and discussions, direct or indirect, were an essential preliminary to the issuing of the Joint Declaration last December, and to its broadly positive reception across the community divide. I was very glad Councillor Michael McGimpsey was able to address the Ógra Fianna Fáil annual conference on Saturday last. His contribution was greatly appreciated by everyone present and, indeed, I gather that he described it as a valuable experience.
An eye opener.
I have always made it clear that the political future of this island must be achieved by agreement and consent. The declaration removes any element of coercion from both communities and offers a new way to democratic progress. Whether we are considering the realities of the present situation or long term goals, we have to recognise, as the Irish News expressed it in an editorial yesterday, that any new relationship “will have to be copperfastened by a system of government in which one side guarantees protections for the rights of the other”. Simple majoritarianism, or the principle of winner takes all, just will not work any longer, whether we are talking about the North today or any future accommodation that may be agreed in the much longer-term. This idea has also been expressed by the Tánaiste in the form of the proposal for a covenant of rights, which would apply equally in either situation.
I encourage the Taoiseach to make efforts to engage in dialogue with the leaders in Northern Ireland because it appears he may be somewhat out of touch with the thinking there. Were leaders in Northern Ireland, particularly Unionist leaders, given any intimation of the contents of the speech he made in Malahide when he promised a 30 per cent Northern participation in a united Ireland? On reflection, will he accept that the timing of his speech was inappropriate and may have been counterproductive? Having attended a conference in Northern Ireland over the weekend I know people there are concentrating on finding a solution to the immediate problem. The Taoiseach should focus on establishing agreed structures which address reality rather than speculating on a possible future situation.
I do not accept I am out of touch with what people are saying in Northern Ireland. I have regular contact with people there and meet people from various walks of life in both communities. One underlying point I made was that in any future form of government the notion that a majority can override minorities in either Northern Ireland or an all Ireland situation must be discarded. Another underlying point was that the principle of consent must be enshrined and that the use of coercion by either community in Northern Ireland is unacceptable. That point was accepted by Sinn Féin at its Ard Fheis held in Dublin. Those points were clearly made and no one would say they were made out of turn. Is it suggested the debate must be rationalised in relation to what others may think? This is an open debate and everyone should participate in it. No Member is suggesting the position is otherwise and we all fully supported the Peace Declaration in Downing Street on 15 December. The many legitimate political objectives and aspirations in it should be recognised by both communities. At the end of the day it is a matter for agreement and consent between the two communities as to what future accommodation can be worked out.
Will the Taoiseach agree that many people consider that speculating about the details of the composition of a Cabinet in a united Ireland — which he said was an eventuality he did not expect to live to see — is not the best use of time at this stage? Will he agree that it would be better if he devoted his energies and speech-making to creating conditions for the resumption of dialogue between the parties in Northernb Ireland about issues upon which they can agree that might improve people's lives tomorrow and next week rather than focusing on a time midway through the next century? That would be a more sensible emphasis and lead towards greater true reconciliation between the people living on this island rather than speculating on long term constitutional scenarios.
Deputy Bruton's response to the speech made on Saturday is in stark contrast to others. I do not accept what he said in relation to it. Every effort is being made in all directions to move the peace process forward and work is continuing between the two Governments in that regard. The recent statement by Sir Patrick Mayhew was a contribution that may hopefully move the process along but it is too early to speculate about that now. This is a matter for open debate. I do not accept what Deputy Bruton is trying to insinuate, that somebody should determine what I should say and when I should say it. I make the judgments and nobody can accuse me of being ungenerous in dealing with the situation. Dr. Martin Smyth referred to that speech as a sign of generosity, which is far removed from what Deputy Bruton is trying to insinuate.
Will the Taoiseach agree that if he makes a statement of this nature it is liable to be interpreted in a particular way? Did he consult with the Tánaiste before making this proposal? Is it a Government view or only the view of Fianna Fáil? Will he agree that there are many urgent matters, including the treatment of the Irish language on road signs and in school in Northern Ireland, the treatment of Nationalist youths by the security forces and the adequacy of the complaints procedures in regard to the police and security forces affecting Nationalists, and that Nationalists and Unionists should meet to solve those problems? Rather than concentrating on long term constitutional issues on which inevitably people disagree we should concentrate on solving today's problems on which agreement is possible. The approach should be one of confidence building through small agreements rather than waiting for the ultimate Holy Grail of a comprehensive, all-embracing agreement.
I am sorry to intervene but I am anxious to dispose of as many questions to the Taoiseach as possible. We have a rigid time limit and there is a need for brevity.
I appreciate that, Sir. I am putting forward an alternative approach to solving this problem to that being pursued by the Taoiseach and I ask him to consider it.
The Deputy should paint a big picture on a road sign.
I find it difficult to analyse what Deputy Bruton said in the light of his full blooded support for the declaration on a number of occasions when the legitimate objectives of both communities were taken into account. I do not understand at this stage why an approach mentioning those should be discarded. We are well aware of the Nationalist nightmare in the North of Ireland and of the fears of both communities and how we must approach them. It is important to let them know how we consider power should be shared in the North of Ireland and in the rest of Ireland. I have always held the view that one should not ask someone else to do something one is not prepared to do. It is important to signify that view at a time when the Unionist party is saying it is only interested in talking about an internal settlement. If its view of such a settlement is a return to the old Stormont days, it is important to point out that the days of "winner takes all" are past. I stand over my views in that regard. Those views have been accepted by many people, perhaps not by Deputy Bruton but he may come around to my way of thinking at a future date. I am not prepared to believe, as Deputy Bruton may be, that an internal settlement will give the stability and peace we require on this island. I definitely believe it will not.
The time available for dealing with the Taoiseach's questions is fast running out. A number of Deputies have offered. I am anxious to facilitate them but I ask them to be brief.
I am a strong supporter of power sharing and the Leader of my party initiated it in the Sunningdale Agreement. Will the Taoiseach give the Opposition leaders a copy of his proposed terms of reference for the forum in advance of the meeting to be held so that they may put forward alternative suggestions with a view to ensuring the forum will have representatives of both traditions and all constitutional parties in Northern Ireland?
The Deputy can be assured that no terms of reference will be finalised without consultation with the Opposition parties.
I read the Taoiseach's speech on Saturday and, with the exception of the point which received coverage, the remainder of the speech would be supported by all Members. I suspect the Taoiseach was showing Fianna Fáil he had not lost sight of a united Ireland. Is it his view that the forum can be established before a cessation of violence?
We will discuss the pros and cons of that when the Tánaiste and I meet with leaders of the Opposition parties.
I wish to clarify that matter. The Taoiseach seems to be saying that a prerequisite for the establishment of the forum is a cessation of violence. If that is the case the forum will not be established. We are giving Sinn Féin a veto to prevent the establishment of the forum. Rather than putting forward unreal proposals the Taoiseach should move ahead with practical proposals such as the establishment of the forum and proposals from the Government on North-South institutions.
I am anxious to help the Deputy to elicit information but we should proceed by supplementary question rather than statement.
Does the Taoiseach agree with what I have said?
I have always said that a clear declaration of a renunciation of violence would facilitate the forum in reaching maximum success at the end of the day and that is still my view. I am open to have a full discussion with the leaders of the Opposition parties as to their views on settling terms of reference and other aspects of the forum. I repeat the Government is not finalising any proposal in that regard without a full input from all the parties represented in this House.
I would like clarification on one aspect of the Taoiseach's remarks in Cork on Friday night, as reported in The Irish Times of Saturday last. The Taoiseach said that the peace process could be moved forward if the British Government agreed to clarify for Sinn Féin the Joint Declaration. Does the Taoiseach believe there is something missing in the clarification process? Would he agree it would be better, in pushing forward the peace process, for both Governments to be seen, at least in public, to be on the one word?
The two Governments are on the one word in public and in private. What I said at the weekend is that if Sir Patrick Mayhew chose to clarify or explain some of the points raised it could contribute to moving the process forward. I have always said that is a matter for the British Government to decide. I have also said I would not in any circumstances contemplate a renegotiation of the Joint Declaration and anything that amounts to such a renegotiation will not be supported by me. I have given clarification and explanation and I have always welcomed clarification. If the British Government decides to clarify some aspects of the points raised, that is a matter for it and I am sure it would be helpful.
It has been suggested that the reason the Taoiseach is now speaking about unity while only a couple of weeks ago he said that unity is not likely in his lifetime is that the British Government has indicated it is prepared to withdraw from Northern Ireland. Is this suggestion true?
It is not true. It is a clear reflection on Deputy De Rossa that he did not read my speech. If he did, he would not ask such a question.
Would the Taoiseach agree it is perfectly rational to proceed on foot of the Downing Street Joint Declaration first to achieve peace by the abandonment of violence on the part of the paramilitaries involved and second to move into the talks process via the forum and talks with all parties? There is nothing incompatible in proceeding in these two directions at the same time. Would the Taoiseach agree it is evident that, in order to achieve accommodation which we all wish between the traditions on this island, there must be partnership at regional government and administration level and at overall island government and administration level and that partnership or power-sharing involves give and take between the two traditions? That is consistent with what the Taoiseach advanced in his speech on Saturday, with seeking to achieve a sharing of responsibility, which will be essential to the talks process, the abandonment of violence and the achievement of peace. The eventual conclusion will be reached within a framework which caters for the two traditions in partnership with a sharing of responsibilities between the representatives of the two traditions at regional and overall island level.
I agree with what Deputy Lenihan said. At the weekend I gave a simple, straightforward message that any accommodation to be worked out between Unionism and Nationalism on this island must be copperfastened by a partnership that is prepared to underwrite the rights of both communities. That is the clear, simple underlying message in what I said and it should be recognised by everybody. Let us together build on that message.
I want to raise two questions, one of which relates to the Taoiseach's attempts to talk with the Northern majority leaders. Would he consider inviting Jim Molyneaux, as a leader of the Unionist people in Northern Ireland, to address the Dáil? The Taoiseach seems to believe in consensus government — he is talking about partnership — but would it not be better for him to confess that he believes explicitly in power sharing rather than promise a show boy performance by involving all parties in partnership Government on this side of the Border and asking Unionists whether they want to be part of this process? Either the Taoiseach believes in power sharing as a concept of Government——
Brevity, please.
We believe in opposition too.
——or he does not. He is dangling a carrot in front of the Unionists. If the Taoiseach believes in the concept of power sharing, why not implement it now? The Taoiseach will recall that I wrote to him before the last general election——
That should be adequate.
Rather than lecturing Deputy Bruton——
This is Question Time, Deputy Harte.
——about following his thoughts, as I said to my wife this morning——
There are rules governing Question Time and Deputy Harte should obey them.
——there must be somebody in the Taoiseach's Department reading my speeches of 20 years ago.
I thought Deputy Harte and his colleagues would recognise that we have a partnership Government that is working exceptionally well.
I hope the Taoiseach does not want to exchange the Labour Party for the Unionists.
We do not need to bring in Fine Gael with their divided ranks to upset that partnership, and we have no intention of doing so. However, I recognise that Deputy Harte has made some very constructive speeches over the years, a number of which I have read— I am not saying I read them all.
I am sure there are a couple left which the Taoiseach could read.
The Deputy should recognise from my response that both the Tánaiste and I are prepared to meet not alone Jim Molyneaux but any other member of the Unionist party anytime anywhere, and that invitation stands.
Does the Taoiseach believe in the concept of power sharing? It is a simple question.