Vol. 446 No. 3
2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach his views on the statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Belfast on 10 October 1994, that the British Government may never be in a position to say it accepts that the IRA ceasefire is permanent. [1366/94]
3 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach his views on the loyalist ceasefire in Northern Ireland. [1367/94]
4 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to visit Northern Ireland and meet political leaders there. [1368/94]
5 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach his reaction to the statement of the British Prime Minister on the permanence of the ceasefire in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1910/94]
6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if a date has been set for a summit between himself and the British Prime Minister to discuss the framework document and the peace process in Northern Ireland. [1975/94]
7 Mr. J. Bruton, Mrs. Owen, Mr. Bradford and Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach his views on the recent statement by the British Prime Minister concerning the timescale of talks between the British Government and Sinn Féin. [1905/94]
8 Mr. J. Bruton, Mrs. Owen, Mr. Bradford and Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach his views on the recent comments by the British Prime Minister that IRA readiness to hand over its explosives and detonators will be one of the first tests his Government will apply to long term intentions of the republican movement. [1901/94]
113 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions on which he has visited Northern Ireland since the Government was formed; the date, venue and purpose of each visit; and the same information in relation to the Minister or Ministers of State, if any, at his Department. [1230/94]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 8, inclusive, and No. 113 together.
The decision of the loyalist paramilitary organisations to cease all operational hostilities, following on the IRA cessation of violence, brought to an effective and a tragic period in our history. That decision virtually completes the acceptance on all sides that the use of violence in pursuit of political aims is an obsolete and counter-productive approach.
The violence of the past 25 years has left a legacy of deep division within Northern Ireland and between North and South, and has caused development in the political, economic and social domains to stagnate. An onerous responsibility therefore rests on us all to enter this new era in a spirit of generosity, thereby ensuring that the fear, sorrow and anguish of the past quarter century will never happen again. The two Governments, every political party, all the churches, each community organisation and person must now work hard towards the achievement of lasting peace and stability on this island. Reconciliation is fundamental to that objective and it requires, first and foremost, a demonstrable willingness to understand, respect and accommodate difference. The son of an 81-year-old victim of the Greysteel massacre described in a very poignant way the challenge facing us all when he said: "I think it is time for everybody to try and pull together and end all the mistrust". We must indeed start building a new future by breaking down the barriers of suspicion.
At the outset, the primary stimulus and sustaining factor in the peace process has been strong and constructive relationships between John Major and me, and our respective Governments generally. We remain firmly committed to the shared objective of an agreed political settlement in an environment of lasting peace. For some time now, the Tánaiste and I, as well as other people, had been advocating the need for the British Government to demonstrate in a number of practical ways their determination to accelerate the consolidation of peace. We are very pleased therefore with the series of measures announced on Friday last. They give a new impetus to the peace process, while serving to advance within that context our collective efforts towards a new agreed political settlement.
The British Government's acceptance, at least for working purposes, of the performance of the IRA ceasefire is of great significance. Similarly, the British acceptance of the loyalist cessation of violence is a source of encouragement to us all. The logical consequences of these have unleashed a much-needed momentum to the peace process.
We greatly welcome the fact that the British Government will convene exploratory talks with Sinn Féin before the end of this year. We fully support also its intention to work towards full participation by the loyalists in the democratic process. These developments constitute a decisive advance towards all-embracing political agreement in a totally demilitarised situation. It is our sincere desire that the processes of dialogue with Sinn Féin and with representatives of the loyalist viewpoint will achieve significant progress, serving to expedite the realisation of all our hopes with regard to the potential of this new era.
The other announcements of Friday flow logically from the British Government's acceptance of the IRA and loyalist cessations of violence. They are very important developments in both practical and symbolic ways and help consolidate peace.
The decision to rescind all remaining closure orders on Border crossings is particularly welcome in two respects. It provides tangible evidence of the British Government's conviction with regard to the lasting nature of the IRA and loyalist paramilitary announcements on the cessation of hostilities. The reopening of these routes will bring huge benefit to local communities, serving to facilitate economic development and rejuvenation, as well as a return to normality in everyday social interaction. In addition, work under way at present to secure EU, US and other financial supports to underpin the peace process will, in time, help to eliminate the peripherality and economic distortions endured by communities on both sides of the Border over the past 25 years.
The Government likewise welcomes the decision of the British Home Secretary to lift the orders which excluded Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness from visiting Britain and to keep under review other such orders still in place. Again, that development is testament of conviction with regard to Sinn Féin's commitment to the peace process. It contributes to the process in another way by facilitating more open and inclusive debate on matters of interest and importance to the people of the two islands.
All of the aforementioned measures are landmark developments in the consolidation of peace. An urgent need remains however to build on that progress and to sustain the momentum towards a totally demilitarised situation in Northern Ireland.
As the House will be aware, the Tánaiste and I met the British Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Chequers yesterday. Our discussions, ranging over a number of crucial issues, were conducted in an open and constructive way. A comprehensive exchange of views on recent developments took place. The Tánaiste and I expressed our whole-hearted endorsement for the aforementioned British Government responses to the peace process, making clear as well the need to sustain momentum.
The Chequers meeting focused in the main on the development of a shared understanding and co-ordinated approach with regard to future developments in the peace process. Within that context, progress was reviewed on the formulation of the Joint Framework Document as a basis for inclusive all-party talks on a political settlement. Very solid progress was achieved in the course of our meeting, though some matters still require further consideration. The liaison group is now taking matters forward on foot of the political direction given at yesterday's meeting. A final date has not been set for completion of the framework document but the two Governments share a determination to bring the discussions to a successful conclusion at the earliest possible date. It is our intention to apply all necessary urgency and effort towards that end.
The successful conclusion of the Joint Framework Document, addressing the North-South and East-West relationships, is of crucial importance. The British Government's intention to accompany release of the document with its own ideas on internal structures arising from the 1992 talks, will give tangible expression to our shared understanding of the reality that the three interdependent relationships will need to be accommodated in a comprehensive way. It would not be beneficial to bring into the public domain any details of the ongoing discussions on the framework document in advance of intergovernmental agreement being reached. The Government's broad position on the core issues is well known and I have nothing further to add at this stage.
The question of the safe and permanent disposal of weapons and explosives is essential to the creation of a totally demilitarised situation and to the consolidation of peace. We therefore undertook at yesterday's meeting to develop a co-ordinated approach in that regard. With regard to the next summit meeting, a definite date has not yet been set.
I strongly believe that this new era will facilitate over time much greater interaction and co-operation between both parts of Ireland on a whole range of issues to the benefit of us all. I hope that a greater confidence in simply visiting each other is now taking root.
I have visited Northern Ireland in an official capacity on two separate occasions since this Government was formed. These engagements took place in Derry last year, and were undertaken on foot of invitations issued by the North-West Region Cross-Border Group. On 16 April 1993 I attended the launch of a Secretariat for the group and on 19 November, I participated in a conference on the development of a strategy for growth in the north-west region. Full details of these visits were given in the course of replies to Dáil questions on 27 April and 30 November last year. The Minister of State at my Department, Deputy Tom Kitt, visited Northern Ireland on one occasion in his capacity as Minister for European Affairs. On 26 February 1993 he spoke at the Ballymena Academy and St. Louis Grammar School Joint Current Affairs Society debate in County Antrim. I have no immediate plans for further visits to Northern Ireland, but visits at the level of Minister and Minister of State are a regular feature of political interaction under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I continue, however, to maintain contact with political, religious and community leaders in Northern Ireland.
Will the Taoiseach accept there is considerable concern at the continuing inability of the two Governments to agree the Joint Framework Document? Will he explain the reason for the delay in this regard? Does he recollect that on 24 May last in reply to a question from me in this House the Taoiseach told us the document was well advanced and was expected to be completed before the end of June? Has there been a change in the position since then, leading to unexpected difficulties, or did the Taoiseach under-estimate the complexity of the issues involved?
Two significant changes took place in recent months in Northern Ireland: the IRA ceasefire on 31 August and the ceasefire in recent weeks by the loyalist paramilitaries. Work continued throughout the summer in the liaison committee on the framework document, but against a background of continuing violence. It is only reasonable to expect that we slowed our work in the past two months to take cognisance of the developments in terms of the IRA ceasefire and the loyalist ceasefire. No such serious concern as the Deputy referred to exists between the two Governments in terms of the work on this document. A fine balance needs to be struck in this regard. We must move step by step and every word has its own meaning. It is important not to rush but to get the balance right at the end of the day. Otherwise we cannot expect support and allegiance to be forthcoming from the two communities and the political leaders in those communities.
Given the comments of the British Prime Minister that his Government intends to publish a separate document dealing with internal arrangements in Northern Ireland, will the Taoiseach indicate if the framework document will contain any proposals in that regard and if the British Prime Minister indicated that it is intended to establish an elected assembly in Northern Ireland?
Talks will resume on the three stranded basis. As we are all aware, strand one involves internal debate between the various political parties in Northern Ireland to try to reach agreement among themselves on a devolved Government structure in Northern Ireland. They travelled a certain distance and we are all aware of the type of proposals that were on the table. The framework document will take into consideration North-South relations and relations between Dublin and London. It will contain the proposals agreed between the two Governments. The other document will contain the ideas of the British Government which will be put forward for discussion and consultation among all the political parties. The three strands are interlocked; in other words, an internal settlement is not a reality and both the British Prime Minister and I have said this. Unless we can get agreement all around there will be no agreement.
There seems to be misunderstanding and fear on the one hand and heightened expectations on the other about the concept of cross-Border institutions with executive authority. Will the Taoiseach indicate what exactly the term "executive authority" means in the context of these bodies and how and to whom these bodies would be accountable?
I do not propose to go into the detail of any aspect of the negotiations as this would not be helpful. The Government's position is clear.
Does the Taoiseach agree there is a problem in that some people are needlessly fearful of these bodies; that the Foyle Fisheries Body which was proposed by the Unionists is a cross-Border institution with executive authority and works very well and that if more detail was given as to what exactly is in mind many of the worries people have would disappear and it would serve the interests of a peaceful resolution of all these issues if more explanations were given about what is in mind? I believe what is in mind would be beneficial to everybody.
I made it clear on many occasions and again today that the proposals we have made in this regard do not represent joint authority, the source of fear and suspicion.
We should not forget the time factor involved in dealing with questions to the Taoiseach today — 30 minutes only are provided for on such days.
That is very unfair.
I wish to ask the Taoiseach two brief questions the first of which relates to his statement regarding demilitarisation of society in Northern Ireland. Has he had time to study the copy of the report I passed on to him from the Families Against Intimidation and Terror dealing with so-called punishment beatings by both the IRA and loyalists groups? Will the indicate if he has made representations to these groups to have the beatings stopped and the exclusions brought to an end? Can he give the House some information on the reported new paramilitary organisation, the Irish National Republican Army?
On the latter part of the Deputy's question, I have nothing further to add to what he has read in the media. I do not propose to refer to any confidential security reports I receive from time to time in that regard. On the first part of the Deputy's question, I thank him for providing the information which has been relayed to Sinn Féin for its observations. From the information available to me, in recent times it seems there has not been a repetition of these beatings. If anybody has evidence to the contrary I will be glad to receive it. We all condemn such beatings, rightly so, and I hope we have seen the last of them not alone in the Nationalist community but also in the Unionist community.
As it has been central to what I would describe as the Irish case since the negotiations began, that "nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed", was the Taoiseach satisfied with the assurance he received from the British Prime Minister in this respect and did he not think it strange that, apparently, Mr. Major denied that it had been brought to his attention that Mr. Molyneaux had been very critical of this procedure? The British Prime Minister was in Belfast recently and I presume he received intense briefings before he met Mr. Molyneaux. Does the Taoiseach not think it strange that it was not brought to the attention of the British Prime Minister that Mr. Molyneaux had expressed criticism? Second——
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but time is of the essence in dealing with questions to the Taoiseach on Tuesdays. There is a number of Deputies offering and I want to facilitate them but brevity must be the keynote of our proceedings.
Of ministerial replies.
I have no control over the Taoiseach's replies.
The Taoiseach gave a long reply in which he raised important questions and I am alluding to two or three of them only. Is he completely satisfied that no effort is being made to separate phase one from phases two and three? Given that he emphasised the importance of North-South links in his reply will he suggest to some of his Ministers that instead of flying all around the world they might visit Northern Ireland occasionally?
The questioning is overlong.
The Minister for Finance who is sitting beside the Taoiseach has not been in Northern Ireland during the two years in which this Government has been in existence.
The Deputy is deviating from the subject matter.
The latter part of the Deputy's question relating to Ministers travelling all around the world does not deserve any comment from me. It is regrettable that the Opposition parties have deleted the word "policy" from their political vocabulary and substituted it with the word "scandal" or "travel".
That was the tenor of my remarks.
We will leave it to the people to make their own judgment.
The Minister sitting beside the Taoiseach has not been in Northern Ireland.
On the criticism expressed by Mr. Molyneaux, I have no doubt that criticism of the final agreement will be expressed by both sides. We would not be doing a good job if we were not criticised. We therefore expect it. From time to time Mr. Molyneaux said he is only interested in strand one. Both Mr. Major and I have made it abundantly clear that an internal settlement is not on, that it would not work and has not worked in the past. North-South institutions form part of the recognition of the Nationalist identity; like the Unionists, they are entitled to have their identity recognised. We have to reach a finely balanced agreement which takes account of all these matters and which I hope will lead to a just and lasting settlement which is what Deputy Currie and every other Member of this House wants.
I want to facilitate Deputies but the Chair has an obligation to adhere to the Standing Orders of this House.
It would be a good idea if the leaders of the parties in the forum — the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, other party leaders and I — visited Northern Ireland together; this would be a good gesture. Will the Taoiseach agree to examine the impact on businesses on this side of the Border of competition from north of the Border given that higher PRSI, social insurance, income tax, and postal and telecommunications charges have to be met on this side of the Border? This needs to be examined in a positive way to ensure that there is balanced economic development on both sides of the Border.
This Government for quite some time has been engaged in making our economy more competitive not alone vis-á-vis Northern Ireland but the world. Quite clearly, we have been very successful; otherwise our level of exports would not have been increasing during recent years at a time of deep world recession. Significant growth is expected in the current year.
Many of the costs to which Deputy Bruton refers are not as he would like to portray them. We have come to expect that from him over recent weeks and months. We have not had an increase in electricity charges for about five years.
I mentioned telecommunications and postal charges, not electricity.
The Deputy mentioned all the costs, but I am not going into the detail. I have nothing further to add.
Telecommunications and postal charges are 20 per cent higher and income tax and PRSI are substantially higher than in Northern Ireland.
Corporation tax is lower here.
The Taoiseach referred to the total demilitarisation of Northern Ireland. Given that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs is on record prior to the ceasefire as saying that the verifiable handing over of the arsenal was a precondition for talks with Sinn Féin-IRA, does the position taken by the Government as late as yesterday not indicate a serious back slide from that important policy position?
I have made it clear on a number of occasions in this House and elsewhere that as far as the Government is concerned a condition for entering into talks and participating in the forum is a complete cessation of violence. That has been the position. Yesterday in Chequers we had discussions with the Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, and Sir Patrick Mayhew on the question of the destruction or disposal of the arsenal. We have asked the security officials on both sides to look at the logistics of carrying out the operation. Everybody accepts the situation must be confronted. We want officials to look at the logistics of the operation and report back to us at an early date.
Everybody recognises that for a true and enduring peace in Northern Ireland, the arsenal must be destroyed. I was glad to hear on the radio today a spokesperson for the loyalist group say that the loyalist paramilitaries would be considering handing in their arms in the near future. That is very helpful.
Will the Taoiseach explain in a little more detail to the Unionist population in Northern Ireland the functioning of the Foyle Fisheries Commission? Will he explain to Unionists his position on the joint Government structures, which he says is not a joint authority, as this seems to threaten the culture of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland? The Foyle Fisheries Commission has been in existence for approximately 40 years and performs a very useful function. It does not threaten either side. The then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. James Dillon, set it up and it serves as a useful model of cross-Border co-operation.
Certainly the model of the Foyle Fisheries Commission has been taken into consideration but it is not the entire answer to what we are trying to achieve. It is useful to keep this model in focus as it has worked very well since the fifties and continues to work well but we need more than that for some of the areas we want to cover.
The Taoiseach said the discussions on the joint framework document had been slowed down over the past number of months. Will he explain why? In a speech in Strabane, Sir Patrick Mayhew said that the British Government proposals for devolution in Northern Ireland would have the same status as the joint framework document. Does this indicate that the Taoiseach and the Government will be consulted and approve in advance the proposals for devolution in Northern Ireland?
On the basis that all three strands are interlocked, clearly there has to be agreement on all three before the three come into operation. We are well aware of the position in relation to strand one talks which took place in 1992. There will not be a divergence from the views expressed then. The British Government is well aware that all three strands have to interlock at the end of the day and all three have to be agreed by everybody concerned.
