Mary Harney
Question:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the time frame the Government envisages for the commencement of all-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland. [4365/95]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
Bertie Ahern
Question:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he intends to initiate talks with the Northern parties on the Framework Document, particularly those aspects relating to Strand 2 of the talks process. [4408/95]
Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will seek direct talks with the Northern Unionist parties in a bid to get substantive talks under way in the wake of the publication of the Joint Framework Document. [4922/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:5 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the plans and programmes, if any, he has for a round of bilateral discussions with political parties in the North. [4935/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, together.
I am not in a position at this stage to outline a time-frame for the commencement of all-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland, although I am hopeful that, with goodwill on all sides, we can make early progress in this regard. I believe that there now exists an unparalleled opportunity to build a future where the people of Northern Ireland can live their lives free from hatred, fear and mistrust; and that all the political parties, North and South, have a responsibility to seize the opportunity. That said, the Framework Document is no more an ultimatum than it is a blueprint to be imposed on unwilling people. The priority now, I believe, is to allow the political parties and the people they represent the time and space to reflect on the proposals which the British and Irish Governments have put before them and to consider their potential for securing lasting peace and stability. In thinking matters through and in working towards a new accommodation, I would challenge all parties to seek the same balance, the same rethinking and the same radical reconciliation that the Governments have sought in the Joint Framework Document.
I am, of course, ready at any time to meet any of the Northern Ireland political parties to explore with them their ideas on how best to move the situation forward and to discuss with them our ideas as set out in the Framework Document.
Does the Taoiseach believe that some progress must be made on disarmament before the talks process can begin?
It is important that progress be made on the question of arms. In December the British Prime Minister and I agreed in Downing Street that substantial progress should be made on this issue.
Is the Taoiseach disturbed by the fact that the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, is quoted a number of times in the United States as agreeing with his view that progress must be made on the decommissioning of arms before Sinn Fáin are admitted to talks?
The Irish and British Governments agreed that substantial progress should be made on this issue. It is important that it is made and to recognise that there is fear in communities which have been the victims of violence over many years about the availability of substantial quantities of arms which have no defensive purposes. For example, Semtex is an offensive weapon. There is genuine concern about this issue on both sides of the community. Let us not forget the arms that were used in atrocities against Catholics in Northern Ireland. Those arms are in commission just as much as those that may have been used by the Provisional IRA in the past. The problem is not so much the stores of arms but the capacity to produce them at relatively short notice. Even if all the arms were removed, once the capacity to produce more exists the problem is a real one.
I urge everyone involved to address this problem in a spirit of compromise and look for a solution. I am addressing my words to Sinn Féin, the loyalists organisations and the British Government. It is fair to say that the three pronged approach suggested by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the United States, as reported in this morning's newspapers, represents a serious statement of position by the British Government. It deserves an equally serious response. In all the contacts I have had my endeavours in this matter — this is true also of the Tánaiste and all Government representatives — were to try to bring the parties closer together on this very difficult issue. I do not suggest this is an easy issue. There is much negative symbolism involved but it is important that people make an effort to come closer together in their positions on this issue. It is not a minor question but neither is it the only item on the agenda. I would not wish to allow it dominate the agenda but it is an important item nonetheless.
I share the Taoiseach's view that it is an important matter. The amount of arms in the possession of those on all sides is a great worry. Does the Taoiseach see it as a precondition to either side being involved in talks?
Talks are going on at the moment.
At ministerial level?
I know. We are talking about trying, by political means, to get people to deal with this issue seriously. Obviously, access to Ministers is a means of leverage for getting progress on this issue. The British Government want to exercise the maximum legitimate leverage to have the question of arms dealt with, not only from the point of view of its own prospective but from the point of view of the understandable prospective of those in the Unionist community who see themselves as having been victims of IRA violence over a long period. Those prospectives cannot be ignored or swept aside. It cannot be said that they do not count; they do count but so also do the concerns which are felt strongly in the Nationalist community about loyalist arms. They, too, are legitimate concerns. If we can deal with arms on one side we will find a formula for dealing with them on the other. Just as when the IRA ceasefire came into being it led to the loyalist ceasefire, if the question of arms is dealt with by one side it would have a benign effect on having it dealt with by the other side. That is what the Government is working for in all its contacts. I know we have the support of the House in endeavouring to deal with this seriously.
I welcome what the Taoiseach said. As regards making tangible progress in this area, is the Government considering inviting a third party to become involved in the process?
That is one option. One must be careful about complicating the issue by introducing new factors. The issue is very complicated at one level but very simple at another. We must give political reassurance to people that these arms will be put in a condition where they cannot or will not be re-used. The question of how exactly to deal with that is a difficult one. The British Secretary for Northern Ireland divided the issue into three. He referred to the issue of principle, the modalities and the symbolic issue. There is room for serious discussion on the question of modalities. I would like to see all sides make an effort to engage seriously on that issue. I say to Sinn Féin, to the loyalist paramilitaries and those who represent them: "please try to engage in serious business like dialogue particularly on the second of those issues so that we can see some kind of progress on the question".
I do not disagree with what the Taoiseach said but what are his views on what Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin have said, that they are a political party and have no arms? If they are not in a position to do anything about decommissioning arms, where does that leave them as regards ministerial talks? Such talks are a matter of some significance to them, even more than the Taoiseach or I would see at this stage.
It would be wrong to suggest that they do not have influence on those who hold arms. We know they do. They may not have a determining influence but they have significant influence as do loyalist political parties on some of the loyalist paramilitaries. Everyone must use their influence, however great or small and be seen to do so, in order to have the issue dealt with in a business like way so that we can build on the tremendous progress we have made.
The House will welcome what the Taoiseach said. On the question of talks with Unionist leaders, has the Taoiseach any intention of issuing a formal invitation to any of those leaders in the near future to pursue the political dimension of this which must go hand in hand with disarmament?
That matter will arise under Question No. 10.
Let us not anticipate that question. It is unfair to the Deputy who tabled it.
I note that the Taoiseach stated there should be time for reflection before we enter into talks with the parties in the North. Will the Taoiseach confirm that under the three strand talks process the talks between the Dublin Government and the Northern parties is a matter for the Dublin Government — the British Government not being involved in that process — and the bilateral talks held to date having been held under the remit of Mr. Michael Ancram? Will the Taoiseach assure the House that, whenever he deems it appropriate to move, he and the Irish Government will do so, so that the British Government will be unable to break the rules under the three strand process, the proactive initiative being taken by the Irish Government?
I did Deputy Jim Mitchell an injustice in that his question is relevant to No. 5, as is Deputy Bertie Ahern's, so I will deal with them.
I believe, in the case of Strand 2, there is room for the Irish Government to take the initiative to instigate bilateral talks. Successive Governments here have kept clear of Strand 1 talks, accepting that was an internal Northern Ireland issue, but the Irish Government has a legitimate interest in Strand 2 and can initiate discussions if it wishes. To come to Deputy Jim Mitchell's point, it is really a matter of pragmatic judgment — there is no advantage in issuing invitations that will be rejected; there is a positive disadvantage in so doing, because you invite a rebuff which makes your position worse. I have taken steps — this is true of the Tánaiste and others — to constantly inform myself of Unionist opinion by various means, to ensure that we understand the views of Unionist parties. I would be delighted to meet Unionist parties at any time, in any place, where it would be useful and will continue to work towards circumstances in which that will happen. Nonetheless, I do not see a lot of advantage — for that matter nor did my predecessor — in issuing formal invitations merely to be able to say one had done so, if there is not a real prospect that they will be responded to in the same formal and positive way.