Mary Harney
Question:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the timeframe the Government envisages for the deliberations of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. [10605/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
The terms of reference of the Forum indicate that it was established, for as long as is necessary, to consult and examine ways in which lasting peace, stability and reconciliation can be established by agreement among all the people of Ireland. I assure the House that the Government is fully committed to enabling the Forum to continue, for as long as is necessary, its very worth-while contribution to peace and reconciliation on the island. The question of the timeframe for the completion of this work is, of course, a matter which would fall to be addressed by the Forum.
While I accept it is a matter for the forum, it would be influenced by the Government's position and thinking on the matter. Does the Taoiseach envisage that the forum will remain until there is a successful outcome to the all-party talks in Northern Ireland?
I do not have a firm view on that. It is for the forum to discuss that matter. The Deputy is a member of the forum as are other Deputies and the matter should be discussed there. One argument is that once all-party talks are under way the forum has served its purpose while the argument put by the Deputy is that we should wait until there is an outcome. If there is an intensive series of all-party discussions in Northern Ireland this will give rise to a practical problem in terms of the availability of people to attend meetings in Dublin.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the very real concern expressed at recent forum meetings about the delay in reaching conclusions on certain matters? The forum has completed consideration of the issues under the three Strands and consensus is emerging in this respect. Will the Taoiseach agree it is important to set a timeframe if the process, which is linked to the talks process and the intergovernmental talks, is not to run into the ground? It is 18 months since the Downing Street Declaration was signed and ten months since the announcement of the IRA ceasefire and while I appreciate the points made by the Taoiseach there is a danger that the process will run out of steam unless positive action is taken in intergovernmental and inter-party talks level and at the forum in the near future.
This discussion should take place at the forum, not in this House. It does not serve much purpose to discuss the matter here. Other participants in the forum might have views on the points made by Deputy Lenihan and they should be able to discuss these rather than have the matter discussed between the parties in the Dáil. However, there is not much point in setting artificial deadlines and saying we will have a report by 1 January. What will happen on 31 December if there is still disagreement on certain issues? Will there be a stand off or a majority vote? Will some people be voted down and will we have a majority or minority report? There is not much point in setting a deadline; we should be aiming at an inclusive process. I do not agree with the Deputy's implicit suggestion that there should be a deadline. I wish to remind him that his party was in Government when the terms of reference of the forum were drawn up and no deadline was included at that stage. I have no recollection — I am sure Deputy Harney will confirm this — of a suggestion being made by anybody that a deadline should be placed on the forum.
I did not suggest setting a deadline.
If a deadline was appropriate it should have been included at the beginning so that everyone would know the basis on which they were entering the forum.
On a point of information, I did not suggest that a deadline should be set.
The Deputy did.
I agree it is not appropriate to set a deadline——
The Deputy referred to a timeframe.
——but there should be an indication of movement by the two Governments, the parties and the forum towards the achievement of an objective in the future. The reality in blunt terms is that the process is adrift and running into the ground.
That most certainly is not the reality: neither the forum nor the peace process is adrift. We are tackling extremely difficult issues involving the decommissioning of arms on which radical different views are held by the Unionist parties and Sinn Féin, two legitimate traditions on this island. Anyone who pretends that this issue can be dealt with by banging heads together in an aggressive way is foolish.
Nobody said that. The Taoiseach is putting words in my mouth.
Let us hear the Taoiseach's reply.
If we are to move forward on issues such as the decommissioning of arms and the early release of prisoners whose victims are still living we have to do so in a compassionate and careful atmosphere where we listen to what other people say, work with what they can accept at a particular time, find solutions to their immediate problems and seek to move them on. That is the approach the Government is adopting. It is this patient approach which led to the cessation of violence.
The Taoiseach had nothing to do with that.
If the process in regard to the cessation of violence had involved the setting of deadlines by which people had to reach decisions on issues we might not have got this far. The approach adopted was good and valid then and it is valid now.
The Taoiseach has broadened the scope of the question. It is appropriate to discuss this issue here given that the Taoiseach's predecessor set up the forum. As the Taoiseach correctly stated, the forum was open-ended. Will he agree that the forum serves a useful function in the absence of political talks? The point made by Deputy Lenihan was also raised by John Hume and discussed at two of the last three meetings of the forum. The forum should come to conclusions on some of the issues we have discussed. Last week we concluded discussions on Strand III and it is important that we tidy up some of the work which has been completed — or almost completed — and reach conclusions in the not too distant future on our discussions to date on Strands I, II and III. This is how the 1984 forum operated. If we do not do this we will be working in a vacuum. The forum must sit until the round table talks establish another body or assembly. The SDLP and other parties are also of the view that the work completed within the past eight months should be brought to finality.
On the completion of work in the forum, a drafting committee has been established with a view to the preparation of a report.
That is a booklet on speeches we made last October.
The drafting committee has been established with a view to preparing a report and the work will proceed on an agreed basis in the forum. I do not want the forum to adopt a majoritarian approach where a party may be overruled so that conclusions can be reached. We have seen for the past 50 or 60 years in Northern Ireland the difficulties which can be caused by a majoritarian approach.
There is no danger of that happening — the Taoiseach is not there.
We are not talking about that.
Please, Deputies.
I hope such an approach will not be adopted at the forum. This means it is impossible to set time limits on when the forum should reach conclusions on a particular issue — one must take all the time required to achieve the unanimity which is necessary for a constructive outcome.
With regard to the word "vacuum", over the past few months a framework document on the basis for a future settlement in Northern Ireland, and agreed between the two Governments, has been published, ministerial talks have been opened with parties such as Sinn Féin — these have moved to Secretary of State level — and invitations have been issued by me and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to all the parties in Northern Ireland to engage in discussions. These co-ordinated steps are aimed at securing the all-inclusive dialogue which we believe is essential to the achievement of a settlement.
I appreciate that a final report is being drafted but the Taoiseach would be wrong in thinking we will be in agreement with it — it will simply set out the options. The forum is not a negotiating body and there are fundamental differences between parties on certain key issues. Does the Taoiseach agree with the views expressed at the forum last Friday by the Methodist Church that concerns about the decommissioning of arms would be eased if Sinn Féin accepted the consent principle?
Clear statements in regard to the consent principle are very important from the point of view of confidence building in Northern Ireland which is a matter of considerable value and importance. I also commend to Members the remarks in regard to the decommissioning of arms which were made by the Nobel Peace prize winner, Dr. Oscar Arias in a Belfast edition of the Sunday World newspaper recently in which he said:
Those of you who have weapons face now the future that must come, when you will give up those weapons that no longer defend you or advance your goals. Be prepared to be called "traitor" by some. Be prepared to not easily be pardoned by others.
Be prepared to feel vulnerable when you step into public life again without a loaded pistol in your pocket. And then be prepared, one day, to tell your children how you gave them a future by putting down your gun and reaching out your hands to build life rather than to take it.
No people, anywhere, has progressed with an ingrained habit of violence and sectarianism. Violence is not the pursuit of politics by other means. It is the failure of politics.
I agree very much with the statement read out by Deputy Bruton, but it did not answer my question. I asked the Taoiseach if he would agree with the Methodist Church, that the Unionists might come to talks, despite their concern about the decommissioning of arms, if Sinn Féin were to accept the consent principle? Does the Taoiseach share that view?
I said, in answer to the Deputy's question, that I believed that a clear statement on the consent principle was very important and would be very constructive.