Bertie Ahern
Question:4 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the British Prime Minister in advance of the visit of President Clinton. [16044/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers (Resumed). - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
Bertie Ahern
Question:5 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if progress in the peace process is contingent on the direct discussions between the British Government, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. [16045/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:6 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the Government's views on the Ulster Unionist Party Leader's proposal for an Assembly in advance of all-party talks. [16047/95]
Dermot Ahern
Question:7 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the SDLP and Sinn Féin concerning the proposal from Mr. David Trimble MP for an assembly for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16213/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:8 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting or communications with Mr. Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Féin. [16344/95]
Mary Harney
Question:9 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the state of the talks between the British Government and Sinn Féin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16409/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, together.
This Government's clear and consistent aim in the peace process is to achieve the opening of round table talks with all parties present. We believe that in this way a reasonable settlement to which all parties can give their consent can be agreed. The Government has engaged in discussions and consultations to achieve its talks objective with the parties in Northern Ireland, with parties in this House and with the British Government. In recent days, based on that consultation process, I have put, on behalf of the Government, certain ideas to the British Prime Minister. These ideas are intended to point a way of moving forward, in the short-term, to our goal of fully inclusive talks.
I had a brief discussion with the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, in Jerusalem on Monday. I am satisfied that with a constructive response on all sides, the two Governments can move quickly to holding a summit. I do not believe it useful in the delicate present circumstances to give more detailed information. I also had a separate, very brief meeting with President Clinton in Jerusalem.
I am concerned at speculative reports on the present situation in the peace process in recent days. I need hardly remind the House of the sensitivity of the issue with which we are dealing. We should do nothing to make it more difficult for any side to give its consent to the reasonable approach the two Governments are working intensively to achieve. I am happy to offer to the Opposition parties in this House a fuller briefing on the matter within the next week or so, if they wish to take up that offer.
I thank the Taoiseach for his brief reply. He will accept it is the obligation of this side of the House to ask reasonable questions and we do nothing to create difficulties for the peace process. We wish to help it in every way. In the last few days, Mr. John Hume, on behalf of Mr. Gerry Adams and himself, made it known that they were issuing proposals; the Taoiseach did not make it known until last night that he was issuing proposals. Is it correct for those of us on this side of the House to assume that the Taoiseach's proposals differ radically from theirs?
Does the Taoiseach agree the prolonged postponement of the summit represents a failure of diplomacy? When it was cancelled over two months ago we were told to expect a resumption in a few days or weeks. We fully accepted that on this side of the House and did not raise the matter for a considerable time. However, it keeps being postponed, despite the Taoiseach's reply to Deputy Harney four weeks ago that he believed it was tantalisingly close.
Is it fair to say that one difficulty the Taoiseach faces is carrying the Northern Nationalist parties with him in any agreement with the British Government? In briefings he continually says he wishes to carry everyone with him. I understand that, but the Taoiseach is the leader of Nationalist Ireland and I do not see any great effort by the British Government to change its position of not moving anywhere without the Unionist parties.
The assumption underlying the Deputy's questions is false. He is inferring that the two Governments represent in each case one side of the community in Northern Ireland only. If he thinks back on recent developments he will see that his statement — that the British Government is not prepared to move without Unionist support — is not backed up by historical fact. The British Government agreed to the Framework Document and the Anglo-Irish Agreement without any such support. The British Government has shown, in common with this Government, that in the right circumstances it is willing to make a decision as to what it believes is right to move matters forward.
This Government is not the agent of anyone. It is responsible to this House to act as it thinks best in the interests of peace. I regard that obligation as also applying to the British Government. We also have an obligation to be comprehensive in the consultations in which we engage to ensure any initiative we take has the maximum level of support. I agree with those who suggest that moving forward precipitately, without engaging in extensive consultation, is unwise. At the same time, at the final point of decision, the Government has a responsibility — which is its alone — to create a framework on which progress can be made. That is a responsibility I take seriously and intend to exercise fully, as I have done in recent days.
The Deputy is also entirely wrong in the assumption that this initiative I have taken as the Head of Government is in any sense an indication of difference or agreement with any document published by anyone else. No such inference can be drawn. The function and the role of the Government is to govern.
Do I take it the Taoiseach disagrees that the British position in the peace process is now driven entirely by their political dependence on Unionist votes at Westminster? Am I interpreting briefings given by the Taoiseach outside the House correctly when I say he sees his position and the Government's role as one of facilitator?
I disagree with the Deputy's view. The British Government is acting as a Government, as we are, and while it must take account of its parliamentary position it has a majority in the House of Commons as this Government has in the Dáil. Both Governments can act as they think appropriate in the interests of the wider community. I do not see my position as one of facilitator. I have never done so and would not put forward proposals on my own if I did so.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the comments made by Mr. Chris McGimpsey to the effect that if the IRA were to rule out any first strike option it would add a new dynamic to unlocking the log jam?
I do.
In September the Taoiseach said the Government may have to move ahead without having any other party on board. Is that still the position?
Our overall position on the responsibilities we have as a Government has not changed. As I stated earlier, we have a responsibility to consult as widely as possible to obtain the maximum degree of support for any initiative we wish to take. Where we do not get such support we have a responsibility to make proposals in what we would regard as the best available knowledge of the views of other parties so that, if they are not prepared to be supportive straightaway, when conditions are such they can give support at a later stage. That basically is the position and there has not been any change in my perception of the role of the Government in this matter.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the framework document is rarely mentioned nowadays by the Taoiseach or the British and that there has not been any attempt to movthe document forward in recent months. Does the Taoiseach accept that in dealing with the Downing Street Declaration or whatever new declaration he would like to work to he must display an even-handed approach to the representatives of the Unionist community and he should do so as the senior representative of nationalist opinion? Is it not the case that the Anglo-Irish Agreement signed by the then Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald gave the Irish Government the role of being the voice of the Nationalist community? Does the Taoiseach disown that position?
I stated on many occasions that I take seriously the responsibilities I have under the Downing Street Declaration and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As the Deputy said, under that agreement the Government has responsibility in regard to the promotion of the best interests of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. I take that responsibility extremely seriously and for that reason I have had a large number of meetings with political parties representing Nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland. I do not believe — I hope the Deputy agrees with me — that the interests of the Nationalist community are served by promoting initiatives that cannot command the support of the Unionist community. Perhaps the Deputy needs to be reminded in light of the questions he has put that the only way we will have a settlement in Northern Ireland is by agreement between both sides. For an Irish Government to fail to intensively inform itself of the feelings of both communities would be for it to fail to serve the interests of either community.
Does the Taoiseach agree that it is time for him to state clearly and unequivocally that the creation of an assembly in advance of negotiations, which is where the difference lies between the Taoiseach's position and that of John Hume, was tried in 1975 and 1982 and failed? Does he accept that John Hume, Séamus Mallon on behalf of the SDLP and Martin McGuinness on behalf of Sinn Féin rejected the idea in the most emphatic way I have heard them reject anything in the last decade and that it is a nonstarter from the Nationalist point of view? Perhaps the Taoiseach will state that position publicly and openly to the British Government so that we do not waste time going down a non-road.
I have not made any public comment on the proposal for an assembly or convention which emanated from the Unionist parties other than to say, given it is a proposal from those parties, that it should be studied carefully before comments of a dismissive kind are made. I have not had an opportunity to have substantial discussions on the proposal with the Unionist parties. We discussed other topics when I met them. Therefore, I am not taking any view about the proposal other than to say I fully understand and have heard the strong objections to it from both the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Undoubtedly the Unionist parties would have to give serious thought and consideration to those objections in so far as they continue to advance the proposal for an assembly. The most constructive and desirable way to get the best out of everyone's proposals is to sit down and talk about them and not adopt the approach of megaphone diplomacy where people discuss their positions on other people's ideas over the airwaves. That is why I hope we can get to the preparatory talks phase quickly, where these positions could be discussed in a non-threatening way, and move towards all inclusive round table talks. There is merit in having bilateral meetings between the parties in Northern Ireland where they could discuss their fears about the matter. I remind the House that in the comment I made in Majorca on the idea of an assembly I emphasised strongly that no such proposal should be considered other than in the context of the three stranded approach — a North-South dimension must be inherent in it from day one and there is no question of an internal settlement or approach being given any electoral or other fair wind. The problem can only be solved in the context of the three strands of the relationships that exist. I will not support any proposal that will undermine, appears to undermine or is seen to undermine the three stranded approach. Given the gulf that has existed for over 300 years in the two communities in Northern Ireland the best approach for everyone is not one of rejecting proposals emanating from the other side but rather one of cautious scepticism, questioning and dialogue.
Deputies Kitt, Cowen, Harney are offering and Deputy Dermot Ahern has tabled a question on the matter. I am anxious to facilitate all Deputies but they must be brief as I must proceed with Priority Questions at 3.30 p.m.
While the Taoiseach may not have meant it, would he agree it would not be fair to say on the record that the position of John Hume or Séamus Mallon on this issue is that of giving a quick reply, or not giving due consideration——
I did not say any such thing.
The Taoiseach said they were dismissive.
Deputy Bertie Ahern is getting better at distorting what I say than he used to be. I did not say any such thing. I referred to the statement made in Majorca when I urged people not to reject proposals outright but rather to look at them before making any dismissive comment. That statement was made without reference to anybody in particular. I have not made any reference of the kind to either of the people to whom Deputy Ahern referred and I would ask him not to make such an inference because it is unhelpful.
That was the way it sounded to Members on this side of the House.
The proposal put forward by Mr. David Trimble that an assembly should operate in advance of negotiations was tried some 20 years ago, and again 13 years ago, but failed on both occasions. Would the Taoiseach agree that to say that anybody, without specifying names, has been dismissive about those failed proposals——
I did not say anyone was dismissive. Before anyone had commented, I urged people not to be dismissive. That was a general piece of advice; it was not a comment directed at anybody in particular. I would ask Deputy Ahern to stop twisting what I say. This is a sensitive process and is not assisted by the sort of party political intervention the Deputy is making.
I remind Members that questions should not lead to argument.
We are being lectured.
I am addressing the House and I do not wish to hear the Deputy at this time. I repeat there should be no argument and no tendency to debate at this time. I want to facilitate other Members who have offered and our time is fast running out.
Is the Taoiseach at all concerned at the continuing perception within the United States Administration — hopefully their President will have a successful visit here in a few weeks time — that they are dealing with at least a couple of Irish Governments? I know this from the words of a senior White House aide. Would he agree that the perception of weakness and disunity is hampering our efforts? They are not quotations from this side of the House in any political manner but rather ones that appeared in international newspapers. If the Taoiseach does not want to listen to our warnings or those of others, would he be concerned about the international perception of what is happening?
Would the Deputy care to give the source of his quotation?
The Sunday Times.
In regard to the matter to which the Deputy has referred, there is a difference of opinion or of emphasis within the Government in regard to our approach to the peace process or to Northern Ireland matters in general. All decisions are taken jointly by the three party leaders. The positive proposals I have conveyed to the British Government on this matter, designed to break the current impasse and move us forward towards inclusive talks, have been made with the full support and knowledge of the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare who act with me in all of these matters in a united way. I think the Deputy will have to trawl even more assiduously in the British press than he has done to date to find evidence of the kind he indicates. I am surprised at him retailing that type of information published in British newspapers.
It was a quotation of a senior White House aide.
As we on this side of the House are interested in the strategic thinking of the Government, would the Taoiseach agree that his predecessor's strategy in ensuring close co-operation and cohesion among the Nationalist parties was the right approach and crucial to securing ultimate peace in Northern Ireland? Has that strategy been abandoned? Would he agree that allowing the splintering of the Nationalist position is a highly dangerous development?
The strategy pursued by my predecessor of maintaining very close contact with both sections of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland was an extremely good one and it is one that I am following fully. I would have to remind Deputy Tom Kitt — and I have had occasion to become more fully aware of this since coming into office than might have been the case when I was in Opposition — that my predecessor was quite willing, as head of a Government, to make his own decisions on issues too. He did not feel obliged, as Taoiseach responsible to this House, to follow anything other than his own judgment for which he was willing to be accountable as head of Government. That is my position. I am not acting for anybody other than this House.
Given that the Taoiseach believes a commitment by the IRA that they would not strike first could unlock the logjam, has he sought a commitment from the leader of Sinn Féin along those lines and if so, what was his response?
I think I answered in the affirmative a question as to whether it would move things forward, not break the logjam. I think it would be a very valuable, positive contribution. It is a proposal which has already been put to Sinn Féin and the IRA. I have mentioned it in the course of discussions with Sinn Féin but so far they have not been in a position to give an affirmative response. However, we are pursuing other approaches which I hope would have an equivalent reassuring effect. The Deputy's suggestion is a helpful one and should be considered by the relevant parties.
While we all recognise the primary constitutional obligation of the Taoiseach and Government is to act on behalf of the Irish people, the Taoiseach made the point that there comes a time when that primary responsibility means he has to make his own decisions. In taking such decisions and putting forward proposals, does he accept circumstances may arise in which it would be acceptable to him that such proposals would allow for Unionist participation in talks without full Northern Nationalist participation? Is this something with which he would be prepared to live, whereas talks that would involve full Nationalist participation, without any Unionist participation, are something with which he could not live?
No, Sir, that would not represent my view. My view is that we should aim to have all parties at the table. I take a more inclusive view of the Irish people than perhaps some others. I do not regard it as my responsibility to concern myself exclusively with one section of the community in Northern Ireland. I would regard all of the people of Northern Ireland under the articles of our Constitution to which many Members on the far side of the House refer in approving terms as imposing an obligation on me to be concerned for the welfare of both communities and both religious traditions in Northern Ireland. Any suggestion that I should be concerned with one tradition only——
(Interruptions.)
——one religious persuasion or one political view in Northern Ireland is not one I would accept. On the other hand, I reaffirm that the Irish Government has a special responsibility, under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to be concerned about the views of the Nationalist community. As I have said already in response to Deputy Bertie Ahern, the interests of the Nationalist community can be advanced only on the basis of an agreement. That agreement has to be with the Unionist community and, therefore, both communities are of concern to me.
While I very much welcome the talks between Mr. Michael Ancram on behalf of the British Government and Mr. Martin McGuinness and others on behalf of Sinn Féin, is it the case that the Taoiseach has allowed those talks to proceed in recent weeks and that in effect the Irish Government has stepped back from those negotiations?
No.
Following the Taoiseach's meeting with the leader of Sinn Féin last week, is he of the view that his commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict is as steadfast as it was?
I am.