Mary Harney
Question:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Israel with President Clinton; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16668/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Clinton Visit and Related Matters.
Bertie Ahern
Question:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with President Clinton at the funeral of Prime Minister Rabin. [16782/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the proposals he has put to the British Government for breaking the impasse in the peace process. [16784/95]
Bertie Ahern
Question:8 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will outline, as far as security permits, some of the engagements that will be undertaken by President Clinton on his forthcoming visit to Ireland. [16785/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 together. As I said in the House on Wednesday last, on behalf of the Government, I put certain proposals to the British Prime Minister some ten days ago. They were designed to point a way of moving forward in the short-term on a path towards all-inclusive talks.
On Saturday night last, I underlined my belief that agreement now needs to be achieved on a reasonable compromise on those issues still in the way of movement towards all-party talks through the twin track approach. Through the work of the international body, authoritative reassurance can be given on the issue of arms, thereby building trust that they will never again be used, or their use threatened for political purposes. At the same time, the political track can be used to prepare for all-party roundtable talks within a speedy timetable. It is only through dialogue between former antagonists that we will really begin to build a new era of trust and co-operation.
I concluded my speech by saying that the proposals I have put to the British Prime Minister are reasonable and that unless we compromise and move from the preferred positions of the relevant parties, we will not get around the table at all.
Regarding my meeting with President Clinton in Jerusalem, we had a very brief conversation on his forthcoming visit to this country and on related matters. President Clinton plans to visit here on 1 and 2 December next. The programme has not yet been finalised by the White House. As is customary, full details of the visit will be announced at the appropriate time. I can say, however, that President Clinton's programme is likely to include a meeting with the President at Áras an Uachtaráin; an address to both Houses of the Oireachtas; the conferring, by Dublin City Council, of the Freedom of the City; and bilateral discussions with the Government. There are plans for the President to visit the mid-west and the south-west on 2 December where he will undertake a number of engagements, before departing from Shannon.
The Government warmly welcomes President Clinton's visit, which symbolises the close and friendly relations between Ireland and the United States of America.
Why did the Taoiseach show such a dramatic change of heart vis-à-vis all-party talks? Did he not tell the House two weeks ago that there was no point calling for talks unless everybody would participate in them and is he now satisfied that everybody would participate if talks are called?
I am anxious to move forward on the twin track approach towards all-party talks. I am anxious that there will be movement as soon as possible on the two parallel tracks. That is what I emphasised in my speech at the weekend and it was consistent with previous statements I made, particularly in regard to the Government's responsibility to outline concerns felt by the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. The House will remember that I drew specific attention to that matter in response to questions from Deputy Ahern approximately ten days ago. That was the basis upon which I made my statements. As I stressed in my speech in London and on other occasions, the Government has two roles. One is the role of building a bridge between the two communities, Unionist and Nationalist, on the island of Ireland and that involves going out of our way to understand the concerns and views of Unionists and making sure that those views are heard and understood on this side of the Border. It involves also, under the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and previous practice by Governments, making sure simultaneously that Nationalist concerns are heard and understood where they need to be heard and understood and obviously Britain is one such place.
Will the Taoiseach explain why in a matter of two or three days he felt it necessary to make a major volte-face and why it was appropriate on the eve of Remembrance Day?
Does he agree that the week prior to his London speech he seemed totally opposed to what Mr. Hume and Adams had agreed in their document of last week but the difference now seems to be that he is setting a target date whereas they believe we should have a firm date for all-party talks? Many people think the Taoiseach's proposal will be a recipe for endless procrastination similar to what was seen in recent months? Is this not a valid point?
The underlying thesis in the Deputy's question is not correct. As I said in the House last week, under the Anglo-Irish Agreement the Government has a 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 number of meetings with the political parties representing Nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland.
Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement that responsibility for the Nationalist community extends to ensuring that British public opinion understands the fears and concerns of the Nationalist community on matters such as policing, Orange parades and fair acceptance of responsibility for past injustices — acceptance by all those responsible rather than one side. I believe it was appropriate to avail of a speaking engagement in Britain, one of the few I have had in recent times, to ensure that those Nationalist concerns are heard. Equally, I believe I have responsibility, especially when speaking in this jurisdiction, to ensure that public opinion here understands the concerns of the Unionist community. There is a complementarity between the two roles and they are being performed in a reasonable manner. We will bring people together only if we assure them their concerns are articulated and understood.
I am sure the Taoiseach will recall giving out last week about the British press but it appears his officials did little else yesterday but brief them. Can I take it the six point plan outlined in today's Financial Times is correct? If that is so, does the Taoiseach object to publishing the document he said last Wednesday he would not even discuss with Deputy Harney or me.
I am sure the Deputy will recall that I offered to brief both him and Deputy Harney.
Next week.
Next week is now this week and that offer is available but has not been taken up. As I have not read today's Financial Times, I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the reports to which the Deputy referred. It is not appropriate for the Taoiseach or Ministers to comment on newspaper articles.
Rather than putting on record the six point plan, I refer Members to that report. Does the Taoiseach agree with reports that this is his most considered view to date on the position in Northern Ireland and that his speech on Saturday night represents his considered opinion on Northern Ireland matters and the peace process? Is that a fair reflection of his speech?
The speech was carefully considered and those who read it will know that. However, it must be read in conjunction with other statements I have made which emphasise some of the matters contained in the speech, but which also contain matters of concern to the Government.
If the Taoiseach's speech on Saturday night represents his most considered view since taking office, is it not remarkable that it does not contain a reference to the Framework Document? If this is his considered view on the peace process and the state of play one year after taking office, is it not final confirmation that, as I stated on a number of occasions recently, the Taoiseach is not interested in the Framework Document? He signed his name to it in February but no longer has an interest in it.
I am sorry to have to correct the Deputy about what I said. I stated that the speech I made in London represented a considered speech on my part. I did not, nor would I, say it represents all my views on that subject. As the Deputy correctly acknowledged, I was involved in the finalisation of the Framework Document which I regard as containing a carefully worked out agreed position between the two Governments as to a scenario in which the problems in Northern Ireland could be resolved. It is also important to make the point — as was made at the launch of the Framework Document by the Prime Minister and me — that the document was not written on tablets of stone and was a matter on which we would welcome the considered views of the other parties not directly involved in its negotiation.
I find it difficult to accept the Taoiseach's attitude since September. The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach appear to have adopted a flip-flop approach to the matter in that every second week they place a different emphasis on it. Will the Taoiseach explain why he told the House two weeks ago that there is no point in forcing people to come to talks and last Saturday he put pressure on for the holding of such talks?
That was because of the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis.
Can he explain the change of position?
I am sorry to have to repeat that the Deputy must not have read the speech I made in London. I made it very clear that I would not regard it as particularly desirable to start talks on a basis which attracted one set of parties but repelled another set. I stated:
If we fail to resolve these small contentions, (that is standing in the way of the twin-track approach commencing) the verdict of future generations will not be favourable for any of us who are involved. In saying that, I realise that, for talks to be fruitful, we must have all the relevant parties at the table. Indeed a formula for talks that attracts one set of parties, by repelling another set of parties, is not a formula for progress. Each side has responsibility for that.
Deputy Harney might revise her question in light of that quotation.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the British Prime Minister is wrong in putting all the blame for the impasse on Sinn Féin, as he did on the airwaves last Sunday? Is it not a fact that the republican leadership is committed to peace and political methods and has sustained the ceasefire almost to perfection — I have already condemned the punishment beatings — for the past 15 months? Does the Taoiseach believe that the remit of the international commission should include or exclude the Washington 3 condition? As it is totally unrealistic, should it not be dropped altogether? This would appear to concur with the implications of the Taoiseach's speech on Saturday night. Does he also agree with John Hume's argument, endorsed yesterday in the Belfast Telegraph, that it makes little logical sense to outsiders to agree that republicans can be spoken to with 95 per cent of their arms but not with 100 per cent of them? If the Taoiseach's proposals are correct, why did he refer to an assembly in advance of negotiations?
In regard to the first part of the Deputy's question. I will quote again from my speech in London. I stated:
The Irish Government has accepted the word of Sinn Féin and the IRA's commitment to the ceasefire. We have taken that to mean that the ceasefire is not a tactic, but a permanent political commitment.
In regard to the Washington 3 condition, it is well known that the Irish Government has not accepted the idea that a gesture is necessarily something that should be insisted on before the commencement of talks. It is because we have not agreed with that view that we have advocated the idea of an international body or commission as a means of finding an agreed approach——
Would the Taoiseach drop the condition?
——to building the necessary confidence to get all the relevant parties to the table. That covers the matter raised by the Deputy about arms. It is also important that we understand the concerns of the Unionist community who have been at the receiving end of republican violence. That is not to say the Nationalist community has not been at the receiving end of loyalist violence but there is concern in the loyalist community about any insistence on holding on to arms as of right. They are concerned that there is inconsistency between that and the statements I quoted. It is one thing for me to accept the word of Sinn Féin that it will not revert to violence but it is another thing for the Unionist community to accept it. We need the Unionist community at the table and that is why it is important, if an international body is set up, that Sinn Féin engage seriously in that process and seek through that body to give the kind of assurances that will genuinely attract Unionists to the table.
It is not enough to simply satisfy the needs and worries of the Republican or Nationalist community. In Sinn Féin's engagement with the international body it must go out of its way — it will be difficult for it to do so — to put itself into the minds of Unionists who fear a resumption of violence in light of their 25 years experience of it. What is required if the peace process is to be a success is to seek to see the problem not as one's supporters see it but as the supporters of one's antagonists see it. That is advice I would offer to Sinn Féin just as I would offer it to those who I hope will soon be involved in all-party talks.
Does the Taoiseach offer that advice to the British Prime Minister?
I do.
I remind the House that 30 minutes are available for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach today. More than half the time available has been exhausted. I want to bring the matter to finality.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Deputy Ahern has tabled a number of questions for answer tomorrow on almost exactly the same matters he is now addressing in supplementary questions.
Why did the Taoiseach's proposal refer to an assembly in advance of any negotiations?
I do not propose to be involved in a commentary on any proposals I may have made to the British Prime Minister. The best interests of reaching an agreement on this subject are not served by partial disclosure by either side of matters under discussion between Governments.
This is the same answer the Taoiseach gave last week. He went to London to make a speech, as he is entitled to do. I read in the British newspapers this morning: "Irish official yesterday disclosed details of a six point agenda to break the impasse in the Northern Ireland peace process".
Statements and quotations are not in order at Question Time.
Why was the British press given these interviews and we cannot get information in this House?
Does the Government envisage that the international commission will report before the all-party talks begin?
Yes.
In recent weeks the Taoiseach made great play of the fact that he does not see himself solely as the leader of Nationalist Ireland. In view of his comments at the weekend, does he accept that any watering down of his role as leader of Nationalist opinion on this island would damage the dynamic which was the catalyst for the peace process in the first place?
Last week I said that I did not believe, and I hoped the Deputy agreed with me, that the interests of the Nationalist community were served by promoting initiatives that cannot command the support of the Unionist community. It is important from the point of view of the Nationalist community that agreement be reached. For that to happen we must have all the relevant parties in discussion with each other as soon as possible at the same table. In promoting the interests of the Nationalist community in a legitimate and reasonable way I must ensure — in order for there to be discussion that can lead to agreement, which is the best protection for the Nationalist community — that the Unionists' view is also understood. I have a dual role, to which I have already referred, on the one hand under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to make sure the Nationalist view is heard clearly where it needs to be heard, particularly in Britain and, on the other hand, to build a bridge between the two communities. That involves ensuring Unionist worries are understood and heard here.
Mr. Major does not see himself as having a dual role.
My view of my position as Taoiseach encompasses all the people who live on this island. I do not see myself as representing one section of those who live on the island. In regard to the northern part of this island my concern should not be confined to one section of the people and I hope the Deputy would not urge such a course on me. In endeavouring to ensure Unionist concerns are heard and understood on this side of the Border I am fulfilling my responsibility to all the people who live on this island. I hope the Deputy would not urge on me to be the advocate of one "ism" rather than that I should be the advocate of the interests of all those who live on this island.
Would it be fair to suggest that the Taoiseach's change of heart was due to a sneak preview of the leader of the Opposition's Ard-Fheis speech? Is he aware of the increasing concern both North and South at the political vacuum that has existed for too long and does he accept that the ultimate responsibility for starting the all-party talks rests with the British and Irish Governments? Can he give any indication when he expects the talks to commence?
I am concerned about the political vacuum and have been for some time. That is one of the reasons I regretted the unnecessary breakdown of the 1992 talks. It could have been avoided by the Government at the time. I am glad to say efforts are being made to fill the vacuum. We do not as yet have all party talks to fill the vacuum but we are working towards that objective. I appreciate the Deputy's support in that direction.
I accept the Taoiseach has not had an opportunity to read the British newspapers but did he authorise the briefings given yesterday? The comments from his officials are in inverted commas in the British media. Did he sanction them? In his initial response the Taoiseach spoke of a new era of trust and co-operation and the need for consistency. There is a flip flop arrangement for the future from one week to another and we heard it again today. The Framework Document was not written in tablets of stone but neither was it meant to be a mirage in the desert. It counts for something. What does it count for with the Taoiseach?
I have answered that question.
The Taoiseach did not answer the question about briefing. Did he authorise the briefing?
I have already answered the second part of the question.
The Taoiseach did not answer it. Did he sanction the briefing?
If Deputies want to continue questioning I will defer my answer.
Do not patronise; just answer the question. Are we asking the wrong question?
I already answered the second part of the question regarding the Framework Document and outlined the status and importance of that document in response to an earlier question put by Deputy Ahern. As far as the briefing mentioned is concerned I did not authorise nor do I favour such briefing. It is appropriate that the relations between Governments be left between them. I do not accept responsibility for briefing of that nature.
Will the Taoiseach carry out a further investigation in the manner in which he normally does, into these kinds of leaks especially on such a sensitive issue of national importance? Is the Taoiseach saying the correspondents are wrong?
I will take lessons in sensitivity from Deputy Burke.
Does the Taoiseach accept there is a substantial body of opinion in the North particularly among moderate Unionists and Protestants that Unionists should talk directly to Sinn Féin?
A number of business people in Northern Ireland have recently advocated that, and it has been highlighted recently in the Belfast Telegraph. An editorial last Tuesday asked whether it is time for Unionist parties to open up lines of communication with Sinn Féin and stated that meaningful discussions between Republicans and Unionists are needed. A number of business groups have stated that there would be no sacrifice of principle if that happened. Does the Taoiseach agree with that view and has he put that point to the British Government, who does not seem to believe there is a moderate opinion among Unionists?
As regards advice to the Unionist parties, it would be most appropriate to address that matter to them rather than to the British Government. They deserve the respect that anything that is to be said to them be said directly rather than through a third party.
That is what I did a couple of nights ago.
I will not offer advice to the Unionist parties via the British Government. I would advise them directly that it would be in their interests to open up discussions with the SDLP and Sinn Féin, and I urge the SDLP and Sinn Féin to be willing to open up discussions with the Unionist parties. In this context bilateral discussions are particularly useful because they would promote much understanding and perhaps certain issues that are being avoided would be confronted earlier than would otherwise be the case. In broad terms I accept the thrust of what the Deputy is seeking but not necessarily the method whereby he wishes to see it advanced.
On the briefing to the British media yesterday, will the Taoiseach undertake an investigation to find out who authorised such briefing? Is it merely coincidental that the briefing corresponds with his opinion?
The Deputy obviously is very familiar with my opinion on every subject.
I listen intently to everything the Taoiseach says.
I have not read The Financial Times this morning.
That is not good enough.
I do not consider it is part of my responsibility to offer a running commentary on newspaper stories.
It is.
Deputy Cowen has asked questions and he should listen to the reply.
I will not involve myself in any of the procedures the Deputy is urging upon me because it would not be fruitful.
It took the Taoiseach a long time to learn that.
My job is to seek agreement on a joint approach with the British Government that will move us on a twin track basis towards all party talks, which is important at this stage.
Does the statement reflect the Taoiseach's opinion?
The Taoiseach said he envisages that the commission will report before all party talks commence. In the context of the work of the commission has Sinn Féin agreed to speak authoritatively for the IRA?
I am heartened by the approach Sinn Féin is adopting to these matters, but I would prefer if Sinn Féin was allowed to speak for itself on a matter of that nature.
Sinn Féin constantly maintains it is a different organisation from the IRA and does not speak for it. I am asking the Taoiseach, as I am entitled to do, what he thinks.
I have said in the House previously that it is important that, in the event of an international body being established, Sinn Féin would be able to convey authoritative communications about arms, which of course are held by the IRA. Progress is being made on that subject, which is very important to movement in the direction we need to follow. We need assurances of that nature to make the twin track approach viable. It would be better if Sinn Féin were to speak for itself on that matter rather than have me interpret its opinions for it.
I have offered Deputy Harney and Deputy Bertie Ahern a briefing this week if they wish to take it up. That might be a better way to brief the Deputies more fully on matters of this nature. I agree with Deputy Ray Burke that these are matters of great sensitivity. It is important that we move towards agreement and that we do not expose parts of the solution without exposing the whole solution to public gaze. Any solution in this area must be balanced and therefore I should be allowed use a measure of discretion in the way I characterise the views of others.
We have spoken to the Taoiseach about a briefing, but it is clearly unhelpful that the international press received a briefing, which is not far removed from the facts. Does the Taoiseach agree that, since it is a little more than two weeks before the visit of President Clinton to Ireland, the US administration is increasingly dismayed and exasperated at the lack of progress in negotiations on the peace process and cannot comprehend the obstructive approach being adopted 15 months after cessation of violence? It is beginning to talk in terms of international mediation in the event that the two Governments cannot solve the problems. Will the Taoiseach outline his views in that regard?
I too have a measure of impatience about the fact that we have not reached the point where we can commence the twin track approach to all party talks, and I expressed that view in London on Saturday. That view is to some degree shared by the US administration, but it is better that the US administration speak for itself on a matter of that nature.