Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Nov 1995

Vol. 458 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Peace Process.

Dermot Ahern

Question:

3 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach his views on the suggestion that the current stage of the peace process is at an end; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16951/95]

Mary Harney

Question:

4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the Government's attitude to the proposal by the Leader of the UUP, Mr. David Trimble, for the election of an Assembly in Northern Ireland; and his views on whether this conflicts with the objective of commencing all-party talks on the future on Northern Ireland. [17221/95]

Mary Harney

Question:

5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach when the aborted summit of 6 September 1995 with the British Prime Minister will take place. [17222/95]

Mary Harney

Question:

6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that Sinn Féin can respond authoritatively to the International Commission on Decommissioning regarding IRA arms in view of the proposed twin-track approach to talks and decommissioning. [17223/95]

Bertie Ahern

Question:

7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the response, if any, he has had from the British Government to his six point proposal to break the impasse in the peace process. [17227/95]

Bertie Ahern

Question:

8 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that his six point plan will receive sufficient support from the Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland. [17228/95]

Bertie Ahern

Question:

9 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he has considered the possibility of asking for international mediation in the event of continued deadlock in the peace process. [17229/95]

Dermot Ahern

Question:

10 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach his views on a proposal that a target date for the start of all-party talks be set for six weeks after the report on the International Commission on Decommissioning; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17343/95]

Mary Harney

Question:

11 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the response, if any, he has received from the British Government to the most recent proposals from the Irish Government in relation to the peace process. [17388/95]

Mary Harney

Question:

12 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the comments made by Gerry Adams in Washington on 15 November 1995; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17389/95]

Mary Harney

Question:

13 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the reason a letter from the British Prime Minister was not shown to him prior to Question Time on 15 November 1995. [17218/95]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 13, inclusive, together. I received from the British Prime Minister at the weekend a detailed response to my proposals which, as the House will be aware, were designed to point a way forward in the short-term on a path towards all-party round table talks. Following careful and deliberate consideration, a comprehensive reply issued last evening. Because discussions between the two Governments are now at a critical phase, I would ask Deputies to appreciate that I cannot elaborate at this stage on the issues under consideration which do, of course, include matters referred to in the questions. As soon as I am in a position to do so, I assure the House that I will provide it with the necessary information.

On the question of the letter received last week from the British Prime Minister, I was advised of the contents of a message prior to Question Time on Wednesday last and I referred in reply to supplementaries on that day to the contents of that message i.e. that I would receive a formal response from the British Government reasonably soon to the proposals I had made the previous week. As I have already indicated to the House I was unaware at the time of answering questions last week that the message was in letter form.

Does the Taoiseach agree that the most important matter to be dealt with in the peace process in the next few weeks is to get pace and momentum back into the process? We seek reassurance on whether the summit will be held in the next week or ten days and that a date will be set for all party talks.

I agree that it is of great importance to maintain the pace and momentum of the peace process. On the question of setting a date for the summit I wish to agree to the setting of a date only when I am satisfied that we would be in a position to settle all the outstanding matters at or before the summit.

I appreciate the sensitivities at this stage. Has there been any strategic change on the part of the British Government since the beginning of September when the summit was cancelled?

There have been ongoing discussions between the British and Irish Governments on this matter during that period. Attempts have been made on all sides to understand and accommodate the views of others, but beyond that I do not wish to go.

I appreciate that the Taoiseach will not state the facts of his negotiations with the British Government but will he ensure that the international commission would cover Washington III and that this would be part of whatever the Irish Government would agree with so that Washington III will be a part of their examination and not remain as a difficulty or an obstacle when the commission reports back to the two Governments?

I do not propose at this critical juncture to engage in delineation of the issues that remain to be settled in detail because I do not believe that it would be helpful to the process we are engaged in. It is important that the British Prime Minister and I should be able to work out any remaining difficulties as fully and as expeditiously as possible and for those reasons I am not in a position to go into the detail on the reasonable and pertinent questions the Deputy has posed.

It has been suggested that this part of the peace process is at an end. Is that a pessimistic view, particularly in view of the contact he has had over the past couple of days with the British Government?

It would not be an accurate view. My understanding of the peace process is a process where there is an absence of violence and there is work in progress to achieve the level of reconciliation that is necessary to ensure that not only will there be an absence of violence but there will be no question of a return to violence. To my mind the peace process is being worked at sincerely and actively by all of the parties. I can understand, however, that there will be from time to time concerns felt by some of the parties in regard to matters that may be in contention and these may lead to expressions being used which are more doom laden that the reality would warrant.

I do not wish to pursue the Taoiseach unfairly on any issue but two weeks ago he told me that in his view the Washington III clause was something the Government did not support. I know the Taoiseach is not going to tell me today what is in the memorandum but it is reasonable to ask him if he still holds that view. In agreeing to move on the twin track approach as a "pre-stage" to get to all party talks and at the same time having an international commission, can we on this side of the House and the public generally take it that the Taoiseach has not changed his recent position on Washington III? If that is correct, is it not a fair assumption that he should insist that the international commission deal with Washington III in whatever terms of reference are set down?

The answer to that question is covered by my original remarks in answer to the first question posed. I do not propose to go into detail about any particular matters that may be in discussion between myself and the Prime Minister at this juncture. Of course, the Irish Government's position has been made known on a wide range of matters on many occasions both here in this House and outside it and the Deputy will not be uninformed about the Irish Government's view on all relevant matters by now.

I note from briefings given to the media last night by Government sources that the emphasis was put on this being a Government to Government agreement. While I appreciate that, may I take it that Sinn Féin is not on board at this point?

I am not sure what purpose the Deputy intends to serve by asking that question, any more than I am clear about the purpose of Deputy Ahern's questions in the light of present circumstances. I have already given a clear indication of the critical juncture we are at. I am convinced of Sinn Féin's commitment to the peace process and of its determination to make it work. I believe it wishes to make the necessary compromises to achieve movement on the process and recognises that, like others, it too must compromise. For the reasons I outlined in response to earlier questions, I do not wish to go beyond that general statement and I ask the House to respect that. I indicated to both Deputies that, if they wish, I am willing to make confidential briefing on these matters available to them. I understand the Deputy might not be able to use confidential information other than in a confidential setting and may feel inhibited by that. Equally, I hope she understands that I am inhibited in giving information about confidential discussions with others.

Before the Taoiseach attributes anything sinister to my question, I want to inform him that we have a duty to ask relevant questions. The last summit was cancelled because Sinn Féin was not on board. I am trying to deal with this matter in as delicate and sensitive a manner as possible. Given what Government sources briefed the media on last evening, it is relevant that I ask that question. Can I take it the Taoiseach is optimistic that all parties, particularly Sinn Féin and the SDLP, will conform fully with the position put forward by the Irish Government if the summit is held at the end of this week? Is that what the Taoiseach is aiming to achieve?

We are seeking agreement between the two Governments to launch a twin-track process towards round table all-party talks. Obviously agreement to do so — if that is reached — will be an agreement legally binding only on the parties to it, namely, the Governments. That is not to say, however, that each of us will not do everything possible to get the maximum endorsement, co-operation, consent, compliance or toleration — whichever word is appropriate — among all the relevant parties. Unless people are willing to co-operate with the process or at least give it a fair wind — even if they have reservations — we will not be able to move forward. That is the basis on which we are proceeding.

As I outlined on many occasions, most notably in my speech at the Warren Buffett dinner in Dublin Castle, at the end of the day, Governments have responsibility to make decisions. I also outlined this in my speech to the Meath Association in London and in subsequent media interviews. That remains my position, but that is not to say we are not seeking the maximum level of endorsement, agreement or co-operation from others.

The Taoiseach frequently gives an impression to the House and makes a speech to the contrary elsewhere. On other occasions he is not prepared to answer questions here. He must give information to the House if he does not wish Members to ask questions.

I do not wish not to answer questions. As House procedures allow, I will give such answers as are appropriate in the circumstances. As Members are well aware I endeavour to be as informative as possible at Question Time but there will be times, if consultations are at a confidential phase, when I will not be able to disclose the content or detail of confidential discussions.

I accept that and, while I wish to pursue many questions today, I understand the delicacy of negotiations better than most. However, it is annoying to continually read reports from one journalist in particular in the Financial Times who has clearly an inside track, and reports over the past three or four months have proved correct. I know the spokesperson who converses with the journalist because the journalist rings us to check the information received.

Apart from the delicate negotiations, where stands the framework document in the Taoiseach's various discussions with the British Government?

I answered that question last week, the week before and the week before that. The Deputy raises it repeatedly.

This is the only place the Taoiseach mentions it.

The framework document is an agreed position between the two Governments on an outline of a possible future settlement. It is not, however, written in tablets of stone and, therefore, is a discussion document between the relevant parties.

I am unaware of the nature of the sources of the journalists to which Deputy Ahern referred. That information should be given to the media in a non-discriminatory way.

Thank God for the media. Again, I note from it that the Taoiseach is due to speak to the British Prime Minister on the telephone today. Has that conversation taken place yet?

For the reasons I outlined for not wishing to go into detail on the specifics of the matters I might discuss with the British Prime Minister, I do not propose to enter into discussions as to the nature or timing of any communications I will have with him at this critical juncture.

I am entitled to ask the Taoiseach why a Government spokesperson informs the media on matters about which the Taoiseach is not prepared to talk here. That is unreasonable.

There are two Governments involved and I do not read everything that appears in every newspaper each day.

This was on "News at One".

I cannot, therefore, comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the attribution the Deputy made regarding this snippet of information.

It said it came from an Irish Government spokesperson.

It is well known that my office and I are in almost daily communication with the——

Financial Times.

——British Prime Minister on the outstanding matters. I have thought about this for some time but do not believe it useful to give the time, duration or the place I was sitting when having telephone conversations with particular people.

I did not ask that.

Such items of information are not material. What is material is whether we can—to revert to the first part of Deputy Bertie Ahern's initial supplementary—in agreement between the British Government and this Government move the process forward and give it an additional dynamic. That is what I am working towards and wish to achieve. Whether I have a telephone conversation at 5 p.m. or 5 a.m. on any day is not material.

The Taoiseach was not asked that.

While I agree with the Taoiseach's aspiration to move the momentum of the peace process forward, does he agree that a date rather than a target date is essential?

I do not propose to become involved at this juncture in a discussion on the matters that may remain to be agreed between the British Prime Minister and me. Hence, I am not in a position to answer that pertinent and relevant question at this juncture any more than I was able to answer some of the Deputy's earlier equally pertinent and relevant questions at this juncture.

The Taoiseach may not want to answer this question either. Will he meet Mr. Adams today as suggested in the newspapers and if so, will he discuss with him the contents of the proposals? In his discussions with the British Prime Minister and the officials of each country, has he been able to pin down exactly what they mean by "some decommissioning of arms"? These words have been used time and time again by Mr. Ancram and Mr. Trimble.

I cannot comment on the second part of the Deputy's question. As to the first part, I will meet Mr. Adams today and will discuss with him on a confidential basis the ongoing progress in the peace process.

Can the Taoiseach explain the procedures that operate in his office for bringing letters from the British Prime Minister to his attention and whether letters coming from the Prime Minister are marked private or confidential? Can he also tell the House who in his office is authorised to open letters from the Prime Minister?

The letter in question arrived by fax to an office in my Department. It did not arrive in the form of a sealed letter physically delivered from London. I am not aware whether the letter arrived subsequently; I presume it did. As I indicated in my reply to Question No. 13, the content of the letter was to the effect that a further letter with more substantial information will be conveyed later in the week. That information was conveyed by me to the House as it became available to me. However I was not aware the message was in letter-fax form. Only its contents, not the form it took, were conveyed to me. I am satisfied that I was kept up to date on what was happening and furthermore, that I kept the House up to date on the matter.

Top
Share