Mary Harney
Question:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if his pre-Christmas Dublin meeting with the British Prime Minister has helped advance the peace process; and the specific progress, if any, agreed at that meeting. [19273/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
Mary Harney
Question:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. [19280/96]
Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, and representatives of his party. [1096/96]
Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Mitchell Commission on Decommissioning. [1098/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
At our meeting in Dublin on 21 December, Prime Minister Major and I reviewed developments in the twin-track initiative which we had launched on 28 November in Downing Street. Good progress has been made on the political track, where the work is being carried forward by the Tánaiste and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. On the decommissioning track, the Tánaiste and I had a very useful meeting with the International Body on 12 January of this year. I do not propose to comment on the substance of the meeting. As Deputies will be aware, the International Body will publish its report tomorrow.
The communiqué of 28 November makes clear that both Governments plan to meet again by mid-February to review progress in relation to the International Body report and in relation to the preparatory talks for all-party negotiations, which we wish to see beginning at the end of February. It is the intention that this meeting should take place as planned.
At our pre-Christmas meeting, the Prime Minister and I also approved a report from our officials on developing economic, social and cultural co-operation between Ireland and Britain. This stemmed from earlier discussions which we had on the scope for strengthening and complementing existing co-operation and on extending it to all areas of bilateral interest. Among the issues covered in the report are joint infrastructure planning, for example, the ports on both sides of the Irish Sea and access thereto, joint trade and tourism activities, and greater exchange of ideas and personnel in the areas of culture, education and the public service. We look forward to following through with an intensive series of meetings between respective Government Ministers.
At our meeting, we also reviewed a number of European issues — principally, the Intergovernmental Conference, European Monetary Union and particular foreign policy issues facing the European Union — including Bosnia and the political and economic situation in Russia. This was a very useful exchange in terms of preparing for Ireland's Presidency of the European Union later this year.
I also had a meeting with the Leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, on 14 December. Issues which arose included the uncertainty then surrounding the future of Irish Steel and of course the twin-track initiative, where we exchanged views on how the commencement of all-inclusive three strand talks might best be achieved. I believe that this meeting also made a useful contribution to developing Anglo-Irish relations.
Why was the the Taoiseach not prepared to answer questions about meetings he had with Sinn Féin——
Please, Deputy, let us deal with the questions before us now.
It is a supplementary question. Why was the Taoiseach not prepared to tell us today about meetings he had with Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP during the Christmas break?
Because I did not have any; the Tánaiste had those meetings.
Is the Taoiseach telling me he had no discussions since the Dáil adjourned with representatives of any of those parties?
I had no formal meetings of any kind with any of those parties. The Tánaiste is conducting meetings with those parties in the twin-track process. I had some informal contacts at the Forum, for example, with members of those parties but these do not come within the category on which I would normally report to the House. There was no formal meeting of any kind. The formal meetings are being undertaken by the Tánaiste and in order for the Deputy to get an authoritative answer from somebody who was at the meetings, I referred those questions to the Tánaiste for answer.
(Limerick East): Apologise now.
Perhaps the Taoiseach will tell me now if he had discussions about the QMP contract.
(Limerick East): The Deputy should apologise now.
What is the problem? The hallmark of the Taoiseach's Government is secrecy, deception and evasion.
(Limerick East): The Deputy should apologise.
Let us hear the Deputy in possession without interruption.
In relation to the Taoiseach's meeting with the British Prime Minister before Christmas did he discuss the possibility of holding elections to a convention in Northern Ireland? Has the Taoiseach an open mind about that as part of the three strand approach?
There was not very much discussion about that at the meeting, which concentrated primarily on European issues and on the general question of the progress of the twin-track approach. We did not get into any great detail on that particular topic. I have indicated the view of the Government on this matter on many occasions, including here in this House, and in a statement issued during the Summit in Formentor last September. The position is that under the communiqué agreed between the Prime Minister and myself, this is a matter which we have invited the parties to consider in the political track. That is proceeding and meetings are taking place in the political track between the Secretary of State and the relevant parties on the British side and the Tánaiste and the relevant parties on our side. A number of joint meetings have also taken place. The question of an election can and, we hope will, be discussed in the political track.
Is the Taoiseach confident that both Governments will be able to give their support to the Mitchell report and be able to move forward to all-party talks before the end of February?
Both Governments have agreed that their firm aim is that all-party talks should begin at the end of February and are both working together to achieve that objective. The Prime Minister and I have stressed repeatedly — most notably at the joint press conference held in Downing Street — the need to ensure that the entire initiative is a truly joint exercise between our two Governments and that both Governments will work together to ensure that we reach the objective we have set, which is the opening of all-party talks before the end of February. Obviously, intensive discussions are continuing between the two Governments on all the difficult issues to ensure that we are able to achieve that objective.
What active steps is the Taoiseach taking in Government and with the British Government to ensure that the talks start before the end of February?
As the House is well aware, there has been an intensive series of meetings in the political track — I have referred already to the Tánaiste's, the Ministers for Justice and Social Welfare meetings with various parties on a number of occasions. Furthermore, the Irish Government has made a full contribution to the work of the body on the decommissioning track and is looking forward to the publication of that report tomorrow. Following from that the Government will be working towards the firm objective, which it shares with the British Government, of commencing all-party discussions by the end of February in accordance with the communiqué agreed with the British Government at Downing Street on 28 November 1995.
Let me remind Deputies that 30 minutes only are available to us for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach today.
What policy is the Taoiseach pursuing on the matter of an assembly in the twin-track appoach? Is his policy the same as that of the Tánaiste or the Minister for Social Welfare, or has he an alternative strategy?
We want to see all-party inclusive discussions started by the end of February. We want to have everything in place so that all the parties participate. We have invited those parties that have views on matters such as the role an elected body might perform — there are views both for and against that — to present their views within the political track. Obviously, it would be very unwise and unhelpful for the Government to adopt firm positions which appear to anticipate those discussions on the political track or foreclose the option of accepting views that have been put forward by others within the political track. We want the political track to work so therefore we will not pre-empt its deliberations by announcing a fixed firm irrevocable position in advance. The position is, as set out in the communiqué, that all parties that have views on an elected body have been asked specifically to put them forward in the political track and that track of discussion is continuing.
If all parties, not merely the Governments, accept the Mitchell Commission's findings, does the Taoiseach share the view that this could break the logjam and facilitate the beginning of all-party talks?
It is almost certainly the case that if everybody accepted the Mitchell report, it would break the logjam.
I will deal with a number of issues in the Taoiseach's response. Has the Taoiseach changed his policy on replying to questions? The Taoiseach has ruled out questions that he would have been quite happy to answer in November or December.
Let us not deviate from the questions before us.
Is the Taoiseach disappointed that the DUP has refused to be involved in talks on either track of the twin-track approach and that the UUP has effectively snubbed the Government and dealt only with the Mitchell Commission? What is his view on this matter?
Obviously, we want all parties to participate in the twin-track approach. The Unionist parties have views in favour of an elected body of some kind assisting in the process. We believe the best way for a party to advance its views is to talk in whatever forum is available to all the people willing to listen. Enlightened self-interest on the part of the Unionist parties would suggest that they should participate in the political track because both Governments have specifically invited them to do so and referred specifically to one of their ideas in the communiqué as one of the issues that could be discussed in the political track. The political track, therefore, would be attractive to them.
Is the Taoiseach and the Government anxious to talk to the UUP in particular regarding the assembly proposal?
The Government and the British Government in the communiqué published on 28 November 1995 agreed that they would institute a two track process, one of which would deal with decommissioning related issues and the other which would deal with political issues. We said, specifically in regard to political issues, that proposals for an elected body could be discussed in the political track and that was the only specific political idea mentioned, although obviously it is open to other parties to put forward ideas. We did that to facilitate participation by Unionists in the track by indicating that their ideas were not only not excluded but were specifically included on the agenda for discussion to make the political track useful and attractive to them. That is the position of the Government. We want to see everybody taking part. Just as we want everybody to take part in all party negotiations, we want everybody also to take part in the preparatory work for the negotiations. We want the negotiations to operate on a truly inclusive basis both in terms of participation and on the basis on which negotiations are taking place. We want those negotiations to have, of course, a three stranded element.
On the matter of transfer of questions, the Government operates on a collective basis——
Electively.
——and in respect of operational day to day Department of Foreign Affairs matters in regard to the management of meetings on the twin track approach I have referred those questions to the Minister who is directly participating and has responsibility for the day to day management of this process, namely, the Tánaiste. He is the one who will be able to give the most authoritative answers to questions on meetings in which he has personally participated. There has been no change of policy and I have answered questions today on the meeting in which I took part.
I am calling Question No. 5.
A number of detailed issues arise from the Taoiseach's response.
Let us not forget the time factor.
In his initial response the Taoiseach referred to points other than Northern Ireland such as Russia, Bosnia and the Irish Presidency and I have a question on Bosnia.
If Deputies are dissatisfied with the Taoiseach's reply, they have a remedy.
I wish to ask a supplementary question on the original reply.
Question No. 5 has been called.
I will deal with those matters in my address to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe on Thursday. The Deputy may table questions on this for next week if he so wishes.
I will not be present to ask supplementary questions.
I will make sure the Deputy has every opportunity to ask any question he likes.
This is only a minor institution.