Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Feb 1996

Vol. 461 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.

Dermot Ahern

Question:

1 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he has received any indication as to whether the Ulster Unionist Party will meet the Irish Government with, or without, the British Government representatives in attendance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2206/96]

Mary Harney

Question:

2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the further response, if any, he has to the Mitchell Commission report from the British Prime Minister. [2375/96]

Mary Harney

Question:

3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the meetings or discussions, if any, he has had with representatives of Sinn Féin concerning the report of the Mitchell Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2377/96]

Mary Harney

Question:

4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the meetings or discussions, if any, he has had with representatives of the SDLP concerning the report of the Mitchell Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2378/96]

Mary Harney

Question:

5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the meetings or discussions, if any, he has had with representatives of the Alliance Party concerning the report of the Mitchell Commission; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2379/96]

Bertie Ahern

Question:

6 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his correspondence with the British Prime Minister following his announcement of support for elections in North Ireland. [2383/96]

Bertie Ahern

Question:

7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if any meeting is likely to take place between the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and himself before the end of February 1996. [2386/96]

Bertie Ahern

Question:

8 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the assurance, if any, he has received from or on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party that, if there were elections, it would intend to seek an electoral mandate to enter immediately, without pre-condition, all-party talks on a three-stranded process convened by the two Governments. [2388/96]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.

Since I last reported to the House, I have had further correspondence with the British Prime Minister on the way forward and I reiterated the Government's position as I set it out in the Dáil last week. In addition, the Tánaiste met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Thursday last and a further meeting will be held tomorrow. We continue to believe the Mitchell report provides the basis for moving forward to all-party negotiations. Those who believe an elective process can play a useful role must demonstrate that an election would indeed be useful in facilitating immediate negotiations, rather than representing a further hurdle

The two Governments agreed last Thursday to intensify the preparatory talks with a view to achieving our joint aim of all-party negotiations by the end of February. It is particularly important that the British Government and the Unionist parties should use this intensified phase to clarify fully their position on the elective process and to address the genuine concerns which exist on the Nationalist side.

As I indicated in the Dáil last week, the Government issued invitations to the various Northern Ireland party leaders for a series of meetings with a view to intensifying dialogue. Arising from these invitations, a meeting was held with the SDLP yesterday and meetings will take place with Sinn Féin later today and with the Alliance Party on Thursday. In addition, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Social Welfare will meet the Progressive Unionist Party later this evening.

Regarding contacts with the Ulster Unionist Party, it is clearly important that a meeting with that party should take place as soon as possible. In that regard it is necessary to refer to the comments made by Mr. John Taylor. He has been known to have made provocative comments in the past which have been unhelpful to efforts to improve relationships on this island. His comments about the Tánaiste are not only unhelpful — they are untrue.

Taken together with the unavailability of the UUP Leader, Mr. David Trimble, for a telephone call from, or a meeting with, the Tánaiste, these events stand in stark contrast to genuine efforts being made by the Tánaiste and the entire Irish Government to understand the Unionist position and discuss their proposals with them.

At a time when this Government — and indeed the other parties in this House, through the work of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation — have gone to great lengths to both understand and accommodate Unionist viewpoints, some Unionist parties are showing an exaggerated tendency to invent and magnify problems and obstacles, rather than building a genuine cross-community partnership for peace.

Dialogue is always the best course. It is only through face-to-face talks among all the political parties and the Governments that we can develop the necessary trust and confidence to reach agreement about any proposals. A refusal to meet face to face all those who have yet to be convinced in relation to the Unionist party's proposals, displays a lack of confidence in the proposals by their authors, and feeds the suspicion that the proposals could be no more than a delaying tactic.

I agree with the Taoiseach's remarks about unwarranted personal attacks on any Member of the House, whether it is the Tánaiste or a member of Fianna Fáil. It is unreasonable that anybody defending the peace process or trying to build confidence in it should be attacked and called a mouthpiece for Sinn Féin.

Will the Taoiseach agree that what we are discussing at the moment is the next stage in the peace process, not the internal affairs of Northern Ireland? Will he agree that the attitude of the Unionists to the proposals for an elected body, that this is no concern of the Irish Government's, is a crude attempt to rule the Irish Government out of the three-stranded process? Will he confirm the Government's total support for the three-stranded process and state also that he considers the proposal for an elected body to involve just Strand 1, and to be an internal matter in the North? Will the Taoiseach make it clear where he stands regarding the three-stranded process after what we heard in the last ten days?

It is the view of the Irish Government that successful negotiations must take the form of a three-stranded process. There is no way any successful negotiation can be conducted that is not inherently and in every respect part of a three-stranded approach.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied that the British Government will not unilaterally hold elections in Northern Ireland without the agreement of the Irish Government?

It is very clear that if the British Government did that, it would be involved in going back on statements it made in the past week in which it clearly indicated that it accepted the requirements laid down in the Mitchell report in regard to election proposals, namely that such proposals would have to have widespread support.

In his discussions with the British Prime Minister prior to the Mitchell report, did the Taoiseach give the Prime Minister the impression that he was in favour of elections prior to all-party talks?

I have already given extensive indications of my conversations with the British Prime Minister. I made it clear then and on previous occasions that I have no problem discussing proposals for elections in the context of the political track of discussions. That political track remains to be concluded. I said also that if we respect the concept of widespread agreement and support for any conclusions arising from that track, we should not make any unilateral or pre-emptive decisions of the kind that were apparently being advanced by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

Does the Taoiseach accept that the target date for all-party talks at the end of February is not now realisable?

It remains the firm aim of the Irish and British Governments to commence all-party discussions at the end of February and the Government is working intensively towards the objective it agreed in a very formal way with the British Government in the communiqué published on 28 November 1995. An agreement of that kind entered into by two Governments has a very serious status and is not something that can be unilaterally set aside.

Does the British Government agree with that?

I advise the House that 30 minutes only is available to us for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach on Tuesdays.

We all agree with what the Taoiseach said. What can the Taoiseach do about it? Is it not a fact the Taoiseach is working on preparatory talks to lead to all-party talks but the British Government is doing something else? I know that and the Taoiseach knows it, but it is no good waiting until 29 February. What will the Taoiseach do about it?

We are working on the basis of the agreements entered into with the British Government which were published on 28 November 1995. We respect the agreements entered into, both in terms of the commitments given to the Government and the burdens that may be imposed on it. The Government regards it as a balanced communiqué and intends to follow through on it. As to what the Government is doing to fulfil that, I have already indicated that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will meet Sir Patrick Mayhew, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tomorrow. There is a proposal that I meet the British Prime Minister later in the month. In the meantime the Irish Government is intensively pursuing its part of the political track in so far as it will meet all the relevant parties prepared to meet it in that track to discuss the political agenda.

Does the Taoiseach regard the target date outlined in the twin track initiative as a binding commitment on the part of the British Government?

I regard the target date as stated in the communiqué, as a firm joint aim of both Governments.

It was stated in the communiqué and in subsequent discussion that the British Prime Minister would meet the Taoiseach in the middle of February. Has a meeting been planned for next week?

A meeting between the British Prime Minister and me is not planned for next week, but the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs will have a meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tomorrow. I do not know whether a further meeting between the Tánaiste and the Secretary of State will occur next week. As of now, there are no plans for the Prime Minister to meet me next week but the plan is to meet before the end of the month.

The Taoiseach referred to the aim of having all-party talks. Is he satisfied the British Government is doing enough to make that aim a reality?

It is very important that the British Government should seek in an even handed way to work towards the achievement of that aim. It is very important that the British Goverment should make it clear to the Unionist community that their interests are served by entering into dialogue in the form of talks with all the Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland. The Unionist parties may well have a number of serious questions to ask of Sinn Féin, for instance, about the Mitchell report and each of the six principles and the seven or eight modalities for the implementation of the Mitchell report. The best way for Unionists to ask those questions and be satisfied about the answers from Sinn Féin is in direct face to face discussion. There is no substitute for sitting across the table from somebody and asking hard questions, seeing how he answers and satisfying oneself as to whether the answer is sincere. Without meeting people one cannot assess their sincerity. That is why the Unionist community who are concerned, as we all are, to see arms put out of commission, have an obligation and a duty to put their concerns face to face to Sinn Féin. Equally, if the Unionist parties are convinced about their proposals, what have they to fear from putting them to the Irish Government and listening to the Irish Government's concern about them? If the proposals are so good and so robust, surely they can withstand that type of discussion. What have they to fear from discussing those proposals with Sinn Féin?

What does the Taoiseach think of Sir Patrick Mayhew's speech in the House of Commons recently in which he said the British Government cannot force anyone to the talks table? Does he not agree that the British Government should encourage people to come and facilitate all-party agreements? Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is not good enough for the British Government or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to act as Pontius Pilate in all of this?

It is a truism that neither the Irish nor the British Governments can force anyone to the conference table. People must go to the conference table of their own volition.

Does the Government not have a role?

Obviously what we are seeking is to create the necessary conditions to ensure they go to the conference table. There is a very clear challenge at this stage to the Unionist community and their political leaders to engage in serious discussion with the neighbours with whom they have shared Northern Ireland for generations, to reach an agreement with them that would give security, confidence and respect to both traditions. The responsibility that rests on the shoulders of the Unionist community to talk through their views with their neighbours is something they can not pass over to Government, whether here or in London. Every community in Northern Ireland has its responsibilities. It is true the British Government cannot force them to the conference table but surely appreciation of their self interest should force them to the conclusion that it is better for them to talk to their neighbours on how they can build a secure future for both rather than engaging their undoubted intellectual resources in inventing new reasons they cannot talk.

I certainly agree with the Taoiseach that the British Government cannot force them to the table but would he accept that because of the precarious voting in the House of Commons, the British Government is now refusing to put pressure on the Unionists to enter into dialogue?

Not necessarily. That remains to be seen.

Can the Taoiseach give any assurances that the British Government will commence all-party talks by 28 February or shortly thereafter? Will he agree that no satisfactory answer is being provided by either the British Government or the Unionists on how an electoral process or body would operate?

The assurance I have is in the form of an international document which was assented to by both the British Prime Minister and myself on 28 November, where he indicated that it was his firm aim — just as it is mine — that we should commence all-party negotiations by the end of February. That is the assurance I have and that is the assurance I stand on.

Does the Taoiseach believe that?

It does not serve the interests of this country to cast doubt on the assurances given because those assurances are ones that we wish to see fulfilled.

They let the Taoiseach down before.

This side of the House wants to see them fulfilled but a year ago the framework document was to be advanced building on the three strand process. Then there was the communiqué in September about a meeting that never happened and the communiqué of 28 November, also about a meeting that will not take place. The preparatory talks are not moving and we know that the all-party talks are going nowhere. The British Government is working on a separate agenda from that of the Taoiseach, so we have doubts. Perhaps the Taoiseach can allay some of the fears of this side of the House.

Will the Taoiseach agree, on the issue of an electoral process or body, that we have not had a satisfactory explanation from the British Government or the Unionist parties of what all that means?

Anybody who reflects on the history of Europe in recent times will recognise that as soon as one begins to accept the politics of the fait accompli and passes away from working on the basis of agreements solemnly entered into, one is on a very slippery slope. We should accept that any Government with whom we enter into an agreement will use its best endeavours to achieve the firm aim it has jointly agreed with us. I am not prepared to depart from that because, to my mind, that is the foundation upon which we are working. It is very important to stress that the successes we have had in this area derive from both Governments having worked together rather than unilaterally.

The Taoiseach should tell the British Government that.

Will the Taoiseach accept, if elections are held as a route around Washington Three, that subsequent to those elections people cannot insist on Washington Three?

That is a very important point which needs to be dwelt upon and considered. Anybody advocating an elective process must be able to give an unambiguous answer to that question. Such answers have not yet been forthcoming.

Just like all the other preconditions.

The reply to that question seems to imply that the Taoiseach thought about an elective process or body more than he has admitted. If that is the case would he also say that no other preconditions could be entered into if, in his mind, there will be elections? On this side of the House we take the view that there should not be elections until all-party talks deal with that matter. Given the question that Deputy Harney posed, the Taoiseach seems to hold the view that we should look at the issue of preconditions. Perhaps he will expand on that. Is the Taoiseach really thinking about an electoral body or process, and what preconditions would have to be dealt with on the other side of that kind of election?

Speaking last night, Deputy Ahern said: "We have a duty to examine objectively alternative ideas for moving forward, such as an electoral process or an elected body or assembly".

Read the next sentence.

(Interruptions).

Let us hear the Taoiseach's reply.

Part of any objective analysis of that matter has to be getting answers, if they are available, to very pertinent questions of the kind posed by Deputy Harney. Naturally enough, as we have been discussing the possibility of the value of an elective process in the political track for at least a month now, a number of questions have arisen which need to be answered before we can come to any conclusions about whether such a process would perform any useful function. This is one of the unanswered questions and there are many others, some of which were referred to in detail by the Tánaiste in his weekend speech at Bandon where he went through five or six points or questions that need to be put in regard to that matter. We are certainly availing of the political track to put those points and concerns about the matter.

I am glad the Taoiseach is reading my speeches and it would be helpful if he answered the questions posed in that speech. What assurances does the Government have, and what will happen in an elected body or an electoral process? What preconditions does the Taoiseach fear, and has he received assurances on any of those matters? They are the questions I posed in that speech. I asked him three times if he has received any assurances about what would happen in an elected body or an elective process, or what preconditions would be on the other side of that election. I understand that these are matters the Tánaiste has been trying to raise. Did the Taoiseach raise them in his telephone conversation last week when he first heard of the elected body or elective process scenario?

I am concerned about the element of repetition.

I have not had an answer.

The questions are being repeated but the answers are not being given.

As I said here last week, and I am saying it again, in my conversation with John Major I made it very clear that any idea of an election would have to flow from all-party talks rather than the other way around. I also made it clear to him that there would have to be widespread agreement before any such proposal would be workable. That has been, is and remains, my view.

A number of other concerns about an elective process are being put to its proponents who have not yet replied to them. They are, for example, points made by the Tánaiste: that elections produce winners and losers whereas, in fact, what we need are agreed outcomes; that elections do not necessarily help towards consensus; and that elections can sometimes exclude people whom we need at the table, simply because they do not get enough votes. In addition, election campaigns can sometimes entrench positions in the course of the race for votes whereas what one needs is a movement of positions towards the positions of others.

There are other concerns about the way in which any elective body would operate, given that the only way negotiations can be successful is if they are inherently based on a three strand process. Those are among the questions which are being put in the political track by the Government to the British Government and to all those other parties who favour the idea of an elective process.

The political track has not yet been concluded but we are putting forward the points and concerns I have just indicated, as is our responsibility. We adhere to the view that an elective process should flow from all-party talks and should not be the means of commencing all-party talks. We say that for a number of practical reasons. In face to face dialogue, issues can be cleared up before-hand that might otherwise, possibly, cause unnecessary aggravation in the course of any elective process. Talking beforehand to clear the ground is the most sensible way forward.

Does the Taoiseach share my concern at Sinn Féin's refusal to endorse the consent principles in the Forum report? Does he accept that this is damaging the advancement of the peace process?

As someone who supports the consent principle very strongly and recognises that it is the only practical and just way forward, I regret the fact that Sinn Féin has been unable, to date, to give their agreement to that principle as expressed in the Forum report. At the same time it should be stressed that in other aspects of the Forum report there have been significant advances in the position adopted by Sinn Féin and while they have not come the final mile they have come a considerable distance. We should look at the work of the Forum in that positive light. A point I would address to the Unionist community is that they should take note of the fact that all parties in this House have underlined their commitment to the consent principle. That surely should give the Unionists the confidence they need to enter into all party negotiations. They know they will not be isolated in those discussions. Many on this part of the island fully understand that from a practical and moral point of view a majority in Northern Ireland must agree to any outcome of negotiations. That reassurance is the best possible incentive for Unionists to enter into all party discussions. That fact that was reaffirmed by all parties in this House should give Unionists the confidence to enter into all party discussions rather than feel it is necessary to put forward devices that sometimes seem to outsiders to be no more than excuses to avoid dialogue.

That disposes of questions to the Taoiseach for today. We now proceed to questions nominated for priority.

Top
Share