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.

Ray Burke

Question:

15 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his recent meeting with the Northern Secretary; if he outlined to him the strongly held views of nationalist communities that all-party talks should proceed as agreed in the communiqué of 28 November 1995; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2418/96]

Desmond J. O'Malley

Question:

17 Mr. O'Malley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the action of the British Government in insisting on elections in Northern Ireland prior to all-party talks amounts to a jettisoning of the principles and recommendations of the Mitchell Commission report particularly in view of the fact that the reference to elections in paragraph 56 is highly conditional and can in no sense be described as a finding or recommendation. [2647/96]

Bertie Ahern

Question:

22 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he would agree that acceptance of the Mitchell report by the parties closely associated with the paramilitary organisations should reinforce both Governments in their firm aim of convening all-party talks by the end of February 1996, as proclaimed in the communiqué of 28 November 1995. [2019/96]

Helen Keogh

Question:

24 Ms Keogh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his most recent meetings with the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the Unionist Parties and Sinn Féin. [2355/96]

Mary Harney

Question:

26 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has satisfied himself that the six principles and the decommissioning proposal enunciated in the Mitchell Commission report are acceptable to Sinn Féin and all other parties including the two Governments. [1796/96]

Peadar Clohessy

Question:

29 Mr. Clohessy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the rejection by the Leader of the Official Unionist Party of the Irish Government's invitation to preparatory talks as set down in the twin track initiative. [18574/95]

Michael McDowell

Question:

38 Mr. M. McDowell asked the asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's views on the Mitchell Commission report on Decommissioning. [

Mary Harney

Question:

43 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the end of February deadline for commencing exploratory talks involving all the parties to the conflict in Northern Ireland can be realised; and the specific measures, if any, the Government is undertaking to meet that deadline. [19281/96]

Michael McDowell

Question:

46 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the steps, if any, he and the Government propose to take to dissuade the British Government from its proposal to hold elections in Northern Ireland before all-party talks; and if he will report on his meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew, on Thursday, 1 February 1996. [2358/96]

Ray Burke

Question:

59 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the meetings, if any, involving the Irish Government, that have been held under the political track of the twin-track approach. [1154/96]

Ivor Callely

Question:

72 Mr. Callely asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the contacts with and invitations made to the Northern Parties to intensive preparatory talks for agreement to substantive negotiations; the progress, if any, made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2438/96]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 17, 22, 24, 26, 29, 38, 43, 46, 59 and 72 together.

As I said to this House on the day of its publication, the Government accepts the report of the international body without reservation. It is lucid, authoritative and balanced. Adherence on all sides to the six principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report, together with the approach it recommends to the decommissioning question, offers a fair and reasonable basis on which all parties could move into substantive negotiations confident that all present were committed to exclusively peaceful means and to abiding by the democratic process. This would undoubtedly reinforce our firm aim of achieving the launch of such negotiations by the end of this month.

The Taoiseach and I have made clear, in this House and elsewhere, our disappointment at the response of the British Government to the report. I agree that the stress placed by the British Government on the report's very conditional and qualified reference to an elective process has distracted attention from the central thrust of its recommendations on finding a way out of the present impasse on decommissioning.

At the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference held in London on Thursday 1 February, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I reviewed developments in the twin-track approach. We considered the report of the international body and how it could assist us in bringing all parties to the negotiating table. We had an open, honest and constructive discussion of the differences in our approaches to the report.

I made clear that the credibility of our commitment to the goals set out in the communiqué required a significant intensification of the political track. This intensification was accepted in principle by the British Government and we shall be reviewing at our resumed conference tomorrow the most appropriate way to achieve this, with the urgency we believe is required.

In the preparatory talks we will continue to seek, as we have from the beginning of the twin-track process, widespread agreement on the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda to bring all parties together for substantive negotiations. The report of the international body will be specifically addressed in the talks, with a view to reaching agreement on how its finding might best be used in assisting the launch of all-party negotiations. We will also continue to consider, as outlined in the communiqué of 28 November, whether and how an elected body or elective process could play a part in an interlocking three-stranded process of comprehensive negotiations involving both Governments and all the relevant Northern Ireland parties.

In my discussions with the Secretary of State and also with the Northern parties, the question of whether an elective process has a role to play in the launch of all-party negotiations has been considered, as provided for in the November communiqué. I have made the position of the Government on the question clear.

Our view is that the report of the international body by itself offers a sufficient basis for the entry to all-party negotiations. There are serious doubts about the value of elections in the present context and justifiable fears that they are potentially polarising. It is evident that at present the Northern parties are divided on the issue and it is the parties who would be called on to participate in such elections who must have the final say.

It is also clear that only if an elective process were to meet the criteria set out in paragraph 56 of the Mitchell report — that it be broadly acceptable, with an appropriate mandate, and within the three-stranded structure — could it be considered to have a possible role to play. It would be absolutely essential that the mandate of an elective process involve an immediate move into all-party negotiations without further preconditions. I am not aware of any proposal so far which would meet the criteria set out by the international body.

These issues should be debated among the parties and with the Governments in preparatory talks. There is an onus on those who advocate elections to prove to those who strongly hold the opposite view that their concerns can be met. Obviously, a refusal on the part of some to enter into dialogue on this issue does nothing to build confidence in the motivation behind the elective approach, or to secure the "broad acceptance" of the idea which will inevitably be needed if it is ever to be implemented. As I have said, we are ready to discuss the issue, and have already done so with those parties which have taken part in the preparatory talks.

These talks were launched on 1 December last, when the Secretary of State and I wrote in similar terms to the UUP, the DUP, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the PUP, the UDP, The Workers' Party and to Robert McCartney, MP, inviting them to preparatory talks as described in the November communiqué. The Government has subsequently had bilateral meetings with the SDLP, Sinn Féin and The Workers' Party, and together with the British Government, trilateral meetings with the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Having met the SDLP again last night, this evening we are to meet Sinn Féin once more and, for the first time since the launch of the twin track process, the PUP. A table setting out the dates of meetings is attached.

No formal replies have been received from the DUP, the UDP or from Robert McCartney, MP. Further contact at official level has not yet led to any change in their apparent reluctance to meet the Government.

The leader of the UUP replied to my initial letter, following which we had a further exchange of correspondence. As the House is aware, this correspondence was, regrettably, published in the media without prior consultation with me. There are evident points of disagreement between us, which I believe can be cleared up only by face-to-face contact. I have made a particular effort over recent days to seek to arrange a meeting with Mr. Trimble before we both depart for Washington. I took the initiative of telephoning him personally with a range of options and subsequently offered to travel to London for a meeting if that proved convenient for him. Unfortunately, it did not prove possible to come up with a proposal which suited Mr. Trimble.

I very much hope that it will be possible to arrange a meeting in the near future so that we can discuss the process of seeking agreement on how to move to all-party negotiations. Nobody has anything to fear from dialogue, and we all have much to gain in terms of enhanced mutual trust and confidence. There is a responsibility on all political leaders to do their utmost to underpin the present cessation of violence with an agreed settlement and to ensure that the mistakes and horrors of the past are never repeated. I believe that responsibility should be taken seriously on all sides.

Calendar of Government Meetings Since Launch of Twin Track Process.

Government bilateral meetings with Northern Parties

7 December 1995: Government meeting with Alliance (arranged prior to 28 November).

18 December 1995: Government meeting with Sinn Féin.

19 December 1995: Government meeting with SDLP.

12 January 1996: Government meeting with The Workers' Party.

5 February 1996: Government meeting with SDLP.

6 February 1996: Government meeting with Sinn Féin.

6 February 1996: Government meeting with PUP.

Trilateral Meetings between Governments and Parties

20 December 1995: Joint Governmental meeting with Alliance.

15 January 1996: Joint Governmental meeting with SDLP.

17 January 1996: Joint Governmental meeting with Sinn Féin.

As regards talks, does the Minister agree that we need straighforward dealing by all sides? It is not unreasonable to suggest that while the Government sees the Mitchell report as fair and reasonable and a sufficient basis on which to commence all party talks before the end of February and the Tánaiste is having discussions with Sir Patrick Mayhew, the British Prime Minister is having discussions with Mr. Trimble on the mechanics and procedures of an elected body. While the Tánaiste and others are talking to Sir Patrick Mayhew on the details of how talks could proceed, the British Government has eliminated that from its thoughts and is working flat out on an elective process only.

I agree with the Deputy, as I made clear in my response to the various questions today and in a number of statements issued in recent weeks, that we must have face to face contact and, as the Mitchell report made clear, change the mind sets of the people on this island and those involved in Anglo-Irish politics. That can only be done by having meetings. No one has anything to fear from dialogue or discussions. We may not like one another but ultimately we all have to live and work together. That can be established very quickly and it is in everybody's interest. There is a tremendous opportunity because of events of the last 16 months. The sooner we build on our achievements and seek to politically underpin the peace process, which is very necessary, the better.

A meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference was held in London last Thursday, we had a meeting last evening with the SDLP and there are meetings this afternoon with Sinn Féin and this evening with the Unionist Party. These meetings are important. Obviously we would like to have meetings with other representatives of Unionist parties, but that has not proved possible. Ultimately we must sit down and talk to one another. We must work together to find accommodation between the Unionist and Nationalist populations and that will not be done by hurling insults from a distance but by face to face meetings.

I take it that even though the Minister did not reply specifically to Question No. 17 in my name his views coincide with mine in that regard. He seems to take a positive view of the matters proposed in that question. Will he give the House an assessment of whether he thinks there is any prospect of all-party talks being held according to the original timetable, by end February? If not, when does he perceive they will be held? Is there any prospect of them being held before an election, which would be very unhelpful in that context?

There are two aspects to this matter. It is very unlikely an elective process can be undertaken unless the criteria set out in the Mitchell report are met — it must be broadly acceptable, must have widespread support and must be included in the three strand process. As the Taoiseach said in reply to questions within the last few minutes, we do not see any proposals that meet those criteria. Reaching the target date of end February is still a priority. We set out to intensify the preparatory talks phase but it is very difficult to see how we can reach the target unless we find some way of starting negotiations or preparatory talks with the Ulster Unionist Party. I conveyed my views to the British Government via the Secretary of State at the Anglo-Irish Conference last week and I hope the opportunity has been taken to convey those views to the Unionist Party.

Did the Minister receive any indication from the British side that it is acting as a persuader to get the Unionist Party to the table for all-party talks? Is there any indication from the Unionist Party that it wishes to join in talks? The Minister shared a platform with me in Bandon last Saturday at which the senior Unionist Party member, Mr. Maginnis MP, was asked whether, in the event of an election process being undertaken, his party would indicate in its programme for an election whether it would be prepared to talk to Sinn Féin and he made it quite clear in his response that under no circumstances would the party enter into talks after an election. What therefore is the point in going down that road? Surely it is incumbent on the British and Irish Governments to take on the active role of persuaders to bring the Unionist Party to the table.

At the seminar in Bandon last Saturday afternoon I made very clear, as the Taoiseach did this afternoon, the considered views of the Government on the divisive nature of elections, and that remains our position. The communiqué of 28 December stated that we would discuss with those proposing an elective process any proposals they put forward. It is very important that when the question was put to Mr. Maginnis MP last Saturday afternoon he replied in the negative. I would have thought the quid pro quo for holding out the prospect of elections was that they would lead to all-party talks. If that is not the case, whatever reservations existed initially would be added to.

Let those who are proposing elections or supporting the concept of an elective process come and discuss the matter with us. People are entitled to make proposals and if there is a possibility that the elective process, whatever form it may take — obviously on the absolute understanding that it is not to a Stormant-type assembly, an assembly with legislative authority or powers — will be undertaken, let those involved come and discuss it with us and with the Nationalist parties in the North, who because of the way this proposal has been brought forward, would have much to do to convince their supporters. One of my concerns from the reaction of the British Government to the Mitchell Commission report is that there is little point in running with a proposal that comes from one side of the divide. As we have seen in the past, that would not hold out the prospect of getting cross-party support, and therin lies the danger.

Will the Minister explain why the Government's reaction to the action of the British Government was extremely negative and hostile at the start, then seemed to mellow considerably for some reason I could not follow, and today is back at square one again? What is the reason for the softening of attitude and then reverting back to the original position?

I am not aware of the changing tones to which the Deputy refers. Perhaps he hears different things at different times.

I just hear the Minister.

We replied to the issue in this House almost simultaneously as the Prime Minister replied in the House of Commons. We decided that we would make a short statement in acceptance of the report, which we had for some time, with a view to taking it as the basis for discussions with the parties, but that was made much more difficult by the response of the British Prime Minister. Our attitude to elections has been well known for many months but, as has been said in the House this afternoon, at the end of the day regardless of the success we have had in tackling the problems of Northern Ireland it is absolutely imperative that both Governments work together and set out to have good relationships in our dealings.

Will the Minister explain why he did not attend the Davos World Economic Forum last weekend where he might have met Mr. Trimble? Will he agree that the premature publication in a Sunday newspaper of his meeting this week may have been unhelpful in achieving the objective he wanted to achieve? Will he agree that premature leaks and publicity in the Anglo-Irish area have often been very damaging, as it was in the case of the Mitchell report? What is he doing to tackle the carefree publicity habits that apparently exist in regard to leaks?

The Deputy is aware that the Davos Conference was primarily about economic matters. It was not possible for me to attend, but I was pleased the Minister, Deputy Quinn, represented the Irish Government. There was an assumption that Mr. Trimble would attend the Bandon Encounter on Saturday afternoon — great credit is due to the people who organised that conference — but unfortunately it was confirmed on Thursday evening that he would be unable to attend due to a scheduling problem relating to the Davos Conference. As regards press reports, I am in the same position as other Members of this House in that the press gets access to reports and uses them to suit itself. There are times when I would like editors to take more interest in newspaper stories. They are sometimes unhelpful in trying to find the solution to these problems.

Top
Share