Seamus Brennan
Question:2 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Taoiseach his views on whether it is important to convince the British Government that it should actively seek to be persuaders in its relationship with the Unionist people. [3517/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Peace Process.
Mary Harney
Question:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the parameters which the Government regard as essential to making any election process in Northern Ireland broadly acceptable. [3726/96]
Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the British Prime Minister. [3727/96]
Mary Harney
Question:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the contact, if any, his officials have had with Sinn Féin since the Canary Wharf bombing. [3728/96]
Mary Harney
Question:6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the provisions, if any, which govern meetings between Government officials and Sinn Féin. [3729/96]
Mary Harney
Question:7 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister since the Canary Wharf bombing. [3730/96]
Mary Harney
Question:8 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the SDLP since the Canary Wharf bombing. [3731/96]
Mary Harney
Question:9 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the Alliance Party since the Canary Wharf bombing. [3732/96]
Mary Harney
Question:10 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with President Clinton since the Canary Wharf bombing. [3733/96]
Mary Harney
Question:11 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the PUP and UDP parties in the wake of the Canary Wharf bombing. [3734/96]
Mary Harney
Question:12 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if the Government intends to call round table or proximity talks with parties in Northern Ireland before the end of February 1996; and if so, the basis on which parties will be invited to attend. [3735/96]
Mary Harney
Question:13 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the precise basis on which the Government will restore formal contacts with Sinn Féin. [3736/96]
Mary Harney
Question:14 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the proposal made by the Leader of the SDLP that a referendum should be held in the Republic seeking the people's rejection of violence and approval of all party talks. [3737/96]
Mary Harney
Question:15 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the way in which he intends to avail of President Clinton's offer of US Government assistance in securing a reintroduction of the IRA ceasefire. [3738/96]
Mary Harney
Question:16 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on whether Senator Mitchell should be appointed a peace envoy to Northern Ireland. [3764/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:17 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the contacts, if any, his officials have had with Sinn Féin during the past week. [3769/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:18 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the contact, if any, he has had or intends to have with Senator Mitchell; and the consideration, if any, he has given to the possibility of requesting his appointment as a peace envoy. [3770/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:19 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the progress, if any, of discussions between the British and Irish Governments with a view to starting all-party talks and preparatory to a summit. [3771/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:20 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if the Government have formally proposed to the British Government the adoption of John Hume's proposal for a referendum on peace and all-party talks in both jurisdictions and throughout the island. [3772/96]
Bertie Ahern
Question:21 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the six principles and the idea of phased decommissioning is the essential basis for all-party peace negotiations. [3773/9]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 21, inclusive, together.
I express my revulsion at the latest atrocity in London which once again has visited suffering on innocent civilians. I again put the question to the IRA — what do you hope to achieve by such actions? How can violence possibly make any contribution to the objective of fully inclusive all-party negotiations on a settlement acceptable to all? Surely the record of 25 years has shown, beyond all doubt, that violence drives people further apart, thereby making successful and fully inclusive negotiations more, not less, difficult.
In response to a number of questions tabled. I refer Deputies to my statements in the House on Tuesday and Thursday last in which I dealt, in a comprehensive way, with many of the issues raised. Instead of repeating what I said then, I propose to concentrate in this reply on key developments in recent days.
The Government is satisfied that the best opportunity to renew the peace process and to have the IRA ceasefire restored is through both Governments agreeing on a specific date for all-party negotiations. We will continue to work intensively with the British Government, with all the political parties, including Sinn Féin, and with others as appropriate to achieve that specific date.
Because of the particular sensitivities involved, I trust Deputies will understand that I cannot elaborate on the two meetings that have taken place between Sinn Féin and Government officials since the Canary Wharf bombing. These were private meetings aimed at maintaining contact with Sinn Féin and exploring all possibilities to reinstate the peace process, in particular, to secure a restoration of the IRA ceasefire.
I am looking forward to meeting Senator Mitchell on Thursday. This and the many other meetings and contacts that the Government have had and will have in the coming days will focus, from the Government's perspective, on achieving the objective we see as providing the best opportunity for peace and a restoration of the ceasefire, namely, a specific date for all-party negotiations.
In that context, we have signalled our reservations and those of the Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland with regard to an elective process. If it is established, however, that a limited elective process could provide the most straightforward route to a specific date for all-party negotiations and to participation therein by all the parties, then there is an onus on us to explore if the conditions of the Mitchell report for an elective process can be met — namely, that it be broadly acceptable, have an appropriate mandate and respect the three strands.
Clearly, the position of the SDLP is critical in that regard. The Government is maintaining close contact with that party in our ongoing preparations for the forthcoming summit, a date for which will be settled shortly.
Does the Taoiseach agree that, as reported by the UK and Irish media, the horrific injuries suffered by a Dublin man in the bus bombing on Sunday night graphically illustrate that the bombs in London are a reprehensible attack on all the people of these islands? Does he have a clear picture of what might restore the ceasefire and the integrity of the peace process? Does he agree that Senator George Mitchell, whom I am glad he proposes to meet on Thursday, has still a prominent part to play in getting the process back on track?
I agree with the Deputy in regard to the injury of innocent people in London. Many Irish and British people are liable to be injured by bombs exploded there. The exploding of bombs in London causes great difficulty for the Irish community living in Britain, something which does not appear to be given any weight by those who plan such bombings. I hope they will consider this factor as yet another reason for reverting to the path of peace.
In my judgment the most appropriate and effective way of restoring the ceasefire is to agree a specific date for the opening of all-party negotiations and to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that. In that context I agree that the assistance of Senator George Mitchell will be particularly helpful and I look forward to my meeting with him on Thursday. I appreciate the constructive and supportive role of the United States Administration and of American public opinion generally in regard to the peace process at this critical time and in the past.
Is there any truth in newspaper reports that the Governments are trying to put together a proposal which combines the three, four or five proposals on the table at this stage? Does the Taoiseach agree it is not good enough to say, as he has said so often, that all-party talks are tantalisingly close and that they must take place? I do not want to have to read the newspapers every day to get information — there are approximately eight minutes remaining to deal with the huge number of parliamentary questions being taken together — and I ask the Taoiseach to state up front the proposal the Government is following in regard to a specific date for all-party talks and how it intends to move towards these talks? Are we talking about holding a summit before all-party talks or setting a date for all-party talks and then a summit? Will the Taoiseach outline to the House exactly what way the Government is moving?
I have already outlined the objective to the House, that is to agree a specific date for all-party talks. That is the best route to follow with a view to restoring the ceasefire.
Will these take place prior to the summit?
Negotiations are taking place on a daily basis with the British Government. Last night I had a conversation with the British Prime Minister and today officials from both Governments are involved in discussions in an effort to further the proposals I put to the Prime Minister during that conversation. The intergovernmental consultations with the British Government are confidential and it is not for me to elaborate in detail on the nature of confidential communications which pass between this Government and the British Government. However, I have made it clear that our objective is a specific date for all-party talks. Obviously we are seeking to take into account proposals which may have been made by others and to incorporate as much as is helpful from them in the proposals designed to achieve our overall objective. It is prudent and sensible to seek to take into account the views of others given that we need these people to participate effectively in the all-party talks so that they will have the desired outcome, which is agreement.
Is it still the Taoiseach's view that holding elections in Northern Ireland at this stage would pour petrol on the flames?
I expressed that view in regard to a proposal which appeared to be put to me, that the British Government might proceed with elections unilaterally in the immediate aftermath of the resumption of IRA violence without necessarily having advance agreement on the appropriate mandate, agreement across the community on the process and about the three stranded nature of the procedure. To have proceeded unilaterally in such a way would have been to pour petrol on the flames. I do not resile from the expression I used as it is as graphic and accurate an expression as one could use to describe what would have happened if that course had been pursued. However, that is not the matter now being examined. Rather we are looking at whether an elective process which respects the three Mitchell principles of broad agreement, an appropriate mandate and a three stranded procedure could provide a form of assistance to us in achieving our primary objective of a specific date for all-party negotiations to open.
Can I take it from what he said the Taoiseach believes elections could provide a positive role for all-party talks?
We are currently examining that matter and whether it does depends to a great degree not just on any one person's opinion, regardless of whether it is mine or the British Prime Minister's, but on the opinion of the range of political interests whose agreement is necessary if the first of the Mitchell conditions is to be adhered to, namely broad agreement. We must get the agreement of others to that proposition. It is not enough for either Government to simply say "this is the way to go". If this is to work there has to be agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland across the community. If it is proper and correct to look for the broad agreement of all the parties it is also proper and responsible for all the parties in Northern Ireland to seek to reach agreement on a process which commands broad support. It is not simply a matter for the Governments alone to take the responsibility; there is a shared responsibility on everyone's shoulders, including the Unionist community, to seek to agree a procedure which will give us the objective of a specific date for all-party talks, which are the best way of restoring the peace from which everyone in Northern Ireland, this jurisdiction and Great Britain benefited.
Is it still the Government's view that proximity talks should be held before the end of February and, if so, what parties will be invited to them?
The role of proximity talks, or talks in an intensified form of negotiation which allows the ready communication of messages from one party to another even though those parties do not necessarily agree to meet one another face to face, is one of the issues being pursued by the Irish Government in its approach to the ongoing negotiations with the British Government. For the reasons I have outlined in some detail in the House and to the media in Britain and Ireland, we believe this approach is probably the only practical way of clearing up many of the misunderstandings and disagreements which exist about procedural issues in term of how to get to and manage all-party negotiations. There are many procedural questions of a highly complex nature which need to be discussed and on which understandings need to be reached. The most appropriate and common sense way of doing this is by bringing the relevant parties, who need to reach an understanding with one another, into close proximity with one another.
The Taoiseach stated that the objective of the two Governments is to set an early date for all-party talks. How does he view Sir Patrick's Mayhew's claim yesterday that Sinn Féin has disqualified itself from participating in talks because of the renewed IRA bombing campaign? I think the Taoiseach will agree this statement would be seen as more credible and sincere if Sir Patrick Mayhew had not ruled Sinn Féin out of talks almost a year ago. As things stand, will Sinn Féin be at the talks referred to today by the Taoiseach?
As long as Sinn Féin and the IRA are associated with one another and the IRA pursues a campaign of violence for political objectives, Sinn Féin is in a different position from parties which are not associated with organisations which actively use violence for political objectives. I think that is understood and accepted in this House. However, as I have also indicated, official level discussions have been taking place with Sinn Féin to ascertain its views and to communicate Government views to the party. I hope it will be possible for some time to continue with the procedure of allowing, through official channels, Sinn Féin's views to be taken into account. No matter how much one might abhor the IRA's campaign of violence and Sinn Féin's organisational association in some way with the IRA, one has also to take into account that the party has an electoral mandate from a significant section of the community and the views of those people need to be taken into account if one is looking for an overall settlement. One is seeking to find a way which enables those people's views to be taken into account while clearly showing that this democratic State cannot acknowledge the right of any organisation to wage war as the IRA is doing.
For clarity in the House, while the British Government for many months sought to have all party talks while excluding and debarring Sinn Féin because of the Washington three decommissioning issue, we are now talking about all-party talks excluding Sinn Féin. That is the position.
I am sorry the Deputy is under that misapprehension. I want to make clear that the objective of the Government is to get the IRA campaign stopped. If it stops, there is no obstacle in our view in the way of the full participation of Sinn Féin in all-party talks. Our objective is to get a specific date for those talks and that, I believe, is the best way of bringing about an IRA ceasefire. I do not see any objection, once the IRA campaign has stopped, to Sinn Féin taking part in talks. If Sir Patrick Mayhew was suggesting otherwise I would have respectfully to disagree with him.
The time for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach is fast running out. I will hear Deputy Ahern and then a final question from Deputy Harney.
In order that we are clear on this matter, is it the view of the British Government also, as the Taoiseach understands it, that if there was a cessation of violence by the IRA, Sinn Féin would move to all-party talks? I am clear that is the Irish Government's position. Is that, in the Taoiseach's understanding, the position of the British Government?
As I indicated to the Deputy in earlier replies, we are currently engaged in probably one of the most difficult negotiations an Irish Government has had to undertake, against the background of ongoing violence in Britain by the IRA, violence of a kind which makes the task we are undertaking all the more difficult because it naturally inflames opinion on the other side of the Irish Sea. Having said that, our objective is all-party talks. We want to see Sinn Féin take part in them but it can only do so when the IRA stops killing people. The British Government also wants to see all parties at the negotiating table, including Sinn Féin. There are discussions ongoing as to the procedures which need to be gone through for that purpose. Those discussions are taking place between the British and Irish Governments on a confidential basis and our aim is to reach agreement in those discussions. I do not think the national interest would be served by giving any greater detail than that. I have indicated to the House my objectives are a specific date for all-party talks and to enable Sinn Féin to take part in them.
I also must affirm that the first responsibility for ensuring the party qualifies rests with the IRA, which can and should make a decision to stop killing people. That has no place in politics. It is not part of the political process and is not acceptable in any republic that people should be killed for political purposes. The essence of republicanism is a system which allows equality before the law and there is none if some use violence to achieve political objectives and others do not. The use of violence is, in my view, contrary to the republicanism which I believe is essential in any democratic republic.
Is it still the Taoiseach's view that Sinn Féin can speak authoritatively for the IRA? As a result of the contacts between his officials and Sinn Féin, is he optimistic the ceasefire will be restored?
As I am sure the Deputy will recall, I said in this House that I believed Sinn Féin could speak authoritatively for the IRA to the Mitchell commission on the arms issue, not that they could speak authoritatively for them on every other question. I drew that distinction quite carefully when the Deputy asked me that question some weeks ago and I am not going to change the answer I gave then. As regards optimism, it is not for me to express feelings on this matter — my primary feeling is that the IRA has a responsibility to stop its campaign. This campaign is entirely contrary to the interests of the people it represents and of Irish people living in Britain. It is entirely contrary to the objectives of all-party talks and agreement, because the more people that are killed, the harder it is to reach agreement.
It is worth recalling the effect of 25 years of IRA violence. Before the campaign of violence started, Unionist people in Northern Ireland were asked in an opinion poll whether they considered themselves to be Irish; almost a quarter of them said they considered themselves primarily Irish. After 25 years of IRA violence and thanks directly to it, when Unionists were asked the same question in a poll, only 5 per cent — one in 20 as distinct from one in four — were willing to acknowledge their Irishness. That shows how directly contrary to its stated objectives is the campaign of violence waged by the IRA. It is in every sense a campaign that is quite literally self-defeating.
That must be the end of questions to the Taoiseach for today. We now proceed to deal with questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Education.