Vol. 462 No. 7
2 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the progress, if any, of the multilateral consultations that began at Stormont, Northern Ireland, on 4 March 1996; and the role of the Irish Government in these consultations. [5394/96]
3 Mr. O'Malley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if there is a firm agreement to hold elections in Northern Ireland before the all-party negotiations begin on 10 June 1996. [2939/96]
14 Ms O'Donnell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on his meeting on 6 February 1996 with members of the Progressive Unionist Party. [2939/96]
17 Ms Keogh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the special proposals, if any, the Government has to advance the proposals for multilateral proximity talks with the Unionist parties. [3221/96]
19 Ms O'Donnell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions, if any, which have taken place with the British Government in relation to the format, mandate and electoral process for the holding of elections in Northern Ireland to an assembly or other body. [2380/96]
22 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the current position regarding the refusal by Mr. David Trimble to meet him until later this month; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3147/96]
31 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if a date for proximity talks between all parties committed to democracy in Northern Ireland has been set. [4270/96]
33 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if the DUP and UDP have ended formal contact with the Irish Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4271/96]
36 Mr. Callely asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the structure and format of the all-party talks due to be held on 10 June 1996; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5232/96]
38 Mr. Callely asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's position and remit in order to proceed in negotiations for a political settlement based on consent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5233/96]
43 Ms Keogh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether any formula for elections in Northern Ireland must accommodate the smaller political parties there and not be a mechanism devised to exclude them. [2961/96]
44 Miss Quill asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the arrangements and provisions, if any, the Government has made in anticipation of the beginning of all-party talks. [2941/96]
45 Mr. O'Malley asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the attitude of the Government to the participation of Sinn Féin in the proximity talks from 4-13 March 1996 and the substantive negotiations beginning on 10 June 1996; and the circumstances under which they would be allowed to take part in these talks. [5304/96]
47 Miss Quill asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions, if any, the Government has had regarding the proposal for multilateral proximity talks with the United States Administration, in view of their experience as the originators of the Dayton Formula. [3220/96]
49 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions, if any, he has had with the SDLP in relation to an electoral process. [4933/96]
50 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the discussions, if any, he has had with the Alliance Party in relation to an electoral process. [4934/96]
51 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the format of the elective process proposed in the Joint Communiqué. [4935/96]
52 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Irish Government will express a preference for a multi-constituency election as opposed to a single constituency election in Northern Ireland. [4937/96]
53 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the purpose of the proximity talks proposed in the Joint Communiqué. [4939/96]
54 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the election process proposed in the Joint Communiqué is consistent with the three-stranded process for securing a political settlement. [4963/96]
55 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Sinn Féin has been invited to take part in the multi-lateral consultation process. [5127/96]
56 Miss Harney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the location of the all-party talks scheduled to begin on 10 June 1996. [5130/96]
58 Mr. Callely asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the preparatory work and all issues considered in connection with the all-party talks due to be held on 10 June 1996; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5243/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 3, 14, 17, 19, 22, 31, 33, 36, 38, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 58 together.
Given that priority questions not dealt with during the time allocated for them can be dealt with during ordinary time and the Minister's proposal to take so many questions together, will we be allowed to ask supplementaries during the time for ordinary questions? Otherwise we will have very little time to deal with these questions.
I cannot give the Deputy an assurance along those lines because when a priority question is taken with other questions they are all deemed to have been dealt with. Accordingly, there is no opportunity to ask supplementaries at a later stage.
It was agreed at the Summit held in London on 28 February that the British and Irish Governments would conduct intensive multi-lateral consultations with the relevant Northern Ireland parties in whatever configuration was acceptable to those concerned, beginning on Monday, 4 March and ending on Wednesday, 13 March. The purpose of the consultations was defined as being: (a) to reach wide-spread agreement on proposals for a broadly acceptable elective process leading directly and without preconditions to all-party negotiations on 10 June 1996; (b) to reach wide-spread agreement on the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda of substantive all-party negotiations and (c) to consider whether there might be advantage in holding a referendum in Northern Ireland with a parallel referendum held by the Irish Government in its jurisdiction on the same day as in Northern Ireland. The purpose of such a referendum would be to mandate support for a process to create lasting stability, based on the repudiation of violence for any political purpose.
The two Governments will review the outcome of the consultations immediately after 13 March. Following that, the British Government will bring forward legislation on the elective process, based on a judgment of what seems most broadly acceptable, and decisions will be announced, as appropriate, on the other issues which are the subject of the consultations.
The consultations began, as scheduled, on Monday. Following an informal meeting in Belfast, the Secretary of State and I met jointly an SDLP delegation. Yesterday I returned to Belfast for meetings with delegations from The Workers' Party and the Alliance Party and I also had various informal contacts. Since Monday, the British Government has had meetings with several parties in Belfast and in London. There have also been numerous meetings among the parties, in a variety of formats. I will have a wide range of further meetings before 13 March. In this intensive and ongoing process it is not possible for me to specify precisely when or in what configuration each of these will be held. However, I hope that, in addition to further meetings with the British Government and those parties I have already met since Monday, it will be possible to arrange meetings with others.
The position of the Government on meetings with Sinn Féin has been stated clearly on several occasions since the ending of the IRA's cessation of violence on 9 February. There will be no resumption of ministerial dialogue until there is a restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. Unless there is a restoration of the ceasefire I will not meet Sinn Féin during the present consultations. It goes without saying that I fervently hope there will be such a restoration and that it will be possible for Sinn Féin to re-enter direct political dialogue with Government Ministers and to take part in the all-party negotiations beginning on 10 June. Channels of communication at official level remain open and allow for the exchange of views on those issues which are the subject of the consultations.
For the reasons outlined, Sinn Féin was not invited to the ministerial consultations on 4 March, nor did it seek a meeting with the Government at official level on that day. If it had done so, it would have been facilitated. A meeting between Mr. David Trimble and members of the Government, as suggested by Mr. Trimble in a recent letter, has been arranged for next Monday. Mr Robert McCartney, MP, has also sought a meeting with the Government and we are seeking to make arrangements in this respect also. I hope that meeting will take place early next week.
Officials from my Department have also been in contact with the DUP, the UDP and the PUP. I hope that it will be possible to arrange meetings with each of these parties at an early date. I had very useful and positive meetings with the PUP in Belfast on 23 October last and in Dublin on 6 February.
I will continue to stress, as I did at my recent meeting with the PUP, that, irrespective of the outcome of whatever elective process is put in place, a means of assuring the active involvement of the loyalist parties in the subsequent negotiations is found.
During my visit to Washington on 8-9 February. I had valuable discussions with President Clinton and other members of his administration during which the concept of proximity talks was among the issues covered. The Taoiseach and Prime Minister Major agreed at the February Summit that details of an elective process were for the parties in Northern Ireland, together with the British Government, to determine. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for the Government to state a preference in regard to the electoral system to be chosen. We are, of course, aware, from our contacts with the Northern parties, of their various views and preferences. As was stated in the communiqué, an elective process would have to be broadly acceptable and lead immediately and without further preconditions to the convening of all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. As indicated by the Taoiseach, the Irish Government will support any proposal for an elective process which, we are satisfied, is broadly acceptable to the parties, has an appropriate mandate and is within the three-stranded structure. Beyond setting these parameters, the communiqué does not prejudge the form of the elective process to be chosen.
The precise manner in which an elective process feeds into the three-standed all-party negotiations commencing on 10 June is a matter of direct concern to the Government and is one of the matters we are currently discussing with the British Government and the parties.
The structure and format of the negotiations, and their venue, are also among the subjects being discussed in the present consultations with a view to reaching widespread agreement. As I previously indicated, decisions will be announced as appropriate after the Governments has reviewed the outcome of the consultations.
The Government's approach to the substantive all-party negotiations will be based on the Framework Document, which describes the shared assessment of the two Governments of a possible outcome to those negotiations. We believe it sets out a realistic and balanced framework for agreement which could be achieved with flexibility and goodwill on all sides. We intend that it will be on the table for consideration.
I am taking steps to ensure that the necessary resources are in place to allow the Government to make a full and appropriate contribution to the negotiations. Organisational and staff planning are also under way in my Department.
Before coming to the details of the negotiations of the last few days and their outcome does the Tánaiste on reflection agree that the response of the Government in calling the IRA statements of the last 24 hours unhelpful is far too feeble? Will he agree that the rubbishing of the Mitchell principles by the IRA is ominous and is, essentially, a rejection of the commitment to democratic principles as a basis for negotiations?
My attitude to violence and to its use is well known, and I have made it clear in this House on many occasions. I was asked for a comment on an article in The Irish Voice when I left the negotiations in Belfast yeasterday. That article, to the best of my understanding, was written prior to the issuing of the joint communiqué of last week, and I referred to it in that context. I said it was unhelpful, and I also made it clear that, as far as I am concerned, we want Sinn Féin to be at the negotiating table. We have not excluded Sinn Féin. Its members have been excluded because of the bombs in London. There is a very easy way for them to get back into negotiations, that is, by restoring the ceasefire. We have asked them to do that, and I am grateful for the support in this House of the other parties, all of whom have made it clear that we stand united in this regard.
I have also made it clear on numerous occasions that I regard the Mitchell report as central to making progress on many issues. It is regrettable that when the report was published originally it was not put on the table and made available to the parties for discussion. Decisions were made at the time by the British Government which I felt were not helpful. Be that as it may, the Mitchell report will be central to negotiations which will take place, it is hoped, in the near future. It certainly will be central to the negotiations that will commence on 10 June. This House welcomed the Mitchell report. It is a skilful contribution to what we are all trying to achieve and, in terms of making progress in the future, it has a very important role.
Question No. 3 asks whether there is a firm agreement to hold elections. Although the Tánaiste dealt with the question of elections and the circumstances in which they might be held, it is probably fair to deduce from what he has said that there is no firm agreement that certain conditions would have to be complied with, including broad acceptability, the three-stranded process and so on. That being so, I remain to be convinced that there is any value in having elections other than to satisfy such parties as suggested them some months ago or suggested them last year — in fact they could make an already difficult situation worse.
Given the three unfortunate statements by the IRA since 9 February, will the Tánaiste agree that a mark of acceptance of democratic principles for entry to the talks on 10 June might be the acceptance of the principles set out in the Mitchell report?
On the question asked by Deputy O'Malley about the elective process, the Deputy is probably aware of my preference which is that we get into all-party negotiations as quickly as possible. I have expressed my views on elections publicly and at meetings with the British Government. Elections in Northern Ireland tend to polarise an already divided society. One does not get agreement out of elections whereas one can get agreement out of negotiations. Be that as it may, and that is my view and the view of the Irish Government, the situation as of now — and we made that clear in last week's communiqué — is that if we can have an elective process along the lines of the Mitchell recommendations, we will have that elective process. What is of most concern at this stage is that we go directly and without further preconditions from an elective process into all-party talks on 10 June. One has to be very careful that no further preconditions are raised.
I agree with Deputy Burke that the statements from the IRA have been particularly unhelpful in what we have all tried to achieve since the Canary Wharf bombing and the acceptance of the Mitchell principles. My preference is for a restoration of the cessation of violence. That, in effect, as both Governments have said, would enable Sinn Féin to come back into the preparatory phase of the discussions and, if there is an elective process, they would participate in that as well. I would prefer to see the Mitchell principles and the Mitchell report on the table at the all-party negotiations. We need to be very careful not to raise further preconditions. What is important is that if we have a cessation of violence it will bring the parties to the table. I made it clear in the last few days that we want an inclusive process. This means involving Sinn Féin, but it has the key to being included and being at the table. That key is a reinstatement of the ceasefire by the IRA as quickly as possible.
The Tánaiste has twice made the point, with which I fully agree that there should be no further preconditions to the talks commencing in June and that the elections must lead to negotiations. I share the view of the House that we do not need elections. If they are to happen, so be it, but there cannot be further preconditions.
As to the necessity for clarity, nowhere is this clarity more obvious than in relation to what happened on Monday with the publicity coup of Sinn Féin being locked outside the gates of Stormont. Was the decision to block their entrance to the room a decision of Sir Patrick Mayhew under right wing Tory pressure or was it, as an official claimed, a joint decision? It is important and necessary that the Tánaiste and Sir Patrick Mayhew should get their act together and clarify exactly what is involved in all-party inclusive talks. It is vital that Sinn Féin be there and that the ground rules are clear. We must have clarity so that the situations that have developed will not be allowed to develop in the future. It is important that Sinn Féin, as distinct from the IRA, be given maximum assistance to involve itself at official level in what is going on. We cannot have preconditions or further disagreements. We want absolute clarity which is lacking at present.
Obviously clarity is important in dealing with Anglo-Irish relations and politics in Northern Ireland. We all have a role to play in establishing clarity. I am sure Sinn Féin would have been facilitated if it had sought a meeting at official level but there was no request for a meeting prior to last Monday. The Deputy will appreciate that Stormont Buildings is under the direct control of the British Government and despite the fact that we have offices there we are not in control of the building.
As I made clear, it is important that due courtesies are extended to everyone and that there is prior discussion on the structure of meetings. That did not occur between Sinn Féin and either Government prior to last Monday. As the Deputy knows, we had meetings arranged with the SDLP and held other meetings yesterday. Hopefully we will have more meetings tomorrow, Monday and Tuesday. We have tried to the best of our ability to make every facility available but it is a two way street. Obviously Sinn Féin has a very important role to play but the key aspect at present must be to reinstate the cessation of violence and let us get back to having all-inclusive party talks.
Notwithstanding the Tánaiste's belief that the statement attributed to Mr. Adams published in New York last night to the effect that the IRA is ready for another 25 years of war was given prior to the communiqué last Wednesday, if the person making the statement wished to amend it he had a week in which to do so. Is it not particularly ominous and regrettable that he failed to change or amend the statement? Is the Tánaiste satisfied in these circumstances that Sinn Féin representatives genuinely want to seek a restoration of the ceasefire if they make statements of that kind?
The Deputy will accept that I am responsible for my own actions and accountable to the House for them, but I am not responsible for the actions or statements of Mr. Adams nor do I intend to accept responsibility for them. As I have made clear on numerous occasions, the futility of violence as a means of bringing about a political settlement has been demonstrated over the last quarter of a century and a full-scale return to the horrors of those years would not only be tragic in itself but would not change the nature of the realities which can be addressed and resolved only by negotiation. Mr. Adams and his colleagues have made enormous efforts over many years to change the strategy of Sinn Féin to a peaceful one and I would say to them, in regard to sentiments expressed such as protecting or not leaving Nationalist areas of Belfast defenceless, that the best way of bringing relief to the Nationalist areas would be to reinstate the cessation of violence and for it to represent the people it claims to represent at the all-party talks.
All parties in the House have worked for the restoration of the ceasefire but there are other players involved in the North. Does the Tánaiste share my concern at expressions from other armed groups on the so called republican side who have indicated that they in turn are ready to take up arms? Has the Tánaiste or his Department made any effort, through the political parties with which they are associated, to try to persuade all concerned not to recommence armed activities?
I am sure Members share the view that we do not want any paramilitary group on either the loyalist or Nationalist side engaging in violence. We know the futility of violence. It will not solve the problem. In that respect, I pay tribute to the loyalist groups who have been stoic in their leadership since the breakdown in the IRA ceasefire. I hope that will continue. Whatever prospect there is of the IRA reinstating the ceasefire would be vitiated by a return to violence on the other side. The responsibility lies in the main with the IRA. I hope it will listen to the pleas, demands and wishes of the majority of people on this island as demonstrated on the streets last Sunday week, reinstate the ceasefire and let us get back to all-party negotiations.
We spoke of the need for clarity and I acknowledge the Tánaiste's commitment to it. Has there been clarity on the reported request by the Taoiseach to John Hume to vote with the Conservative Government on the Scott report? Has he checked the veracity of that report? He might like to elaborate on whether he has clear views on the appropriateness of such a request?
I am sure the Deputy knows I would love to elaborate on these matters but, as I understand it, the Taoiseach addressed these matter exhaustively when he answered questions in the House yesterday. I have nothing to add.
He told us he had fully briefed the Tánaiste. There is openness, transparency and accountability.
The Deputy can be assured that we keep ourselves mutually well informed.
Although the time for priority questions is exhausted I can take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 in ordinary time in accordance with new procedures.
