Vol. 470 No. 2
2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether he has had any recent meeting since the marching season with clergymen of any denomination regarding the current situation in Northern Ireland; and if so, if he will report on such meetings. [17276/96]
3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the consultations, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister since August 1996, relating to the current situation in Northern Ireland. [17278/96]
4 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his discussions with an Irish-American group led by former Congressman Bruce Morrison. [17284/96]
5 Mr. Callely asked the Taoiseach the contacts or discussions, if any, he has had with Northern Ireland MEPs; and his views on whether dialogue and contact with the Northern Ireland MEPs, particularly during Ireland's Presidency of the EU, would be of benefit to the peace process. [17462/96]
6 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the Government's response to the Ulster Unionist Party's proposals on decommissioning. [17661/96]
7 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the joint British and Irish Government proposals for arms de-commissioning published on Tuesday, 1 October 1996. [17765/96]
8 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the current state of the multi-party talks in Northern Ireland. [17767/96]
9 Miss. Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions, if any, he had with the British Prime Minister on the Northern Ireland peace process during the course of the informal European Council meeting in Dublin Castle on Saturday, 6 October 1996. [17769/96]
10 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the statement from UDA prisoners announcing the withdrawal of their support from the peace process. [17770/96]
11 Mr. Callely asked the Taoiseach his views on the current state of the peace process; if he will give details of the direction the peace process will take to the end of December 1996; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18361/96]
12 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach his views on the need for an immediate Anglo-Irish summit. [18362/96]
13 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the communications, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister since the bombing of the British Army Headquarters in Lisburn on Monday, 7 October 1996. [18363/96]
14 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will consider a meeting between the two Governments and the two main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, as a means of breaking the current political deadlock. [18467/96]
15 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister since the Lisburn bomb explosions on Monday, 7 October 1996. [18468/96]
16 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the Government's proposals to inject new momentum into the multi-party talks process at Stormont. [18469/96]
17 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether he plans to meet with clergymen of any denomination from Northern Ireland in the near future to discuss the current situation. [18636/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 17, inclusive, together.
Many of the issues raised by Deputies in these questions were covered in considerable detail in my Statement to this House on Thursday last. It would not be the most beneficial use of Question Time to repeat here all the points that I made. However, it may be useful to make the following points.
The agreement reached in Belfast early yesterday morning is very much a step in the right direction in advancing the talks process. It represents the correct response from democratic politicians to those who attempt to mix violence, as in Lisburn last week, with politics. It may offer — and I emphasise "may"— hopeful signs of progress in the remainder of the opening plenary, leading to negotiations in the three strands. However, the decommissioning issue, which has now been reached on the agenda for that Plenary, remains to be resolved.
Any eventual agreement will have greater prospects of securing the necessary allegiance and support if all shades of political opinion in Northern Ireland contributed to it in a climate of peace. The democratic consensus, which exists North and South on non-violence, is an open one; anyone can join and it is our earnest wish that everybody will join, on the basis of an unqualified commitment to democratic politics and the credible abandonment of violence for political ends. However, as I stated last Thursday last, no one, armed or unarmed, has a veto. We will carry forward the democratic political process, including addressing all of the issues of concern to Nationalists and Unionists, with or without Sinn Féin.
At the root of the democratic consensus, largely embodied by the multi-party talks, is an agreement that the means for handling, managing and attempting to accommodate difference is the political process only, without any fallback positions to violence or force. The parties at the talks, many with diametrically opposed constitutional and political aims, share that consensus. Therefore, the Government will continue to do everything possible in the talks to secure an agreed outcome, irrespective of whether Sinn Féin joins the process or not.
The Government will continue to work for the maximum level of consensus in the talks where the contribution of each and every party, irrespective of size, will be seen to matter. Accordingly, the Government have, in the talks and otherwise as appropriate, maintained contact with all the delegations there. Nevertheless, agreement between the SDLP and the UUP is vital to reaching the sufficient consensus threshold. For that reason, the Government, in the multi-party talks, has had an intensive round of bilateral and trilateral consultations with, in particular, the British Government, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP.
I assure the House that the Government will explore every possible avenue with a view to securing the necessary progress in the talks. The British Prime Minister and I reviewed the position at a meeting on 5 October. Since then, there has been intensive contact between officials in my Department and No. 10 Downing Street. For obvious reasons, I cannot give details of all such contacts, which are at an unprecedented level of frequency. However, I assure the House that an Anglo-Irish Summit will take place whenever such a move, in the judgement of the British Prime Minister and myself, would be of most benefit.
The Government will continue to work closely with the British Government, the Northern Ireland political parties and church leaders as well as others to bring about reconciliation and agreement in an environment of peace. That requires compromise on all sides. Restoration of the IRA ceasefire and the maintenance by the loyalists of their ceasefire would help enormously to widen the space for that to happen. I hope that the IRA will heed the calls of many people, such as Bruce Morrison, who placed special emphasis on a restoration of the IRA ceasefire at our recent meeting. An IRA ceasefire is long overdue and it is time the outmoded and counterproductive use of violence was abandoned for good. If Republicans are committed to peace, as they say they are, let them call a ceasefire now and make it a credible one.
The Government was concerned at the withdrawal by the UDA prisoners of support for the peace process, especially since they played such an important role in bringing about the loyalist ceasefire of October 1994. At the same time, the Government welcomes the fact that the prisoners have indicated they have not withdrawn their support for the ceasefire itself and that the UDP leadership, as well as the PUP, continue to urge restraint. In that regard, I again support the calls of many people that the loyalist paramilitaries should not respond violently to the deliberate provocation of the IRA bomb attacks in Lisburn. We welcome the indications that these calls are being heeded.
The loyalist ceasefire has made an enormous contribution to peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The decision on a ceasefire was right. Violence only brings loss.
The UDA prisoners' unease points up the need for the credible restoration of the IRA ceasefire on the basis that it will hold in all circumstances, a speedy movement into substantive and meaningful negotiations, and further confidence building measures, including measures affecting prisoners, so that everyone can see that peace confers real benefits on all. What we need and what the Government is working intensively to bring about, is a balanced approach to enable these requirements to be met.
The Taoiseach has answered a great range of questions. I will ask about the more important issues which arose in the past few days. I welcome the small positive step evident in the agreement of the agenda and the movement into some kind of meaningful talks. Will the Taoiseach substantiate what he has said regarding the contacts between the SDLP and the UUP? Does he believe something concrete was achieved yesterday and can he see useful forward movement? I agree with the Taoiseach that we still need the IRA to heed the calls of every political party to reinstate the ceasefire. I also agree with his support for the Loyalist groups' continued restraint in the face of intimidation by IRA elements. What would happen if all our efforts to achieve a ceasefire were successful? It would be very helpful at this time if both Governments, particularly the British Government, were unambiguously clear about their intentions. The Taoiseach has stated his position fairly clearly on this matter. What are the Taoiseach's views on how it would be treated by the British Government and the Unionist parties?
The parties to negotiations must demonstrate that they are committed to exclusively peaceful means of resolving disagreement. That means they cannot retain the option to return to violence. A commitment to peace means exclusive commitment to peaceful methods in all circumstances. That is apparent from the first of the six Mitchell principles.
The Mitchell principles require those entering talks to be committed to the disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They are required to agree that such disarmament be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission. They are required not only to renounce force but to oppose the use of force by others to influence the outcome of negotiations, to agree to abide by any agreement reached at all party negotiations, and to resort only to peaceful methods to express any disagreement with the outcome. Punishment beatings and killings must stop. The Mitchell principles are quite exacting and it is agreed by all that anybody entering the talks has to show they mean it when they say they are committed to those six principles.
The Lisburn bomb is not consistent with the Mitchell principles and neither was the bank raid in Adare. The terms for entry to the talks are set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules which require that the parties entering talks must establish commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and have shown that they abide by the democratic process. I emphasise the words "establish" in that sentence.
The challenge to demonstrate commitment to the Mitchell principles and to show they are willing to abide by the democratic process rests on the shoulders of the members of the republican movement. Members of the republican movement shot Detective Jerry McCabe, killed the soldier in Lisburn and killed by bombing the people in England.
It is for the republican movement, against that background, to show that it is committed to the Mitchell principles and to establish that its commitment in terms of politics is to exclusively peaceful methods. That is a challenge for it and we should not allow it to shift the focus to some other entity and say that somebody else is imposing a condition, a barrier or inventing a precondition. That does not arise. The Mitchell principles are very clear. The legislation is there. The requirements for participation in the negotiations are set out in the ground rules. It is for the republican movement to devise the best way of establishing the things that clearly need to be established.
I advise the House that in accordance with new procedures, questions to An Taoiseach must conclude at 3.15 p.m. I call Deputy Harney.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the statement from the leader of Sinn Féin to the effect that his party is prepared to go the extra mile is meaningless unless it is accompanied by a renewed IRA ceasefire?
Yes.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I assume that if those requirements are fulfilled the Taoiseach believes Sinn Féin could take its place in all party inclusive talks. I assume that is the logical conclusion of what he is saying. Can I take it that if the republican movement complied with the Mitchell principles and the matters he outlined, the Taoiseach does not see any difficulty with Sinn Féin taking its position in all party talks?
In case anybody misunderstands me, I do not regard the Mitchell principles as an empty formula which people can somehow comply with in a formal way by, for instance, signing a piece of paper stating that they agree with the Mitchell principles. It is very important that the republican movement shows that it abides by the Mitchell principles in reality, not just in form. We, the law and the Mitchell principles are looking for——
On a point of order, a Ceann Comhairle, if each time I ask a 20 second question and get a five minute reply, I cannot operate Question Time. I am trying to ask a simple question but the Taoiseach restates his position each time. I asked the question to which I wanted an answer at the outset. The Taoiseach knows the Official Report of the proceedings of this House is scrutinised carefully by others and it would be helpful if he were more definite in his replies. The question is simple. If the Mitchell principles, as outlined extensively by the Taoiseach, are followed, does he believe Sinn Féin can take its place at the all-party talks, or is he talking about a timeframe?
I refer the Deputy to the relevant legislation which states that the invitation to participate in the talks must be based on the fulfilment by a party being invited of the requirements set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules. The relevant portion of paragraph 8 of the ground rules is, as I have said, that the party establish — I emphasise the word "establish"— a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods which show — I emphasise "show"— they abide by the democratic process. There is also a reference in paragraph 9 to an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire but it is important that the requirements set out in the relevant legislation, which have been agreed to by all, be abided by. It is important that parties also comply in full, in reality and in conviction, with the Mitchell principles, not simply as some formula to be adopted for a tactical purpose. Tactical gestures are not relevant at this stage. Real commitment to exclusively peaceful methods are now needed.
Does the definition of "establish" and "show" mean a time scale? Is the Taoiseach referring to a timeframe following the completion of the substantial Mitchell principles? What is the Taoiseach's definition of "establish" and "show"?
I will interpret that matter in the light of the circumstances as they are presented to me if there is a ceasefire. It is important, however, that the words I have spoken here be seriously taken into account. We are not looking for a mere empty formula, some sort of formulaic commitment.
I agree.
We all know we were told we had a ceasefire that would hold in all circumstances and it did not. Many people were deceived by statements to the effect that the previous IRA ceasefire would hold in all circumstances. It did not hold in all circumstance and, therefore, great care needs to be taken by those who wish to convince that they have established a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods. Great care will be required on their part to ensure that this time they establish it in a way that will hold in all circumstances and that there will not be a second deception.
Given that the Taoiseach says people have been deceived, does he not think it is time for the Government to cut off all official contact with Sinn Féin?
I am not aware there has been any contact with Sinn Féin by any officer of the Government since the Lisburn bomb, although I cannot say that categorically. I cannot check whether a call may or may not have been received but I am not aware of it. I made it clear in the House last week that we are only allowing the possibility of communication for the sole purpose of achieving a credible — I emphasise the word "credible"— ceasefire by the IRA that will actually hold in all circumstances. On balance, it is probably better to allow at least the possibility of contact if there is some possibility that evidence could be produced that such contacts might be helpful to achieve a genuine, credible ceasefire by the IRA, but it is a matter of fine judgment. It is not a straightforward matter.
Will the Taoiseach tell the House if he has had any recent meetings with Fr. Reid, Archbishop Eames or Rev. Roy Magee?
Meetings have taken place from time to time with all the people the Deputy mentioned but I cannot recollect any recent meeting, if "recent" is meant to imply in the past two or three weeks. Furthermore, I do not necessarily think it is particularly useful for me to give an account of every clergyman I might meet because if I say I have met Fr. X or Mr. Y, and failed to refer to another, that could be seen as misleading the House. On the other hand, there may be occasions when it would be appropriate for me to meet people without it becoming public knowledge.
I put it to the Taoiseach that it is important to get tough with Sinn Féin and show that the way to achieve progress is through peace and not through violence, and that we should not allow Sinn Féin to continue with its "either/or" strategy. That being the case, will the Taoiseach cut off contact with Sinn Féin as a way of showing that the Government is getting tough and is serious when it demands a ceasefire before dealing with Sinn Féin, either at Government or at official level?
I have already demonstrated in a forthright way in this House my attitude to the ambivalent attitude of Sinn Féin to violence. I stated that I believe the tactic of the gun in one hand and the bomb in the other is one that was originated by the National Socialist Party of Germany. That tactic should not be used in this jurisdiction, or in this century, and it should not be condoned in any way by democrats. That lesson should be learned by everybody because many people in Germany thought they could tame those who were using such methods. They were the ones that were tamed, as history shows, and we should be careful about this matter. I do not agree with the Deputy that all contact should necessarily be broken off. If there is evidence that such contact can contribute to a verifiable ceasefire, then it is useful.
To verify a ceasefire?
The purpose of any contact would be to secure a credible ceasefire. I have already outlined the purpose of such contact in previous replies — I do not have a photographic recollection of every precise nuance of words I have used but the Deputy knows the purpose of these contacts. They are not for the purpose of discussing the weather, the general political situation or anything of that nature. They are only focused on obtaining an early and credible IRA ceasefire.
Does the Taoiseach find it difficult, as I do, to reconcile the view held by those who say we should cut off all contact with Sinn Féin because it refuses to condemn the Provisional IRA with the view that we should ask Sinn Féin to go to the IRA and ask it to restore the ceasefire, which is necessary if we are to have inclusive all-party talks? Is that not a contradiction in terms in that we are asking Sinn Féin to condemn while also asking it to deliver?
Neither of those is the reason we have allowed official level but not ministerial contact to continue. The reason we do not have political contact with Sinn Féin is that Sinn Féin is associated with the IRA and the IRA is killing Irish people. It is not appropriate that there should be contact at a political level with an organisation which is linked to an organisation that is killing people in this jurisdiction, in Northern Ireland and in Britain. It is the killing by the IRA that causes the problem. If they would stop the killing, stop the beatings, and stop all intimidatory tactics involving the treat of force, there would be no problem in having political contact. It has nothing to do with whether or not they utter the word "condemn". However, I regard it as disgraceful that the vice-president of Sinn Féin could not condemn the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. It was a political disgrace that a person given the benefit of our airwaves could not bring himself to condemn the killing of Garda Jerry McCabe, but that does not affect the issue in terms of whether political level or other contact should be maintained with Sinn Féin. There is no political level contact because of IRA killing.
I would again emphasise to the Taoiseach how important it is that we have clarity on this issue. Everybody in this House condemns violence. We all want to see a permanent ceasefire with no going back and no further betrayal and are working on our questions on that basis. It is very important, and it has been recognised by the Taoiseach, that all strands of opinion, including Sinn Féin, be at the talks. If there is a permanent ceasefire and reassurance about not going back to violence, what else has to be done before Sinn Féin can enter into the talks? Will there be a time gap from the time of a ceasefire until Sinn Féin can enter into talks? Without using the formula of words he has used, will the Taoiseach clarify that? If a time gap is envisaged, how long will it be? If this question has yet to be clarified between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, will the Taoiseach agree to meet the British Prime Minister and clarify it so that everybody will know where they stand? Rather than commenting on the past, let us look to the future.
I have already answered that question. I have not mentioned a timeframe. That was mentioned by Deputies Ahern and Burke.
I asked whether there was a time gap. If there is, the Taoiseach should state it.
There was a timeframe before.
What I have said is that the republicans, Sinn Féin and the IRA, have got to establish that this time their commitment to peaceful means is genuinely exclusive, that it is not one that involves the possibility of reverting to violence at any time or in any circumstances. Part of the problem in republican thinking has been an obsession with the British, an obsession with saying that the British have got to tell them what they should or should not do or that the British have created a new obstacle. The reality is that the Mitchell report is there and it binds everybody.
What about Drumeree? What about Michael McGoldrick?
It is for anybody who wishes to participate in the talks to demonstrate to the satisfaction of all concerned that their commitment to the Mitchell principles is genuine. There is a risk in the way in which this matter might be discussed that we would create a false sense of victimhood where people are saying that preconditions and conditions are being imposed.
Nobody said that.
The conditions being imposed are the Mitchell principles and a requirement to establish commitment to exclusively political methods. It is for those who wish to prove that they comply with the Mitchell principles, and that their commitment to peaceful methods is exclusive, to produce the most convincing evidence they can in support of their contention. It is not for us to devise formulae to which they can simply sign up with no commitment. They must demonstrate the commitment from their own resources and out of their own hearts.
Would the Taoiseach accept that the very small but welcome progress made at the multi-party talks earlier this week clearly indicates that when constitutional politicians concentrate on working together they can have a very powerful effect for good? Would the Taoiseach agree that the way forward in Northern Ireland is in terms of the two main constitutional parties working closely together on the substance of the political agreement that is necessary?
Yes. I agree very much with the Deputy. The point she has made about the importance of the work by constitutional politicians is particularly important. I would also like to say in passing that she made a number of very valid points in this matter and generally in her speech last week.
I welcome the Taoiseach's statement today that when the Governments deems it necessary to have a summit they will have a summit. It would be useful to do that. The original peace process of August 1994 and September/October 1994 began long before the Mitchell principles were introduced in February 1996, and there was an unwritten timeframe involved in the first ceasefire — people believed nothing would happen for three months. The peace process drifted on for 17 months. The IRA was still wrong to break the ceasefire when it did, but what I am trying to establish is whether, if the Mitchell principles and all the other matters the Taoiseach put on the record, with which I have no difficulty, are complied with, there is on the part of the Taoiseach, the Government or the British Government a belief that time must elapse in order to establish that the conditions have been fulfilled. Does the Taoiseach believe that we have to wait months or years? The difficulty is that people who want a ceasefire cannot answer that question. I cannot answer it. I am asking what is the Government's answer to that question.
It all comes down to a simple question of belief. Do the Governments believe the IRA when it says it has given up violence for good and will never return to it? It does not come down to some sort of formula. It comes down ultimately to belief. It had a ceasefire which was supposed to hold in all circumstances. Since then the IRA has killed four people, because its ceasefire was abandoned by it unnecessarily. It will come down in the end not to some sort of formula about timeframes but to the hard question of whether we believe this time that it will never go back to violence, to punishment beatings, that its commitment to total disarmament is genuine. Ultimately it will boil down to a question of belief. The talks are there now and Sinn Féin can, of course, if it is able to create that belief, enter the talks according to rules that have been laid down. I have referred to section 2 of the revelant legislation, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules paper and so on. Deputy Ahern referred on a number of occasions to what he called "an unwritten timeframe". There was no unwritten timeframe that I was ever briefed about. The previous Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, stated clearly that there were no unwritten or other agreements.
Is the Taoiseach aware of what Mr. Major said?
Deputy Reynolds stated that in the briefing he gave to me, he also stated it in the Seanad. I am not aware, therefore, of any unwritten timeframe of three months or any reference to 1 January. Deputy Ahern has been referring to 1 January here. No such indication was given to me by Deputy Reynolds, or by Dr. Mansergh who also briefed me before I became Taoiseach, that any unwritten agreement of that nature was entered into. As the Deputy was in Government at the time of the ceasefire it is not helpful that the Deputy should be suggesting there was such an unwritten agreement unless he has evidence of it, and I do not believe there is.
We are running over time with the Taoiseach's questions today.
The position at the time was that Sinn Féin never believed it would get into talks during 1994; it believed it would be in 1995.
I am trying to be helpful but I must have regard to the time factor involved. We are running over time.
I am concerned that the Deputy referred to an unwritten timeframe. That refers to something that was agreed to by others, not just their own belief.
The others meant 1996.
The fact is that the talks started on 10 June are designed to be all inclusive. They are designed for everybody. I have said repeatedly that I would like to see Sinn Féin there but for Sinn Féin to be there the IRA must have a ceasefire and must comply with the requirements of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules paper, which requires them to establish the commitment to exclusively peaceful methods.
It is taking a very long time——
It is for them to work out how best they can convince others. It is their responsibility given that they killed the people in Lisburn, Garda Jerry McCabe and people in Manchester and London.
The Taoiseach bypassed Drumcree very quickly in relation to the Mitchell principles.
It is for them to demonstrate how they can establish that commitment——
What about the Unionists and Drumcree?
——and we should ask them to think that matter through as a movement as a whole and not to operate on the basis of one opinion or another.
There was no timeframe then.
That must be the end of questions to the Taoiseach for today. I am now proceeding to deal with questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Social Welfare.
