Mary O'Rourke
Question:6 Mrs. O'Rourke asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of his attendance at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body; and if he will summarise the principal points that he made in his interventions. [6606/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - British-Irish Interparliamentary Body.
Mary Harney
Question:7 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the statement he made to the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body at Dublin Castle on 3 March 1997. [6664/97]
Mary Harney
Question:8 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the adjournment of the multi-party talks at Stormont. [6665/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, together.
I addressed the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body at Dublin Castle on Monday, 3 March. The main topics that I covered were Northern Ireland, issues within the broad British-Irish relationship such as Sellafield, and EU-related matters like economic and monetary union. Rather than summarising all the points I made in what was a broad-ranging address, I have instead had copies placed in the Oireachtas Library.
I dealt in my address with the multi-party talks in Belfast. As anticipated, the talks have since been adjourned until 3 June, pending the forthcoming local and general elections in Northern Ireland. This was a sensible decision. We have been trying to make progress in the negotiations over a number of months and it has been obvious that the imminence of the elections has made it increasingly difficult to reach agreement.
As I indicated in my address to the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, I believe that when the talks resume, it will be important that significant progress be made within a finite period, to steer negotiations through to progress as speedily as possible. We will be pursuing the question of an agreed timeframe and calendar for the negotiations with this aim in mind.
As I also indicated in my address, it is the Government's hope that the participants generally, with electoral concerns behind them, will be able to agree on a basis for overcoming the current impasse on the issue of decommissioning soon after the resumption of the talks. The two Governments, working together, must jointly, in all circumstances, continue to offer the leadership that is needed to overcome obstacles and to reach the comprehensive accommodation, founded on consent, which I am convinced is sought by the great majorities on both islands.
At the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body did the Taoiseach seek to influence the cross-party MPs who were there as to the desirability of the UK joining economic and monetary union?
I specifically availed of the opportunity to do just that.
It must have fallen on deaf ears.
The Taoiseach does not seem to have had much success.
Can I take it there will be no initiative from either Government until after the election in Great Britain and the election here?
Not necessarily.
What work is being done behind the scenes on, for example, the parades issue? Have we moved any closer to resolving that issue and towards implementing the North report?
Consultation on the North report, the period for which we believe is too long, is proceeding. I made it clear at the time that I felt eight weeks was too long and the British Government should come to decisions on this matter earlier. That has not happened. However, I am pressing and will continue to press in every way I can for early action on the North report. Local agreement is preferable to outside intervention, including intervention through the very carefully crafted agency of the North report recommendations. I urge all participants in parades and all persons who are likely to be adversely affected by parades to seek to reach local agreement and to seek to reconcile their views on these matters. There is a genuine conflict of rights and a conflict of views, and such conflict can only be resolved either by one side giving in entirely or by compromise. In general compromise is preferable.
We do not think it was a good idea that the multi-party talks were abandoned for the lead-in to and the duration of the general election campaign in the UK and in the North. How does the Taoiseach equate the existence of that vacuum with his statement that it is important that substantial progress be seen to have been made when the talks resume? It is difficult to see how there can be progress in a lacuna such as that.
The parties in Northern Ireland which are participating in the talks have an eye on the upcoming British general election and are unwilling to make compromises with one another lest those compromises be misconstrued or misrepresented by some of their rivals within their own community. That causes difficulty which any politician can fully understand in the run-up to an election in Northern Ireland. It was a prudent decision to have a break in the talks rather than a period where the talks would be used for electioneering instead of negotiating purposes. I do not think prolongation of the talks through the active election period would have been constructive; it might have led to a degree of megaphone diplomacy in what is designed to be a confidential negotiation. The decision taken was a prudent one on the part of the Governments and the participants. Once the election is over in Northern Ireland the position will be different.
Since the talks have been going on for some time, will the Taoiseach say what progress has taken place? We read in recent times speculation about changes in Department of Foreign Affairs personnel in this area. What is happening in that regard? The Taoiseach said he does not rule out an initiative from the Government. I suggest that the uneasiness in terms of who is moving from where should be sorted out very soon.
Department of Foreign Affairs officials who work for the Government through the Tánaiste do so in accordance with Government policy, in a very dedicated way and with a very high degree of integrity. Officials, particularly in the Anglo-Irish section, and various ambassadors and staff who have been dealing with Anglo-Irish relationships have done so with an exemplary degree of skill in recent years. I and the Government have been very well served by those officers.
On the first part of the question, the best course for me to adopt is to draw the Deputy's attention to the words of the independent chairman, Senator George Mitchell, who specifically said that he was pleased with progress in the talks in regard to a number of matters, including agreement of detailed rules and procedures, agreement to the chairmanship and agreement to the agenda for the plenary session. Serious efforts were made by most participants to overcome the very difficult issue of decommissioning. Nobody should pretend this is a simple issue, in view of the radically different perspectives of the different sides on this question. Although an agreement was not reached, serious efforts were made by most participants at various times to overcome that difficulty. I hope, once the election in Northern Ireland is over and the participants are freed from the constraint which that anticipated event imposes upon them, it will be possible for them to reach an agreement on the issue so that we can proceed to substantive negotiations in the three strands.
I thank the Taoiseach for his presence at the recent British-Irish Interparliamentary Body meeting. The issue of this year's parades took up much time at the meeting, but on the other issue raised, the Bloody Sunday investigation, will the Taoiseach inform the House on the progress the Government has made in its investigation of new evidence in that regard?
Work is progressing. I would like to give the Deputy a more detailed reply on that subject and if he puts down a parliamentary question I will get the information for him.
On the multi-party talks, which are postponed until after the elections, all parties agree that until there is a declaration of a ceasefire it would not be proper for Sinn Féin to enter the talks. Does the Taoiseach agree with the Tánaiste's adviser who says that talks without Sinn Féin are not worth a penny candle?
That remark was raised in the House at the time it was made. I made my comments known at the time and I have nothing to add to that.
What are they?
Are there plans for a summit meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in advance of the British general election? Given that a bipartisan approach is adopted to Northern Ireland by this House and the House of Commons, will the Taoiseach agree that should be maintained during election campaigns in both jurisdictions?
Contacts with the British Prime Minister are ongoing and if a meeting is judged to be useful between us it will take place. We will meet soon in a European context. The Deputy's remarks about the maintenance of bipartisanship in regard to this matter are well made and I will do all I can to ensure that is the case in both jurisdictions.
Does the Taoiseach expect progress will be made this side of a general election? I appreciate the Taoiseach may be in contact with the British Prime Minister, but nothing seems to be happening on either side of the Irish Sea. With the talks at a standstill, it appears that no progress will take place and we will be at a dead end until after the British general election and possibly after the election here.
If the republican movement called a ceasefire it would certainly create positive conditions for progress by removing the physical threat which has hung over participants in the talks since 10 June. Negotiation under threat from outside is obviously more difficult than negotiation where all participants have for-sworn the use of violence and there is no threat of violence from any of the participants in the talks or potentially in the talks. Clearly the republican movement has a responsibility to make that decision itself. It can see that its 25 year campaign of violence achieved absolutely nothing. It reached its original ceasefire on the basis of political analysis which pointed to political participation without the use of violence or the threat of violence as the best way of advancing its objectives. Nothing has changed to alter that analysis. If it was right in August 1994 when there were no talks on offer it is even more right today when talks exist which that movement could enter on the basis of ground rules that are explicit and clear.
I think I speak for the vast majority of my colleagues on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body who have been of the view over the years that when there is a vacuum the men of violence take advantage of that lack of political movement. There is no better time than now to heed that maxim. What is required is that the two Governments take an initiative rather than de-escalate initiatives, however flawed they may be. The Taoiseach is holding out no hope of either Government doing anything to ensure the men of violence stay out. That is wrong. It is up to the two Governments to leave aside electoral considerations and continue to push their political agenda. They are, in effect, currently giving in to the men of violence.
The Deputy is mistaken. The peace process is based on inclusive negotiations, not on imposed solutions.
I did not refer to imposed solutions.
It is based on negotiations between the Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland designed to reach an agreement between all parties that will ultimately give us a settlement. It is not something imposed by the Governments. I do not believe it is possible in a democracy for two Governments to impose a solution in the way the Deputy, perhaps inadvertently, infers. The Governments must create an opportunity and an impetus and give leadership to the parties in the talks process so that an agreement can be reached. We have done that by creating a talks process which is open to all who forswear violence. This is the first time a talks process as comprehensive as that commenced on 10 June has been available in the history of the Irish problem. These talks represent an historic opportunity for all concerned to move forward. The Deputy should not, inadvertently or otherwise, undermine the existing talks process by suggesting that unilateral or bilateral action by the Governments could supersede the comprehensive inclusive talks process involving all the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland as the best way forward.
As usual the Taoiseach deliberately misinterpreted what Deputy Ahern said. He did not talk about imposed unilateral decision making or the imposition of ideas.
The word "deliberate" should not be used.
He spoke of proper governmental initiatives. The abandonment of the talks process in the North is not conducive to keeping the channels of communication open.
The talks are not being abandoned. There has been a suspension——
They have been abandoned.
——to accommodate the political reality that a general election is about to take place in Britain. Anybody with political sense knows that in the run-up to an election parties tend to take maximalist rather than compromised positions with opponents. The Governments have taken a practical approach to this matter. The participants have agreed the talks should be suspended until June so that the electoral process in Northern Ireland can run its course and the parties can come back to the talks equipped with a renewed electoral mandate to deal with the issues in a less charged atmosphere. Meanwhile, the Governments will continue to work on the matter. I maintain close and ongoing contact with the British Prime Minister — the Tánaiste is doing likewise with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — to pursue all possible initiatives to build confidence in the process and to create the best possible conditions for forward movement when the talks resume.
If a political settlement is to be reached through the talks process, does the Taoiseach agree there would need to be a sea change in the attitude of many of the participants?
I heartily agree with the Deputy. It is important that participants take their responsibilities seriously. There is a tendency, perhaps because of the number of participants in the talks and because the Governments are also involved, for participants to delegate responsibility for contributing towards a compromise to the Governments or someone else. I agree with the implication in the Deputy's question. I hope, however, the atmosphere after the British general election will be different and that people with a longer electoral timeframe will be more willing to compromise with one another. It is important that people realise the price of failure to compromise in these talks may be high for everybody. It may not be possible to pass it off to others, as is currently happening in regard to responsibility. I thank the Deputy for asking that question.
The Taoiseach referred to the elections in the North. In regard to a renewed electoral mandate for all the political parties, including Sinn Féin, will the position post the election be the same for a party in Sinn Féin's position which might renew its electoral mandate before the people but would not be subsequently allowed to participate in the renewed talks?
That matter is laid down in the ground rules for the talks and there has been no change in those rules. They are founded in legislation. The electoral mandate for the purpose of the talks is the one given prior to the opening of the talks on 10 June. That is not altered by any other election that may occur. The conditions of last May's electoral mandate are not being altered in so far as the talks are concerned.
They could find themselves elected to Westminster.