Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has made to meet the British Prime Minister following the British general election. [12035/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Meeting with British Prime Minister.
Mary Harney
Question:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the implications for the peace process of the outcome of the British general election. [12119/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
As I said in my statement of Monday last, I am visiting Britain this week to meet the new British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair M.P.; to meet with representatives of the Irish community in Britain; to promote trade; and to address the Oxford Union.
I will avail of the opportunity of my meeting with Mr. Blair to convey personally my congratulations on his resounding election victory and to wish his new Government well. As I indicated in my statement on Monday, I believe that, working together, we can develop many new possibilities for co-operation in regard to Northern Ireland, bilaterally and within Europe. In my recent statement I touched on a number of possibilities for structured co-operation between the Irish and British Governments, including education, anti-crime measures, homelessness, the food industry and the environment. I will be taking these issues up with Mr. Blair at our meeting. I hope we will be able to avail of the meeting to further prepare together for the EU Summit in Amsterdam next month.
Intergovernmental co-operation is essential to securing the progress on Northern Ireland which we all want. Prime Minister Blair and the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Mowlam, have already made clear their recognition of this point. In addition, the Prime Minister and Dr. Mowlam have made it clear that future arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland should address all the relevant relationships and be capable of attracting the support of all parts of the community, thereby recognising the need for Nationalist as well as Unionist consent.These positions reflect the commitments in the manifesto on which the British Labour Party sought office, which also recalled their support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Joint Declaration and the Framework Document.
Against this background, I intend to explore with Prime Minister Blair how best the two Governments can inject the necessary momentum into the peace process. The Prime Minister is now in a strong position to take decisive action. I have no doubt that he will do so in a fair and balanced way. I hope and expect that our meeting will be the beginning of a long, cordial and productive working relationship between both our Governments.
I also record my congratulations to Mr. Blair and his colleagues on their tremendous victory. I wish his Government well in the years ahead.
With regard to Northern Ireland, will the Taoiseach revert to his position before last Christmas when he endeavoured but failed to convince the British Government to agree to a fixed date for talks in the event of an unequivocal ceasefire? May I take it that the Taoiseach will restate that it is the position of the Government that if there is an unequivocal cessation of violence inclusive talks could commence without further preconditions on a fixed date?
That was the position I took in respect of the Christmas break in the talks. I said to the British Prime Minister at the time that it was an opportunity to indicate that if there was an unequivocal and genuine ceasefire that complied with the ground rules, it would be possible for Sinn Féin to take part in the talks once they resumed. I have continued to hold that general view. The question of timing arises but it is important that there should be a clear target date towards which people can work in terms of ensuring that the basic conditions set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules paper are complied with and that everybody takes part in the talks on the basis of a durable ceasefire from which there is no going back.
Will the Taoiseach explore with the new British Prime Minister confidence building measures such as those about which we spoke in the past? The prisoners' issue is one which affects both sides. Will the Taoiseach continue to explore it as a confidence building measure? Will he agree that it would be a good confidence building gesture to ask the new British Prime Minister to release Róisín McAliskey on bail to have her baby on humanitarian grounds and because of the flimsy nature of the German evidence against her which they have failed to substantiate during the past six months?
I have always been of the view that it is valuable and useful to have interim confidence building measures directed at both communities to reassure them of the goodwill of both Governments, their anxiety to deal with all issues in a humanitarian way and the respect they have for the concerns of both traditions and their allegiances. In that regard it is important that we should continue to make progress on the prisoners' issue. It is important, in terms of early release, that that approach be adopted.
There is also a need for confidence building measures to be adopted in regard to the handling of the parades issue which, in terms of mutual confidence between both communities, is an issue which will either be a very positive or very negative one. It is important to look on it not purely as a problem. If local accommodations can be reached between communities on local parades, the confidence enhancement involved can have much wider political effects, in terms of improvements in the atmosphere. We should look on the problem as an opportunity for forging genuine cross-community agreements on specific matters at local level. If that can be done at local level, it indicates the possibility of doing so at wider levels also on the basis of mutual respect.
I take the Deputy's point in regard to the case of Róisín McAliskey. I will be happy to raise the issue, and prisoners' issues generally, with the British Prime Minister. It is important that we should look at these issues in a humanitarian way and to recognise that such an approach without any concession in regard to the application of the due process of law can have disproportionate beneficial effects across the communities so long as it is approached in an even-handed way.
In joining in the congratulations and good wishes to Mr. Blair and his new Government many of us feel a debt of gratitude to Mr. Major which should be recorded for his efforts in very difficult circumstances vis-à-vis Northern Ireland, particularly in recent years. The peace process, such as it is, is likely to be most detrimentally affected in the months to come by the advent of the 1997 marching season. Will the Taoiseach impress on Mr. Blair and Dr. Mowlam the need to deal firmly and clearly with that prospect to try to ensure we do not have a repetition of what happened in Northern Ireland last summer?
I thank Deputy O'Malley for referring to the role played by the former Prime Minister, John Major, as it gives me an opportunity to refer to it in the House. It is fair to say that despite immense difficulties in the House of Commons John Major persisted throughout his term as Prime Minister in seeking a creative solution to the problems which arose in regard to Northern Ireland. I know from first hand experience — I spoke to him recently — that at no time did he let up in his determination to find a way through the difficulties.
John Major worked with less freedom than the new Prime Minister is working with in terms of the length of his electoral mandate and parliamentary majority. However, it is fair to say that his depth of knowledge of the Irish problem, the Northern Ireland problem and of the relationship between Ireland and Britain was truly prodigious. He had a capacity to apply himself to the most minute detail in a creative way. He has a politician's sense of what is possible and of approaching issues which seem to be ones where one side or the other has to lose on a zero sum basis from a different angle so that there are no losers, only winners. For example, in the negotiation of the Downing Street Declaration with my predecessor and in the negotiation of the Frame work Document with me and my predecessor he showed tremendous creativity and an ability to apply new concepts in terms of constitutional practice which were not being applied elsewhere but which he, in recognition of the importance of the Irish problem and of Northern Ireland, was willing to apply. This is worthy of note. I have conveyed these views privately to John Major and I welcome the opportunity to convey them publicly.
On the parades issue, I dealt with this to some degree in response to Deputy Bertie Ahern. I welcome, in particular, the statement by the new Secretary of State, Dr. Mowlam, that she will ensure the rule of law is upheld. The principle concerned, which derived from the position at Drumcree recently in terms of the concerns of the Nationalist community, was that the rule of law did not seem to be upheld once the numbers were greater than those which appeared to be conveniently capable of being dealt with. It is important that the rule of law is seen to be applied regardless of numbers, minorities, majorities or situations. There must be a standard of protection and of maintenance of order which is applied in all circumstances. The statement by the Secretary of State is particularly significant and welcome.
In a significant statement the Secretary of State said she was very anxious to reform the RUC because it is not acceptable in Nationalist areas and never will be. Will the Taoiseach outline his views on this issue to the new Prime Minister? Will he take into account the views in what is probably the best position paper ever prepared on this issue, the paper on the reform of the RUC published by Seamus Mallon of the SDLP? Parties in this House have supported this blueprint for many years. Will the Taoiseach strongly urge the Government and the House to support the Secretary of State's vision given that reform of the RUC is one of the crucial issues in getting Nationalists to accept policing arrangements, which are directly linked to the marching season and the ongoing difficulties in this regard over the past 50 years?
The question of policing is crucial to the building of cross-community confidence on a range of issues. The police force is the ultimate expression of the power of the political system in any community.
If the political system is not one which commands the allegiance of both communities, the instrument through which the political system has its will done, namely, the police force, will be contested.It is important to recognise that while reforms can be instituted separately in the police system, and these should be pursued in every way in terms of matters such as flags, emblems, the way in which the police force describes itself and so forth, there are also wider political questions and a wider political context that must be settled for the ultimate level of satisfaction that is desirable in both communities, with their shared police force, to be reached. It is important to work in parallel on a complementary basis on political questions, the purpose of the talks that resume on 3 June, and on policing questions, to reach a comprehensive accommodation on both issues. As the Deputy infers policing is at the centre of a large part of the division and the problem.
I welcome the Taoiseach's comments on prisoners. Will he raise in his discussions the case of Danny McNamee, who has been in prison for 11 years? As the Taoiseach is aware, serious questions arise about this man's conviction. The election of a new British Government gives us an opportunity to ensure this case is reopened as a matter of urgency.
The Government has already taken up this matter with the British authorities. Last March, for instance, we asked that Mr. McNamee might be removed from the special secure unit because of his deteriorating health. We are also anxious that the urgency of examining his case should be impressed upon the Criminal Cases Review Commission. This matter is being pursued through diplomatic channels and by the Tánaiste through discussions with his counterpart.
On behalf of the Green Party I ask the Taoiseach to extend best wishes to the new British Prime Minister in his discussions. In those discussions with Prime Minister Blair, will the Taoiseach explore means of building consensus, an issue which would not have been to the fore in the British general election which is based on a first past the post system? In his discussions on Northern Ireland, will he raise the possibility of "preferenda" with the British Prime Minister, an issue I have raised previously with the Taoiseach.I agree with Deputy Kitt that the case of Danny McNamee should be on the agenda also because of the doubt it casts on the British justice system which is not in the interests of building good relations between the peoples of these islands or within Northern Ireland.
Deputy Sargent has raised this matter before, namely, methods of consensusbuilding, including "preferenda", as a way of identifying the common ground between parties. The ground rules we have agreed for the talks, while not explicitly providing for this, provide in effect for something of the same consequence. The ground rules provide that agreements cannot be reached by majority, there must be a majority in both communities for any decision to be taken. That ground rule requires, whether formally or informally, that a method of identifying shared preferences, but not necessarily first preferences, has to be part of any active negotiating process if that process is to have a prospect of success. The tragedy so far is that the talks have not got to the point where this would be useful because they have not reached the point of discussing the real issues that divide the communities, such as the system of governance, the relationship between North and South, the relationship with Britain, consequential policing issues and so on. The discussions so far have been concerned with issues where it is not so easy to see how the methodology the Deputy is advocating can be used, for example, the decommissioning question.
The Deputy's suggestion, made here on a number of occasions, is a useful one, and is consistent with what the Government has already put in place in the talks launched on 10 June last year which will resume on 3 June this year.
I would like to ask the Taoiseach a number of questions about European matters. The Taoiseach raised his entire agenda, particularly the sudden strengthening of the British currency against the Irish currency and how that will affect us. Perhaps the Taoiseach will tell us what he has to say about that issue because it is important that the Irish Government set down its views so that the new British Government will know precisely how these matters affect us and our position on them.
Will the Taoiseach consider raising with the British Prime Minister the question of having the same standards of respect for the Mitchell principles by both Governments in future? The Taoiseach will have noted how two hoax bomb threats in recent times were treated by the authorities. One was a hoax bomb threat by the IRA at an important sporting event at Aintree, the other in Dublin. Except for the handling by our Garda Síochána of the latter, an international event at the Point Theatre would have been ruined. Rather than what has happened during the past year, both Governments should have a clear understanding that the Mitchell principles apply equally to loyalists and republicans and that the authorities do not issue one set of crazy statements about one particular group but say nothing when there is a threat from the loyalist side. There should be balance in all statements. We should reject violence or threats of violence from whatever source. The authorities should not be so unbalanced in how they present such matters in the future.
The Deputy is trying to draw me into a discussion of the assessment the security forces make of the seriousness of particular bomb threats. I do not know that this is an appropriate matter for political commentary, but I would make the point that the Canary Wharf bomb was not a hoax and that obviously has some effect on the way in which other warnings containing the same code are assessed by people in the same jurisdiction. That has to be taken into account in assessing people's reaction. It is also important that we should recognise the very heavy weight of responsibility on the shoulders of any people who are assessing bomb threats, whether hoax bomb threats or real bomb threats. They have a very heavy responsibility, and if they made the wrong call politicians would be the first to criticise them. We should, therefore, be respectful of the difficulty of the choice they make, particularly against the background of the fact that the IRA has a record of real bombing as well as hoaxes.
Our currency policy is set by our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, of which Britain is not a member. We are pursuing our own economic policy and the purpose of that policy is that Ireland should qualify for membership of the single currency from the start. That is the target towards which we are working.
It is interesting that today the British Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed the Bank of England to make its own decision in regard to interest rates. That indicates an approximation of British practice to Irish practice where decisions of this nature are made at arm's length from the political process by people who are concerned with the long-term interests of the currency. The decision by the British Chancellor in this matter is welcome and allows us to apply similar criteria to our approach to these issues, bearing in mind, however, that we are pursuing a policy which is bounded by the European monetary system whereas, as of now, Britain is not doing so.
The Taoiseach either purposely misheard what I said or was talking to the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin. I was referring to the reaction to events and respect for the Mitchell principles, not the lead-in to events or what happens in the case of police forces. I was talking about the different reaction over the past 12 months of the former Secretary of State to actions on the loyalist and republican sides. Under the Mitchell principles, both Governments should respond in the same way to violence from any side and not in the biased manner in which the former Secretary of State continually responded.
I am not sure what the Deputy is inviting me to do. It is my understanding that compliance with the Mitchell principles is one of the qualifications for a party to be part of the talks. If the Deputy is suggesting that certain parties should be excluded from the talks, there is a procedure open to anyone participating in them to make a complaint. It is important to make the point that the IRA has ended its ceasefire and not restored it whereas the loyalist combined military command has not formally ended its ceasefire. Complaints made on a factual basis will be assessed.
The Taoiseach should try telling that to the families of those who have been killed.
I am being interrupted.
This is a democratic assembly.
There is no basis for assuming that any deviation will occur in the way in which the Mitchell principles are interpreted for any political party. Those principles apply uniformly to all parties and on the basis of the evidence contained in any complaint made, those principles will be applied by the two Governments to all parties.