John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will attend the plenary session of the Belfast talks between 1 and 3 December 1997. [20943/97]
Ceisteanna—Questions - Northern Ireland Talks.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the nature of the talks which he held with the representatives of the Northern Irish political representatives on 28 November 1997 in Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21149/97]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the arrangement, if any, which will be put in place to ensure that proposals for constitutional amendment relating to Articles 2 and 3 are fully considered by the people prior to a referendum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21151/97]
John Bruton
Question:7 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin on 28 November 1997 with some of the Northern Ireland political parties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21154/97]
John Bruton
Question:8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent speech to the US Chamber of Commerce in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter in view of his forthcoming trip to the USA. [21157/97]
Trevor Sargent
Question:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his views on whether the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation will develop a new role for itself in the changed political conditions of today or if it will operate at a much reduced level within the existing model. [21272/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, together.
I indicated last July that I would regularly consult all shades of Northern political opinion to consolidate democratic consensus around a peaceful way forward, and that I would meet those Northern parties wishing to participate to regularly review means of achieving progress.
I met on Friday last with the SDLP, the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and the Northern Ireland Labour Party. The meeting took place over lunch and was open to all the parties participating in the talks.
We had a very good meeting. We reviewed progress to date and availed of the opportunity to exchange at first hand our various views and ideas on where we should now be going to ensure that the talks are successful. The meeting was geared towards generating momentum in the talks, which continues to be the primary arena and focus.
In the context of an overall settlement the Government will put forward and support proposals for balanced constitutional change. Any changes proposed will be put to the people North and South. When the time comes for such constitutional change it will need to be fully considered and widely discussed. Given the issues involved, there can be no doubt that there will be a full and frank debate both inside and outside of this House prior to and during the referendum campaign.
As Prime Minister Blair did recently, and as I indicated in my remarks following my meeting with Northern parties at Government Buildings on Friday last, I propose to visit the talks in Castle Buildings next week.
The role of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is a matter for the Forum itself and for the parties participating in it.
I will circulate a copy of my speech to the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland in which I ranged over developments relating to the Irish economy, Economic and Monetary Union and Northern Ireland to the Deputies.
There is a time honoured tradition here that all parties in this House assist in whatever way they can in the resolution of the problems in Northern Ireland. Is the Taoiseach deeply concerned about, and what are the implications for his attendance at the talks next week, the damaging impact of the comments by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, in recent days? Is he aware that as late as lunch time today, the Unionist leader, Mr. David Trimble, said the Government has got itself into a hole and he may find it very difficult to continue to deal with the Irish Government? In view of the Taoiseach's successful meeting with Mr. David Trimble last week, will he say what action he has taken to deal with the comments of the Minister, Deputy Andrews, and what action he intends to take to ensure the full team of Ministers involved in the Northern Ireland talks prepare themselves for all statements and interviews? What action does the Taoiseach propose to take to ensure adequate and clear communication with the Unionist party at the talks next week?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has been at the talks all day and has been dealing with the Unionists. I am aware that the remarks made by the Minister especially one particular line, created difficulties over the weekend. The Deputy will also be aware of the Minister's reply yesterday. I do not want to get into a blow by blow account of each issue and controversy that occurs in Northern Ireland, even when some are more serious than others. The fundamental outcome which the Irish Government wants from the talks is stable agreements. As I said to Mr. Trimble two weeks ago, we are not interested in conquests, we want something that is lasting and which all sides can live with and, therefore, can be sustained. This can only come about by agreement and consent. This remains central to our approach to the talks.
I do not want to go into detail on the Government's negotiating position as the talks are ongoing but in regard to Strand II the North-South body at the centre of the current hiatus would be critical to any agreement to which Nationalists could give their allegiance. For such an agreement to be reached there would have to be Unionist agreement to the body's functions. That is self-evident. It is not perceived by us as a vehicle for taking over the government of Northern Ireland against the wishes of a majority — the interpretation put by some on the Minister's comments — rather it would provide a focus for practical action at island level, for which there is ample scope, as well as the necessary institutional expression of the identity of Northern Nationalists.
The agreement will have to be based on the three strand process. There was a useful meeting on that this morning. There will be difficult issues for us to face in the negotiations as we move forward. We will have to react and try to reach acceptable compromises.
The Government is focused on the practicalities involved in North-South co-operation. These will largely shape the functions to be exercised by a North-South body, the various functional agencies that would report to it and the ways in which they would operate. I discussed this matter at some length with Mr. Trimble ten days ago. Such co-operation makes sense in many areas. Practical arrangements can be made to the advantage of all the people on the island in securing the acceptance of Nationalists of the agreement which would ensure stability. The issues and arrangements will be considered fully in the negotiations.
I accept what the Minister said yesterday. As everybody knows, in the Northern talks words are extremely important. Hardly a week goes by without some issue blowing up into a controversy. While I accept people have a right to react strongly to comments made outside, the Minister has adequately cleared up the matter.
I thank the Taoiseach for his lengthy reply. I take it he is disowning the remarks made by the Minister for which the Minister did not apologise yesterday. In view of the positive meeting the Taoiseach had last week with Mr. Trimble and the courageous comments made by Mr. Trimble that he thought the meeting went very well, is the Taoiseach taking action to ensure the Minister is aware of the sensitivities involved and is well prepared before he gives interviews? What did the Taoiseach say to the Minister about his comments and will he apologise to ensure he can be effective at the talks next week given that Mr. Trimble has said he will find it difficult to continue what had started off as good dialogue with the Taoiseach? This has been put in jeopardy because of the Minister's comments.
The Minister has clarified these matters which were dealt with yesterday in the North. It is back to business today. I thank everybody involved in the serious business that was completed this morning in spite of the difficulties encountered yesterday. I was talking to the Minister last evening when we reflected on the day's events, as we do daily, in the case of the Northern talks.
I should inform the House that today's plenary session has been completed, everybody having been in attendance. The Plenary Review Group has decided to establish a small working group to prepare a statement on an agreed format for resolution of the key issues, which was as much as I had thought could be achieved. A sub group has now been established with two people representing every delegation. It will draw up a list of the key issues to be resolved along with the appropriate format for their resolution. Hopefully that will be achieved by the week beginning 15 December.
In terms of the heat generated yesterday, I have clarified that issue. It is not the first nor I predict will it be the last time that temperatures will be raised at these talks. Over the past 24 hours or so I have spoken to a number of people in the North, which is no different from the daily practice.
Does the Taoiseach accept that over the past 15 years my party has played a very constructive role in endeavouring to bring the extremities of the divided communities in Northern Ireland closer; that my former party Leader, Deputy Dick Spring, had a seminal influence and was present on many of the key occasions, along with representatives of other parties in this House? Does he agree that the success of those talks is dependent on a shared, multi-party approach in the South along with a common position on key sensitive issues? If he does accept that, would he not also agree in a more fulsome manner than he displayed in replying to Deputy Owen that the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, on Friday last were unfortunate, very unhelpful and could have been avoided had the Minister adhered to his script?
Because of the sensitive nature of what is involved, the history of the Sunningdale Agreement, in particular the Council of Ireland, will the Taoiseach take all necessary steps to ensure that we do not stray from the script in these areas?
Will he also indicate whether, since Friday last, he contacted the Leader of the Official Unionist Party, Mr. David Trimble, directly to reassure him of the formal position of the Irish Government, as it would appear he did so clearly and successfully in the course of his earlier bilateral meeting with him? Can he assure the House that the undoubted damage done has been repaired by him by way of direct intervention with Mr. David Trimble and, if not, will he consider doing so?
I do not want to inject more heat into this issue than is necessary. This matter has been well and truly dealt with.
Not at lunchtime; Mr. David Trimble is still concerned.
There are many people concerned about many things in connection with the talks on Northern Ireland.
It is a matter of more than that.
I assure Deputy Owen that Mr. Trimble's concern was well addressed both yesterday and this morning. I want to thank Mr. Trimble and all others involved on their constructive role today in having completed the plenary session, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs which were perceived as being a difficult obstacle. There has been an extremely successful outcome to today's plenary session.
In relation to Deputy Quinn's questions, at all times I anticipate and thank the House for its bipartisanship on the North. As Deputy Quinn will recall, on at least four or five occasions that I can remember, in various former capacities I went to the assistance of the former leader of his party when his resignation was called for. Therefore, as far as calling for the resignation of people representing this House and Government in the North is concerned, that is probably one of the most over-played cards in the game.
Having said that, the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs went somewhat further than what is the position, which he has clarified. What I said earlier is the position. I am very conscious that every word uttered in the Northern talks is important. I might also add that I daily decline the opportunity or temptation of jumping on a remark made by somebody in the North. I should remind all my Unionist colleagues of that fact, bearing in mind that all kinds of remarks are made on different occasions, at different meetings and ceremonies when Members of the House could become very irritated but do not.
I am interested in building co-operation, not creating difficulties. I am interested in finding resolutions, not holes in various matters. I am interested in meaningful dialogue and moving matters forward and I am glad the parties to the talks acknowledged that today. They all went in, following yesterday's petition and Minister Andrews's statement explaining his position, but we must move on from that. I can understand people in Opposition wanting to remind the world that Minister Andrews went over what is our own line in an interview, one of about 22 he gave last week, but he has now corrected that position. I am sure it will not be the first or the last time he will have to do that. I am glad people have accepted that position and there was no mention of it in the talks this morning. People went about their business and reached a successful end to the plenary session.
Do I take it from the Taoiseach's extensive reply to my question that over the course of the last 48 hours he has had direct contact with David Trimble and has taken whatever steps he considers were necessary in the context of the points made by various spokespersons for the Unionist parties over the weekend, and the point of retraction and clarification the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, issued yesterday?
If the Taoiseach has no objection, there are three other Members offering and I will allow them to make brief supplementaries as we are coming to the end of questions to the Taoiseach. I will call Deputy De Rossa then Deputies Sargent and Donal Carey.
This is my first supplementary on these questions. Does the Taoiseach not agree that he should insist that this is the last time such a mistake will be made? Does he agree that this is the third occasion on which serious problems have been created for the negotiations, and that further such errors of judgment will only weaken the Irish Government's negotiating stance in these talks? Will he agree it is important efforts are made to ensure this is the last time? No one is expecting perfection and no one can guarantee this will never happen but we should send out the message from here that it will be the last time such mistakes are made. Commenting on Articles 2 and 3, the North-South bodies and his attempt to interfere in the judicial process between Germany and Britain in relation to extradition two weeks ago is something a Minister for Foreign Affairs should not be doing.
I want to allow other Members to contribute so I ask the Deputy to put a brief question.
I appreciate that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Will the Taoiseach agree it is time for Sinn Féin and the SDLP to join the forum in Northern Ireland to which they were elected particularly as we are encouraging all the parties involved in the negotiations in Northern Ireland to participate in the forum in the Republic? It would be a gesture of confidence building and goodwill if they were to take their seats in that forum. Also, will the Taoiseach agree that the changes announced by Minister Mo Mowlam yesterday in relation to the RUC are to be welcomed, namely, the change in the oath RUC members currently take and that the subtitle of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is to be changed to the Northern Ireland Police Service?
Where did Minister Andrews get the idea for his statement? I do not believe it came from the Stormont talks? More importantly, following his meeting on 28 November with the Northern parties — I regret all Northern parties were not invited — may I ask the Taoiseach if the idea of a second or Upper House for a Northern assembly to represent community groups as proposed by the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition was discussed? Will the Taoiseach comment on whether the forum might be an appropriate way to proceed in Dublin Castle? Community groups wishing to help with the peace process might find more of an opportunity to involve themselves through that?
The Taoiseach gave many replies about the various problems but why is he not prepared to say that the Minister for Foreign Affairs committed an indiscretion which he is now trying to reverse? It seems the Taoiseach is unwilling——
A question please, Deputy. We want to give the Taoiseach an opportunity to reply.
I am quite able to put the question. I am asking the Taoiseach, who has not given an answer, the reason he is not prepared to tell the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs committed an indiscretion.
I wish to reply to a number of issues. Deputy Quinn asked if I spoke directly to Mr. Trimble. I did not speak directly to him. We had our own contacts which we have built up. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, spoke to him on a number of occasions.
On the issue of mistakes, I would like to be able to say to Deputy De Rossa that I hope there will be no more difficulties in the talks until they are completed and that they will be signed up to, agreed and passed by the people North and South without further difficulties. I like those type of negotiations but I have not played a part in any of them.
It is called Christmas.
That is not how they happen in the real world, but if I find a solution I will put it forward.
The Taoiseach could make himself Minister for Foreign Affairs.
He nearly did.
The Minister, Deputy Andrews, does not seek controversy.
Surely the problem is that three serious errors of judgment have been made in a matter of weeks.
Let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption. Deputy De Rossa, please resume your seat. We have moved beyond questions to the Taoiseach.
On the occasion of the issue concerning Articles 2 and 3, people put forward an interpretation of what the Minister, Deputy Andrews, said in a written speech and then walked out. They walked in a few minutes later after he had clarified the position. The talks in the North cannot be compared to the talks we would have in a committee. More tension surrounds them and for that reason we all must be more careful, but I would not like to see a situation where every time I met someone from the North I would have to have a carefully prepared script. That is not how we should spend our time and we will not get anywhere by doing that. We are not and will not try to create difficulties.
The point has been well made on this issue, that there has been an argument since 1920 that the issue of a third Government would arise. That is why people may be over sensitive. People will recall from history many arguments about this in the 1925 agreement. People in the Unionist community are very sensitive about the third Government approach and that is why they reacted yesterday. They are concerned there might be something on our agenda that would move matters on to what was the old position of 1925, but that is not what we are at.
The Minister, Deputy Andrews, was wrong.
We have clarified that; we are not involved. What we are talking about, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, if you will allow me two minutes to say the following because it is worth saying, is a North-South body with Executive powers and co-ordinating decision making where the interests of the people, North and South, are shared in the same way as the European Council of Ministers makes decisions together and each participant is fully accountable in their jurisdictions, as a Government and elected body of which they are part and not outside of them.
Decision making is by consent.
Why did the Minister, Deputy Andrews, not know that?
Let us hear the Taoiseach without interruption.
Decisions can only be taken by consensus and there will be no mechanism to enable a combined Nationalist majority, North or South, to override strenuously held Unionist views without their agreement. Mr. Paisley who started this at the weekend in his own way is totally wrong in what he said. What the Minister, Deputy Andrews, said was used to make that stand up, but what he said was not along the lines of what I have said.
Deputy Sargent said that all parties from the North were not asked to that meeting. If he means they were not invited by way of an invitation card, nobody was asked in that manner. That form of invitation can create difficulties. If one issues an invitation to people who do not want to go, it is highly dangerous in a Northern context.
How could they go if they were not asked?
Everybody is asked to go and people will then say if they will not go. If we were to follow the Deputy's practice in relation to the North, there would be a big row.
They said they were not asked.
I am trying to explain that things do not happen in the normal way. When they said to the Deputy on his visit last week that they were not asked, they meant they did not get an official invitation. When I asked them if they had been asked, they said they had been asked but that they told the Deputy they did not have an official invitation. It is the way one asks in Northern Ireland.