Nora Owen
Question:5 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in the United Kingdom on 12 March 1998 with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at the EU summit on enlargement. [7114/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Official Engagements.
Nora Owen
Question:6 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the official engagements he undertook on his recent visit to Canada. [7116/98]
Nora Owen
Question:7 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of the United States in Washington on 17 March 1998, with particular reference to the role of the Clinton administration in encouraging the peace process in Northern Ireland; and the initiatives, if any, which will arise from this trip. [7117/98]
Nora Owen
Question:8 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if he invited the President of the United States to visit Ireland before or after he attends the G7 summit in Britain in May 1998. [7118/98]
Nora Owen
Question:9 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach the persons included in the party which accompanied him on his trip to Canada and the United States for the St. Patrick's Day events. [7119/98]
Nora Owen
Question:10 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach the meetings, if any, he had with industrialists in Canada and the United States to encourage inward industrial investment in Ireland; and the prospects, if any, for investment following the visit. [7120/98]
Nora Owen
Question:11 Mrs. Owen asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meetings with the leaders and representatives of Northern Ireland political parties when he met them in Washington at the St. Patrick's Day events. [7121/98]
John Bruton
Question:12 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of the written agreement, if any, he has with Deputy Harry Blaney regarding amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. [7125/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:13 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with the British Prime Minister in London on 12 March 1998. [7129/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:14 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for a more direct personal involvement in the inter-party talks in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7130/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:15 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he has concluded a written agreement with Deputy Harry Blaney which gave certain undertakings in regard to Government policy on possible changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in the context of an overall settlement in Northern Ireland; if so, if he will publish the text of the agreement; if he made the British Government or the parties involved in the Northern Ireland talks aware of the agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7131/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:16 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his visit to the United States and Canada. [7132/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of his recent visit to the United States and Canada. [7232/98]
Joe Higgins
Question:18 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his political discussions during his recent visit to North America. [7233/98]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:19 D'fhiafraigh Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin den Taoiseach an bhfuil sé chun tuairisc a thabhairt ar a thuras go dtí na Stáit Aontaithe le linn na Féile Pádraig. [7242/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:20 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the President of the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7243/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:21 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he met with other participants in the multi-party talks process over St. Patrick's Day; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7244/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:22 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach when he intends publishing the proposed changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7245/98]
Michael Ring
Question:62 Mr. Ring asked the Taoiseach if he will confirm that the Joint Government Framework Document remains the negotiating position of both Governments in the talks process. [7316/98]
Michael Ring
Question:63 Mr. Ring asked the Taoiseach if he expects agreement to be reached at the all-party peace talks; if so, when this will happen; and the probable date for referenda in Northern Ireland and the Republic. [7317/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 22, inclusive, and 62 and 63 together.
My visit to Canada and Washington for St. Patrick's Day was very positive and I hope will help to progress the negotiations towards agreement. I will circulate the list of people who accompanied me on this trip with my answer.
My visit to Toronto began on 13 March with the Ireland Fund of Canada lunch at the Metro Convention Centre, where I took the opportunity to thank the fund for its continuing efforts to advance peace, reconciliation and socio-economic development in all parts of Ireland. I set out the Irish Government's position and expectations in regard to the multi-party negotiations on Northern Ireland and expressed the Irish Government's appreciation for the tremendous contribution of General John de Chastelain as, inter alia, one of the independent chairmen of the peace talks. That evening I attended a dinner hosted by the Honourable Hilary Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, who is also the first Irish born Lieutenant Governor of the Province and a founder of the Ireland Fund of Canada. While at the Apostles of Ireland of Toronto breakfast on the Saturday morning, I had the opportunity to meet a wide range of business people and industrialists, including Mr. Matthew Barrett, Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, and to speak on the multi-party negotiations and on our hopes for securing a settlement in the historical context of the commemoration of the 1798 Rebellion and of the ideals of the United Irishmen. That evening, I attended the Grand Marshall's Ball at the Hilton Hotel, where I acknowledged and welcomed the important economic and cultural relationship that exists between Ireland and Canada and welcomed the appointment of Mr. Ted McConnell as Honorary Consul General of Ireland in Toronto. Before departing for Washington I attended the 10th Anniversary St. Patrick's Day parade in Toronto.
While in Washington I took the opportunity to visit a Co-operation North conference of young political leaders from Ireland, North and South, before meeting with Senator Kennedy on Capitol Hill. In my meeting with Senator Kennedy, I thanked him for his dedication and support for the peace process and we discussed recent developments. I also had lunch with the Washington Post editorial board and took the opportunity to give a number of television interviews. I attended the American Ireland Fund Dinner on Monday night where I again expressed our appreciation of the significant support given by the fund and paid tribute to the work of all the people connected with the fund. I also outlined the position and our hopes in regard to the multi-party negotiations.
On St. Patrick's Day I met President Clinton in the morning at the White House and discussed recent developments and the outlook for the endgame negotiations, before presenting him with shamrock and thanking him for his tremendous contribution in supporting and encouraging the peace process. I attended a lunch hosted by Speaker Gingrich which was attended by President Clinton, Dr. Mo Mowlam and by leaders of, or spokespersons for, all the Northern Ireland political parties engaged in the negotiations. At that lunch I took the opportunity to pay tribute to the leaders of the parties who, despite many difficulties and uncertainties, had stuck with the talks process over the months. That evening I returned to the White House for a reception hosted by President Clinton where again I spoke of our hopes for the peace process and of the intertwined histories of our countries. Following this, I attended a reception at the Ambassador's residence. Before returning to Ireland on 18 March, I also had the opportunity to meet over breakfast with the Ireland America Economic Advisory Board. This was my first opportunity, as Taoiseach, to meet with the members of the board and the discussion focused primarily on developments in the peace process, but particularly on the requirements to underpin Ireland's economic success into the next millennium. I took this opportunity to pay tribute to the board members for a most stimulating and thought provoking session, which will be followed up actively.
While in Washington I met bilaterally and informally with many of the leaders and representatives of Northern Ireland parties. I urged them to seize the opportunity for peace and to move forward from their stated positions to make the necessary compromises to ensure a settlement can be reached by Easter. This is a message which was strongly supported by President Clinton, who stressed the importance of leadership and of being strong enough to make principled compromise and made the important point that no one would be the loser if agreement is reached. He also pointed to lessons from the engagement of former enemies in the Middle East peace process. While in Washington, President Clinton acknowledged that Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith would be stepping down in July and I would like to take this opportunity to express again, as I did already in Washington to President Clinton and publicly, my personal appreciation and the gratitude of this House for the significant contribution made by Ambassador Kennedy Smith to the search for peace.
Throughout my visit to the US, I took the opportunity to express our continued appreciation of the deep and enduring bond that exists between our two countries, and the dynamic role played by the US in helping us on the road to achieving a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland. I also expressed our sincere gratitude for the tremendous skill, patience and wisdom shown by Senator George Mitchell in steering this complex and often frustrating process. With regard to a possible invitation to President Clinton to visit Ireland, any such visit would, in accordance with normal practice, be announced in parallel at the appropriate time.
I met Prime Minister Blair in London on 12 March in the margins of the EU summit where we discussed the rate of progress in the talks over the past month. We are united in our determination to drive this process forward and believe that all the parties can meet our shared objectives if they have the courage and political will to make the necessary compromises. I am bending all my energies towards reaching an agreement by Easter, and, regarding any plans for direct personal involvement in the talks, I will not, of course, fail to take any step I judge to be potentially effective. At the meeting, and in subsequent contacts with Prime Minister Blair, we agreed we should focus on reaching agreement in time for the Easter deadline and assessed the detailed work required to be done to ensure that goal is achieved.
In terms of the Joint Framework Document, the Government remains committed to the positions set out in it as our best judgment of where agreement might lie, a view shared with the British Government, as declared in the joint paper on strand two tabled by the two Governments in London on 23 February.
With regard to amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, as I stated in the House, I will be anxious to keep the House informed about all parts of any agreement, including the constitutional aspects, when it is possible to do so. Ultimately, the people will make the decision on any changes to the Constitution, following the enactment of any constitutional amendment Bill by the Oireachtas and, accordingly, it is my intention that the House should be informed in plenty of time. As I stated, I discussed certain priorities, including Articles 2 and 3, with Deputies who support the Government, including Deputy Blaney. As I said then, and have said publicly many times, any proposed changes to Articles 2 and 3 would be made in the context of balanced constitutional change and of a satisfactory overall agreement, and only in that context.
I feel positively weary having listened to the Taoiseach's round of engagements and commend him on his resilience and stamina and the fact he still has his figure after all those receptions and meetings with the apostles. Were all 12 apostles at the meeting or was one missing?
There were 200 present.
I also pay tribute to Mrs. Kennedy Smith, the US ambassador, on her time in Ireland. She has the longest record of attendance here as an ambassador and has been significantly involved in many ways in the peace process. On Question No. 12, did the Taoiseach share with Prime Minister Blair the terms of the written agreement which Deputy Blaney says he has with the Taoiseach? In an article on 12 March the Deputy stated he had a written agreement dated 24 June 1997. Did the Taoiseach indicate to the Prime Minister what was in the agreement and will he indicate to the House what is in it? In keeping with the spirit of consensus across the House on Northern Ireland issues, does the Taoiseach think the Opposition should also be privy to the agreement?
I thank the Deputy for her kind remarks. Any changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution will be in terms of an overall settlement.
Deputy Blaney stated in a newspaper article on 12 March he had a signed agreement dated 24 June 1997 to the effect that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution would not be amended until there was a fully agreed overall settlement of the national question. Does Deputy Blaney have such a signed agreement and does it in any way tie the hands of the Taoiseach or the negotiators in regard to Articles 2 and 3? If there is nothing to hide then the Taoiseach should place the agreement in the Library so that we all can see it.
As I said, I exchange correspondence with Deputies and it is not necessary to lay these before the House. On what Deputy Blaney stated, I did not read the article but I heard the content of it. My understanding with him relates to the programme for Government. The understanding of the House is that no one is talking about changing anything unless it is in the context of an overall settlement. That is the position. This is precisely what I said at my meeting with Deputy Blaney, the minutes of which I countersigned with him. I restated that constitutional change would occur only in the context of an overall settlement dealing with all aspects in Northern Ireland. That does not compromise anyone.
The Taoiseach is confirming that there is a written agreement between him and Deputy Blaney which he countersigned. If there is such a document perhaps the Taoiseach will let us see it so that there can be no confusion about it——
There is no confusion.
——and in a spirit of agreement across the floor of the House. We do now know what is in the document which might have an effect on how Articles 2 and 3 are dealt with.
There is nothing else in it.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the willingness of this House and, subsequently, of the people of this State to agree to an amendment of Articles 2 and 3 is a litmus test of our willingness to have a long-term peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland? Equally, there is a need for others to change and amend their positions. For example, there is a need for Unionists to accept North-South bodies and for Nationalists in Northern Ireland to accept an internal assembly. This is necessary if an agreement is to be reached and, therefore, it is vital that all Members of the House, and the people of the State, be persuaded that an amendment of Articles 2 and 3 is essential to a balanced agreement.
I agree. As I stated on numerous occasions at Question Time, we need to move away from talking to deciding the many matters which must be decided. In the context of an overall settlement the key issues are an assembly in Northern Ireland, a body where the parties in the North can work together and the North-South bodies which are being discussed today. We must find a way of making these executive bodies meaningful and ensure they function properly. We have long indicated our acceptance of constitutional change. There are also the changes to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, by way of an amendment to section 75 or a re-enactment of the legislation. All these matters must be dealt with alongside the equality agenda which is extremely important to Nationalists. There is also the important issue of policing on which some progress has been made and the other confidence building issues which have been on the agenda for some time. There is also the issue of prisoners which cannot be left out of the final settlement. These are the key issues which must be dealt with and they all form part of the overall settlement.
It is never a difficulty in this House but I stress again that one cannot pick elements of the agreement and read them in isolation while ignoring other elements. They are all part of the overall agreement. As someone who has been deeply involved in the negotiations, my estimation is that if one matter falls they all fall. All are part of a substantive, comprehensive agenda and all have to be agreed.
(Dublin West): In the Taoiseach's discussions with Mr. Blair and the various parties in the United States did he cover the timetable for the referenda which will occur in this State arising from the Northern Ireland talks and the Amsterdam Treaty? Does he agree it would be wrong to hold the referenda on these two vital issues on the same day because that would not allow for a proper, democratic debate on either matter, both in the Dáil and among the population? Does he therefore agree that to allow for a proper discussion on these two complex issues the referenda must be held on different days?
I did not discuss that with either President Clinton or the Prime Minister Mr. Blair because it is a matter for ourselves. In terms of how things will progress one is certain only that one is uncertain. The Amsterdam Treaty referendum will probably be held on 22 May — that has not been completely finalised but that date is likely. It is too early to say what will happen to any possible referendum on Northern Ireland. I hope it will be held in May but I cannot be certain about that.
I noted the Deputy's remark about not holding both referenda on one day but some people have suggested that it would be a good idea to hold them together. No decision has been made and it will not arise until we see how things develop between now and Easter.
(Dublin West): What is the Taoiseach's thinking on the point that a proper democratic discussion requires the referenda to be held on separate days?
It is not a question of my view, the Government must ultimately decide. I will consult with the groups actively involved in the European referendum campaign, who are working hard to ensure that it is passed, before I make a decision.
(Dublin West): There are groups working hard on both sides.
I have a view but until we see how the Northern Ireland talks progress it is too early to worry about that.
I take a contrary view to that expressed in earlier comments. Does the Taoiseach agree that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas? Is it the Government's aim to reintegrate the national territory, as has been its stated purpose for many years? Given that the 1937 Constitution's claim of right to the island is not enforced, and that its non-enforcement is explicitly stated in Article 3 of that Constitution, does the Taoiseach recognise that it is the British claim which is enforced by both political and military means? What changes, therefore, has the Government proposed in British legislation, including the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 and the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act, 1973, to remove the undemocratic veto which the British Government has exercised in this island, where a minority has the opportunity to determine the overall political make-up? Having heard some recent comments, specifically during the by-election campaigns — I was in Limerick when the Taoiseach was there — I am strongly of the view that any dilution or diminution of Irish sovereignty by amending Articles 2 and 3 by the insertion of what is spuriously referred to as a claim of consent, basically a unionist veto, will be vigorously opposed by nationalist opinion, not only on this island but internationally.
I will not talk about words in drafts because they will be part of the negotiations. I assure the Deputy that we are all trying to find a settlement and, within that settlement, I am conscious that any changes we have made to our Constitution — this has been stated for many years, particularly since the 1990 period — have to be balanced constitutional changes which means that the Government of Ireland Act will have to be amended also. We must achieve a balanced, comprehensive settlement.
The Taoiseach has to spell out what the balance is.
I thank the Taoiseach for his assurance but will he agree that some of us in this House have applied what we would describe as a self-denying ordnance in relation to what we would say on matters of sensitivity in Northern Ireland? That ordnance might be applied by other people in the House, including members of his own party who have recently made some remarks. Also, will the Taoiseach agree that part of the reason for having a local assembly in Northern Ireland, and the local executive elected from that assembly, is that by working together tackling the social, political, economic and other problems afflicting the people of Northern Ireland, people of different traditions will be brought closer together and that will bring about reconciliation? Will he agree that in circumstances where people are sharing power and responsibility, the more power and responsibility they share, the better? Will the Taoiseach agree it is illogical that in 1998, when we celebrate the United Irishmen and Wolfe Tone, one of whose basic ideals was to cut the connection with Britain, we should not be looking to give back to Irishmen — Catholic, Protestant and dissenter —— as much power from Britain as they can operate together? Finally, in view of a British Government report yesterday on voting abuse in Northern Ireland, and its conclusion that it can do nothing about this problem in advance of a referendum, will the Taoiseach again bring to the attention of the British authorities the fact that the forthcoming referendum will create opportunities and temptations for vote abuse greater than anything experienced before because of the constitutional implications of the referendum? Assiduous efforts ought to be made, therefore, to stamp out vote abuse which is absolutely wrong.
To deal with the last question first, the Deputy made that point strongly during Question Time on a number of occasions recently.
I have personal experience of the issue on both sides.
I passed on the Deputy's views and we also had an opportunity to have a brief conversation on them. I take the Deputy's point and I have raised those matters elsewhere. Deputy Currie referred to co-operation and goodwill. We are now just a few weeks from Easter and I remain encouraged, from the conversations I had last week in the United States, that people will make an effort. We will have to wait to see whether that effort leads to a comprehensive, fair and balanced agreement. The Government will do all it can to assist the parties as much as possible to come to an agreement. We can do no more than that. Under the three stranded approach that has been in existence since the time of the former Secretary of State, Mr. Brooke, in the early 1990s, and earlier, we can, with the parties in the North, build up an assembly where the powers currently devolved to Westminster will return to where they should have been in the first place, namely, with the people of Northern Ireland who will work through those issues which directly affect the lives of people in the North.
Other matters could then be dealt with in terms of the North-South dimension with a proper, powerful and dynamic executive body which could deal with issues on their merits collectively with members representative of these Houses. While it would not happen overnight, I have no doubt that, in time, such a structure would mean that the island of Ireland would be far better served in the hands of the people of Ireland. We would see the benefits of that very quickly in a way which we have never seen before. I am convinced of that.
I continually restate and debate that position and I have not heard any arguments by any of the parties, regardless of their persuasion or what they might have said in the past, which make a good case against it. It is another matter to see that they all agree and sign up to it but we must continue to try to convince them to so do. I cannot see a better solution. Any other solution would not lead us to consent but would continue down the road of dissent, difficulties and troubles. I hope it would not lead to violence but that is the way it has inevitably gone for hundreds of years.
On behalf of my party leader, Deputy Quinn, I join with the Taoiseach in his comments to the US President on the excellent work of the US Ambassador to Ireland, Jean Kennedy Smith.
In regard to Question No. 21, the Taoiseach said he had met "some" party leaders and spokespersons. Did he meet Mr. Trimble? If so, does he share the optimism reflected in the newspapers about Mr. Trimble's view on all-Ireland or cross-Border bodies?
In regard to Question No. 22, it is essential for the House to be given, as soon as possible, the views of the Government on the proposed changes to Articles 2 and 3 and any other changes required to reach a compromise and settlement. We do not want to prejudice the ongoing work on reaching an agreement but, as the Taoiseach can imagine, it is essential for the House to be in a position to debate these issues as early as possible so that we can bring the country with us, particularly in view of some of the comments made by certain people last weekend.
I thank the Deputy for his constructive remarks. Yes, I met David Trimble. Yes, I welcomed the recognition in his speech to the Ulster Unionist Council at the weekend that North-South bodies would greatly enhance co-operation between the North and the South, would be enormously liberating for the people of Ireland as a whole and could potentially mean an end to our internal cold war. I thought that was helpful. I suppose he said a few other things which I did not consider very helpful but one cannot have it every way.
It was always thus.
I tend to look at the positive points in all these matters and ignore the negative ones.
In regard to what I said earlier, I know the House will understand that because all the agreement stands together no one part can be taken in isolation — if one part falls it all falls. However, I will communicate with the party leaders and the House at the earliest date possible. The House will ultimately be communicated with anyway if there is an agreement in that a referendum Bill would have to be passed by the House.
The time for Taoiseach's questions has expired but I will allow final supplementaries from Deputies De Rossa and Owen. I trust the Deputies will be brief.
In regard to Question No. 14, does the Taoiseach intend to participate directly in the negotiations over the coming weeks, in an effort to achieve agreement? Does he accept that the principle of consent is a democratic one and there in nothing anti-democratic about accepting the principle that those who are to be governed must agree to be governed?
With regard to the first question, I do not know whether it will arise. If it was helpful I would. I believe the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, would take the same view. However, nothing is definite at this stage.
With regard to the second question, this House has acknowledged the principle of consent since the constitutional review group deliberated in 1967. What was said and written then is similar to my views today.
The Taoiseach met the Ireland American economic advisory board which I understand is preparing a report on private investment in Ireland. When does the Taoiseach hope to have the report? What kind and scale of investment is envisaged? What conditions would be attached? Will it cover areas that are not open to private investment, such as the provision of sewerage and water facilities and refuse dumps?
The body in question is an advisory board to the Taoiseach of the day. It has served a number of Taoisigh. The value of the board principally derives from the practical experience of its members who are heads of major financial and manufacturing organisations. They regularly travel to and from Ireland and many of them hold investments here, such as through the IFSC. They hold strong and passionate views. I last met them when I was Minister for Finance. We discussed the issue of venture capital for small businesses and how that can help them grow.
Given that we will not have the same access to EU Structural Funds for capital purposes we should look at the private investment initiatives used in many other countries. Many of the schemes which operate in these countries are designed on the Irish financial system. Our banks operate many of them, in the UK and elsewhere.
The members of the board seek to advise on how we could usefully operate such initiatives in the period ahead and engage in what would be considered to be both productive investment and infrastructural investment projects. I take the view that this will be a must after 2006, if not before. Other countries have been engaged in these activities for many years. We will have to look at them and agree on the best model. The board members will at least help us to consider the alternatives.
When does the Taoiseach expect to receive the views of the board?
It is a matter of exchanging views. The board has a bank of data advice which is available to us at any time.