John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body meeting on 30 March 1998. [8952/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, the Government has to promote public knowledge of the agreement concluded with the British Government and the Northern Ireland parties; if copies of the agreement will be circulated to all households in the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9271/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if President Clinton has indicated that he will visit Ireland before 22 May 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9420/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.
I addressed the 15th Plenary of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body in Cavan on 30 March and I am circulating a copy of my speech to the Deputies.
In relation to plans to promote public knowledge of the Agreement, a copy of the Agreement will be circulated to every household, and on a bilingual basis in Gaeltacht areas. Copies of the Agreement have already been made available to the public through post offices, libraries and Garda stations throughout the State and will be available on request.
A referendum commission is being established to provide information to the electorate in accordance with the provisions of the Referendum Act, 1998. The Government parties will mount a campaign in support of the Agreement and I hope all the parties who support the Agreement will do likewise. The Agreement is comprehensive and detailed and will involve change in a wide range of areas. When it has been endorsed by the people, the Government will do everything necessary to ensure all its elements are put in place and that it is implemented fully and effectively.
My understanding is that the White House is still considering whether President Clinton may pay a further visit to Ireland.
Has the Taoiseach expressed a view as to whether President Clinton should visit Ireland during the campaign?
My opinion was asked as to whether we could get general agreement among the parties on the matter. President Clinton's special adviser, Jim Steinberg, will come here next week to decide on the matter. The majority of concerns do not relate to our jurisdiction. Mr. Trimble and others have expressed the view that such a visit could create disharmony, but it has not been ruled out entirely. The view last week was that a visit after the referendum date and before entering the campaign for the assembly elections would be more acceptable. A balance will have to be worked out next week. Perhaps that would be a compromise.
That would be a better arrangement. Does the Taoiseach agree the assembly elections will be the most important of all the elections in practical terms? If we do not get a majority of people in both communities elected to the assembly who are willing to make the Agreement work, it will not work. There must be a willingness to make the arrangements work. The institutions will not operate without good will.
Will the Taoiseach address the issue of the status of members of the assembly who will designate themselves as not Nationalist or Unionist, but who opt for the other category and will have less influence in the operation of the voting arrangements than those who opt for Nationalist or Unionist status? Does the Taoiseach consider that in the longer term that could cause a difficulty in building new allegiances to the Agreement and to its operation rather than to ultimate aspirations which conflict?
I agree with the Deputy that the assembly elections are crucial. I believe everyone, even those diametrically opposed to it, will take part in the elections. If a large number of people who are opposed to the Agreement and the related institutional changes take part, it will be more difficult to secure a proper working relationship. That is a concern for all of us.
In terms of President Clinton's visit, the early date was suggested because it coincides with the G78 meetings in Birmingham. The later date may not be possible.
In the longer term it would be nice if the normal political positions of those in the administration and in opposition were democratic, like parliaments, assemblies or institutions in other jurisdictions, but I believe we are some time away from that. As the Deputy will appreciate, one of the difficulties with the Strand One discussions, in which we were not directly involved, related to a concern that majority decisions could not be made without reference to the considerable minorities within the assemblies. I hope in time the position will not have to be so designated.
Assuming we arrive at a time when the delineation of Unionist and Nationalist does not have such an impact and the balancing mechanisms we all agree are currently necessary are no longer required, what legal provision will be in place to amend the balancing mechanisms, since they are an integral part of an international agreement? Would it require common assent in both jurisdictions for that amendment to be made at a future date?
If it is decided a visit coinciding with President Clinton's visit to the UK is not suitable, it is crucial that we underscore the importance of the President's role in the process and that we are not seen to devalue the tremendous role played by him and his administration in arriving at the Agreement on Good Friday. When will the document be distributed to every household? There was confusion about that last week and in my local public library the first allocation was four copies. People are anxious for full information on this as quickly as possible.
In terms of the arrangements with the President, I have already made it clear that the people very much appreciate all he has done. The President has been helpful for so long and was deeply interested right up to the last hours of the Agreement when he was directly involved on the conference lines. He does not want any controversy.
We cleared the arrangements for the publication and distribution of the document and Supplementary Estimates were used to cover part of the cost involved. The remainder will have to be cleared shortly because this morning's figures were for the referendum commission and I am sorry if I misled the House with regard to them.
We have put everything in train. However, the printing is not a difficulty and can be done quickly. The Minister for Public Enterprise has been directly in touch with senior people in An Post about arrangements for distribution. While I am not sure of the date, it should happen over the next week or so.
What about the arrangements for the future?
All those arrangements are within the remit of the new assembly because they are part of Strand One which will be negotiated directly by the new assembly. I do not wish to say, having been well briefed on the fringe of those discussions, that we are likely to see changes in that regard over the next few years. However, it is the view of every Member that some day we will not have to designate as we do at present.
How will the changes come about?
The parties to the Agreement could make those changes.
Is the Taoiseach sure? It is an international agreement.
It is included in the Agreement but the parties to it will have to be allowed to structure their arrangements because many elements are not present. It will have to be done in conjunction with what is already in the Agreement and could not just be done in one day in the new assembly. My understanding is if they wish to make changes to operational arrangements and there is agreement, they can make them. Agreement means sufficient consensus, it could not be agreement by a majority. It would not be the case that the UUP and the DUP could come in some day and change them, a point that has been made by UUP representatives. However, the parties would not be so tied down that they could not make changes. I do not see such issues arising for a long time.
I refer to the information campaign. Apart from the issue of the text of the Agreement, does the Taoiseach have any plans for disseminating information about the changes in the Constitution? Will he consider the circulation of, for example, his speech or a compendium of extracts from speeches made in the House yesterday giving the rationale for the proposed changes in the Constitution in the context of the Agreement?
The Taoiseach will have to spend money.
I will do so in so far as I can but in terms of circulation, apart from expenditure, I am bound by the McKenna judgment.
Yesterday's Dáil debate could be circulated.
Yes, and I am sure I can circulate to Members a great deal of the legal information I have. That would hardly breach the judgment as presumably we are entitled to circulate what we say in the House.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider the strict interpretation the Government is placing on the limits imposed on it by the McKenna judgment and see if it is possible for future referendums, if not this one, to push the margins of this judgment out further and put it up to the courts to deal with the real world?
The Deputy knows my views on the matter.
What will the Taoiseach do about it?
In the last referendum when we looked at this, the noose was getting tighter rather than looser on foot of advice based on the judgment.
The Taoiseach is asking for too much legal advice.
Unfortunately, the Deputy knows how this happened.
The Deputy caused it.
It is not off my agenda. It is difficult to try to put forward one's views on important issues and be so restricted. The Deputy is asking that the matter should continue to be reviewed and that will be forced by the fact that it is very unsatisfactory.
Does the Taoiseach consider it absurd that the State may end up spending money to articulate the other side of the constitutional argument which flies in the face of the Agreement that has been negotiated and the overwhelming view of the House that it should be supported by the people? Will he reconsider my earlier suggestion with regard to the circulation of the material which was put on the record of the House yesterday explaining the rationale for the changes in the Constitution because there is a necessity to give an explanation to the public?
I will look at that.