Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 May 1998

Vol. 490 No. 7

Ceisteanna—Questions. - Ministerial Meetings.

John Bruton

Question:

4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with members of the south Armagh Farmers and Residents Committee. [10967/98]

John Bruton

Question:

5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the leadership of Sinn Féin. [10968/98]

John Bruton

Question:

6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to meet the President of the United States of America in London in May 1998. [11340/98]

Proinsias De Rossa

Question:

7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for a meeting with President Clinton when he visits Europe later this month. [11342/98]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

83 Caoimhghin Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the South Armagh Farmers and Residents Committee on 29 April 1998; the representations, if any, he has made to the British Government on the demilitarisation of south Armagh; and the progress made on this issue. [11330/98]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, and 83 together.

I met a delegation representing the south Armagh Farmers and Residents Committee on 29 April last. The delegation was led by Deputy Ó Caoláin. They conveyed to me at first hand their experiences of the intense security presence in south Armagh and the disruption and loss it causes. I raised the matter with the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at our meeting in the margins of the European Council in Brussels on 1 May. I conveyed the serious concerns as expressed to me and I emphasised the need for de-escalation in line with the greatly improved security situation. The Prime Minister noted these concerns and undertook to examine the situation.

I reported last week on my recent meetings with Sinn Féin. No further meetings are scheduled. The question of a meeting with President Clinton is being kept under review.

With regard to Question No. 5 is the Taoiseach aware of the sensitivities and concerns felt by relatives of the victims of paramilitary violence about the scenes at the Sinn Féin ard fheis last week involving people who had been convicted of serious offences? Does the Taoiseach feel he was reported in context on television yesterday when he was quoted as saying that those who criticised what happened at the weekend have been criticising everything for all of his life and that he believed that people concerned at the impact of such scenes seemed to have nothing to say other than "no"? Does the Taoiseach accept that there are many people who are concerned about this matter and its impact on the pro-agreement campaign in Northern Ireland who are not negative and who seek a resounding endorsement of the Agreement in both jurisdictions? Will the Taoiseach reflect further on the matter in this light?

I will repeat what I said in numerous interviews yesterday. As I said in my statement on Sunday night, I hold no brief for triumphalism and my political career proves that. Amid the recriminations that have emerged in the North we should not forget that republican and loyalist prisoners have been a significant force for peace and agreement. The Government is and will be prepared to deal with dissidents in the strongest possible way.

With regard to the point I made about people saying "no" I was responding to a question raised about what Mr. Bob McCartney said on "Morning Ireland" yesterday morning. I made the point that on a daily basis he continues to attack the UUP and others who are in favour of the Agreement but he never puts forward an alternative. In the civilised campaigns for the referenda there is an obligation on such people to put forward their alternative. In the absence of doing so they are being negative.

With regard to Deputy Bruton's point about the relatives of victims of violence, I am sensitive to those who have been the victims of paramilitary violence. I have met many of their representative groups. At the weekend I met some of the families of those who are missing, whose plight Deputy Currie raises frequently in the House. I continue to raise the issue of missing people with republican sources and of punishment beatings and other unacceptable behaviour in Nationalist and loyalist areas, although more recently in Nationalist areas. These issues must be considered together and argued against.

Does the Taoiseach agree on reflection that the comments of Mr. David Ervine of the PUP, for example, that those who are concerned about the scenes which occurred at the weekend are not confined to those who have said "no" all their lives and that people who have said "yes" and who have worked hard for an agreement are also concerned about the triumphalist scenes? Does he agree that his remarks should be exclusively interpreted as referring to one politician and not to others who are also concerned that sensitivity should be shown in the way each side comports itself between now and polling day?

Does the Taoiseach recall that I advised him and others to ensure that in this campaign everything which is said, even in response to questions, should be addressed to both communities in Northern Ireland and that one cannot address one community in isolation from the other? There is a heavy responsibility on the Taoiseach to ensure that everything he says is conducive to getting a large "yes" vote in Unionist and Nationalist communities in Northern Ireland and not only in one community.

All my remarks are well considered. When asked a question about prisoners, I answered it in the way I just said and without triumphalism. I first raised the question of triumphalism on Sunday night in an interview. While that is neither here nor there, I am glad others have used the same word. It is wrong to engage in triumphalism.

As regards Mr. McCartney, I have an obligation to sell the Agreement, North and South, and to defend it. I also have an obligation to respond to a person who misinterprets the Agreement and to clarify matters. It is a fair, balanced and comprehensive Agreement but obviously Mr. McCartney does not agree. I will not remain silent for ten days and watch him misinterpret and mislead decent Unionists with whom I have been glad to engage in recent years. Yesterday morning in an interview, he misinterpreted all three strands of the Agreement and cleverly crossed the strands at various points. There seems to be a difficulty in Northern Ireland about somebody raising a voice against him. I have an obligation — which I hope will be helpful — to the Unionist parties not to give a free run to a person who totally misinterprets what was agreed.

I fully agree with what the Taoiseach said about Mr. Bob McCartney's negative approach. Does he agree there are many supporters of the Agreement in Northern Ireland, Unionist and Nationalist, who are in favour of prisoners being released and recognise that they have played a useful role in both communities by supporting the peace process, but who are anxious to ensure the handling of prisoner releases is not of a nature as to cause needless further hurt to victims and their relatives? Does he agree it should be handled by the Government in a way which is not capable of being stage managed by people who do not come under its control and which is not, as in the case of this weekend's Sinn Féin ard-fheis, counterproductive and antipathetic to the interests of all in this House who seek a resounding "yes" vote in both referenda?

I agree with the Deputy. It could have been handled in a calmer way and it was my understanding that it would have been.

Does the Taoiseach accept that, whatever his intention — and I have no doubt his intention was entirely honourable and correct in terms of criticising Bob McCartney — the perception in Northern Ireland was that he was criticising all Unionist spokespersons and he should take the opportunity today to correct that impression?

Does he agree it should not be underestimated that it is extremely difficult for the Unionist community in Northern Ireland to accept the bona fides of Sinn Féin and the IRA? Everybody in the House welcomes the decisions of Sinn Féin and the IRA over recent weeks on the Agreement. However, does he agree it is extremely important that we do everything we can on this side of the Border, particularly on Thursday when all party leaders in the House will present a case for a "yes" vote on the Agreement and the Amsterdam Treaty? Does he also agree we should reassure the Unionist community that this State, similar to the British State, has no strategic or selfish interest with regard to Northern Ireland, that we are amending our Constitution in a way which incorporates the principle of consent for the people of Northern Ireland, that they have nothing to fear from this State, but on the contrary they have everything to gain by voting "yes" for the Agreement?

Deputies will appreciate that, with much of the media following this matter, every day I do several interviews, particularly as all parties are now trying to hold meetings, question and answer sessions and public events to sell the "yes" vote. Anybody who listened to the full four and a half minute interview yesterday would realise it was entirely obvious whom I was talking about. Unfortunately, I did not edit it.

The Taoiseach does not write the headlines.

It was edited in a such way that perhaps people may have interpreted it differently.

Do not blame me, blame RTE.

RTE did not edit it; it was another television station.

The words were said.

The words were said but the question was also answered in the context of a four and a half minute interview.

It was not today or yesterday that we started to live with sub-editors.

No, but at Sunday's meeting very useful comments were made in terms of the Unionist community about the years of violence and the horrible acts that were carried out. I understand how people who fought against this feel, having met hundreds of them, but we continually take up just one or two points to form the next headline. Then somebody is rung up to have a go, etc. That would be normal if it was a general election but this is a referendum. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet four non-domestic channels, but they were only concerned with what mischief and argument they could introduce into this campaign.

I spent the day explaining the sensitivities to people as I have done on several occasions. I welcome media interest in the campaign, but do not want to see what ball can be hopped between any two politicians, North and South. This is more important than that. I have taken a number of examples of clips from the weekend which I intend bringing to the attention of the people involved because we have been dealing with this issue of life and death for too long. I am not talking about issues involving me — I will handle myself — but those involving what happened at some conferences. If people are going to give a view, they should give a balanced one. I raise this point because I am aware that, following the G8 meeting at the weekend, approximately 25 channels will beam into the country to follow the events of the remaining days of the campaign. Therefore, we must be sensitive in the way the campaign is handled.

Was the Government specifically asked to release the Balcombe Street four? If so, by whom? If the Sinn Féin leadership made the request, did they give any undertakings? I took it from the Taoiseach's reply to a supplementary question that their behaviour was contrary to his understanding of what would happen. Did he believe they would behave differently? Did the Irish Government consult the British Government in terms of a co-ordinated policy on the release of prisoners to ensure a substantial "yes" vote at the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis?

As people have called for on a number of occasions, it was felt there should be more balanced approach to the release of prisoners. There was a balanced approach on this occasion in terms of the British and Irish Governments releasing prisoners. There were requests for prisoner releases from the Sinn Féin leadership.

Was there a specific request for the release of the Balcombe Street four?

They asked for the release of prisoners, not just the Balcombe Street four.

Did they specifically ask for the release of the Balcombe Street four?

They probably did, in that they named a number of prisoners. There were different groups involved. In regard to the Deputy's final question, I understood it was going to be far more low key.

Did they give an undertaking?

It was not a question of getting an undertaking. From what was stated, I did not believe it was going to be an exercise in triumphalism.

Will the Taoiseach reflect on the reaction to what he said last night and in his Arbour Hill speech? Does he believe the adage that when one is explaining, one is losing and that, therefore, he should be careful to modulate every answer he gives? He should bear in mind that there are two audiences in Northern Ireland, both of which should be encouraged to vote "yes". He must address both audiences in all his comments.

I contend I am doing that, and doing it very well. I am not prepared, however, to allow people in one State to say the Republic of Ireland is agreeing to things to which it is not. I am not prepared to allow people interpret things outside the Agreement. I will not allow people to exaggerate and imagine things are in the Agreement that are not in it. I will not sit around like a dummy listening to people misinterpreting the Agreement. I will correct them when necessary. Having said that, I will make sure the necessary balance is maintained. I will be as helpful as I can to the UUP, the Alliance Party and others in the North who are correctly interpreting the Agreement as negotiated.

I do not believe anyone is asking the Taoiseach to be silent on issues that are being misrepresented. Does he agree, however, that when he is responding to misrepresentation or criticising a particular individual or party he should indicate the criticism is specific to that person or party rather than general? That should be the case regardless of whether he is referring to the republican side, loyalists, Unionists or others. In Northern Ireland the decommissioning issue is one of the greatest problems for the Ulster Unionist Party in urging a "yes" vote because Unionists bore the brunt of the death and destruction carried out by republican paramilitaries and are therefore suspicious. Given that, could he indicate to Sinn Féin through whatever public or private channels are open to him that it should show it is prepared seriously to address this issue within the context of the Agreement, and that it is not enough for it to say it is not a matter for that party? He should also remind Sinn Féin that in 1995 both Mr. Martin McGuinness and the party's submission to the Mitchell body on decommissioning indicated that the party could speak authoritatively on the issue. It is necessary to reassure the Unionist community in voting for the Agreement that everyone who supports it is committed to its full implementation.

Everyone is concerned about decommissioning but it is not the only issue and perhaps it gets far too much focus.

There may well be far too much focus on it from our point of view. However, there was only one bomb in Dublin in the early 1970s whereas half a dozen towns in Northern Ireland have been repeatedly destroyed, thousands of people there were murdered and tens of thousands were maimed, largely from the Unionist community. We on this side cannot say there is too much emphasis on the issue because for them this is literally a matter of life and death.

We have to consider all aspects of the Agreement but it is an important issue. My remarks last Friday week and over that weekend were widely welcomed by the Unionists, the British Government and other parties in Northern Ireland. I stated that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons is an essential part of the settlement; if the Agreement is to work and all parties are to participate, weapons must be put out of commission for good. How the weapons are put out of use is a matter for discussion under the Agreement but it cannot be avoided — that is clear from the document. Anyone taking part in the executive must pledge commitment to non-violence and to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and this obviously would not be compatible with groups remaining active and armed. Sinn Féin and the loyalists have signed up to a commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and have promised to use any influence they have — which is considerable — to remove these arms within the two year period, and that must be honoured.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the revulsion in the North, not only among Unionists but among Nationalists, at the scenes of triumphalism at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis? These scenes were shown in greater detail on Ulster Television than on RTE and they are having a profound negative effect. The people concerned should be warned that there should be no repetition of that.

With reference to the Taoiseach's reported remarks, as someone who was in the North over the weekend I can tell him it was not understood that he was referring to Mr. Bob McCartney when he talked about people who have said negative things for all of the Taoiseach's political life, because Mr. McCartney has not been in politics all that long. There may be some truth in the old Northern adage: "Whatever you say, say nothing". That advice is applicable on many occasions and while it may be difficult to follow when one is being door-stepped, perhaps the Taoiseach should remember it.

I do not know what remark Deputy Currie heard over the weekend because I did not make it until yesterday afternoon. The only remark I made at the weekend was to quote comments made by Dr. Paisley in 1968, 1978, 1988 and 1998, in each of which he said "no". I quoted directly from him and also quoted Mr. Trimble's positive remarks. It is useful for us to remember that context.

It is good to have that clarified.

I have no difficulty doing that. I disagree with people who say we should be silent during the campaign — I think we must be more vocal. The polls from the North show there is still a high percentage of people in the "doubtful" category, for one reason or another. The opinion poll does not give any information to indicate they are moving one way or the other. I saw the result of the poll so that I do not know from where that spin comes. That people are doubtful means there is a requirement to explain matters.

On the question of prisoners I recall, after Christmas when Dr. Mo Mowlam visited the prison, the reaction of people, the graffiti, the signs on the walls and the reaction of loyalist prisoners. I know how that was interpreted in many parts of the community and how things were interpreted last Sunday as well. I am very conscious of that. That is why, as I said to Deputy Quinn earlier, the triumphalism inherent in these things is not good.

What we are endeavouring to do, as a result of this Agreement, is to ensure that all prisoners renounce violence for good so that the communities and the villages which have been bombed and attacked can have a different future. We need to convince people North and South, during the next ten days, of the importance of voting "yes" and supporting a comprehensive, fair and balanced agreement in a substantial way rather than getting hung up on words here or there because that is not what this Agreement is about.

Is the Taoiseach aware that in the Unionist community, notwithstanding the requirement in the Agreement that the participants to the Assembly and to the Executive would have to give an undertaking to renounce violence, there is already a requirement for such a commitment by those who take their seats on local assemblies and local councils throughout the North and that, on occasion, violence has occurred when Sinn Féin representatives had signed those undertakings? Just as the release of the prisoners was a necessary confidence-building measure to assuage some of the fears of the Sinn Féin delegates and members of that political grouping, does he recognise that between now and 22 May — and perhaps even more importantly between now and 25 June — there is a serious need for substantial confidence-building measures from the Republic to address the real concerns of the Unionist community? Will the Taoiseach give an undertaking as to the measures he envisages in this regard?

Confidence-building measures are necessary for all communities. It is important that we display to the Unionist and loyalist communities our commitment to negotiating and implementing the Agreement as laid down. Within that Agreement there are legislative, structural and constitutional matters to which we are committed and which we have to implement.

We have to show clearly to those communities that we will implement them. There are several issues within Departments which are important to people in Border regions. Departments are co-operating on numerous important European matters, which have been highlighted by Unionist politicians, every one of which, while small individually, is important. The only time I receive correspondence from all MEPs in the North, including Dr. Paisley, is on European matters. Like previous Governments we always give serious attention to attempts to give satisfaction on these issues. They are the kind of confidence building measures we should always implement, especially between now and 25 June.

Top
Share