Vol. 383 No. 1
asked the Taoiseach if, in view of reported statements by Unionist leaders that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an impediment to talks, he has considered or will consider suspending the agreement without abrogating it in order to try and get such talks under way.
7.
asked the Taoiseach if he has any plans for a meeting with the British Prime Minister prior to the planned review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
8.
asked the Taoiseach the exchanges of views he has had with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland regarding possible political initiatives there; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
9.
asked the Taoiseach his views on the statement, made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the next step in an attempt to reach a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland is a matter for the Unionist politicians and not for the British and Irish Governments.
10.
asked the Taoiseach if he intends to meet the UK Prime Minister in order to put proposals to her in the context of the review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Conference.
11.
asked the Taoiseach if he has sought a bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister regarding matters of mutual concern.
12.
asked the Taoiseach if he proposes to meet the British Prime Minister to review the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement before the third anniversary of the agreement on 15 November 1988.
13.
asked the Taoiseach if he anticipates an early summit meeting with the British Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 13 inclusive together.
I have said many times that I am willing to enter into talks with Unionist leaders, without preconditions, about how we might establish the basis for lasting peace and stability on this island. My position on this remains unchanged and the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in San Francisco is in line with Government policy in this area.
As I said in the House on 3 May last, we have to advert to the fact that representatives of the Unionist tradition are not prepared to accept the Anglo-Irish Agreement, at this stage at any rate. Therefore, any dialogue with them will have to be outside the processes of the Agreement to which, of course, both Governments are committed. The Government had talks with representatives of the SDLP on 9 September. We both reiterated our hope for a direct exchange of views with leaders of the Unionist community, without any preconditions and with full respect for the convictions of all the parties involved.
Plans for any meeting I might have with the British Prime Minister would, in accordance with normal practice, be announced simultaneously in Dublin and London close to the time of the meeting.
I will call the Deputies in the order in which their names appear on the questions concerned.
In view of the statement by the Tánaiste that he is prepared to have talks outside the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in view also of his anxiety to have these talks and of the fact that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been presented by the Unionists with whom he wishes to have talks as an impediment to having talks, surely it makes commonsense that the impediment would be temporarily removed without necessarily being abrogated? The objective of the agreement was to procure reconciliation but if it is now being presented by those with whom we wish to be reconciled as an impediment, surely that impediment should be removed by an act of generosity on this side, albeit on a temporary basis to get the talks under way.
I take it that Deputy Cooney in advancing that view is not advancing the view of the Fine Gael Party. That view as expressed by Deputy Dukes is entirely different. Having said that and put it on record, I would like to emphasise that the best way forward in what we all know is a very complex situation is, first of all, to maintain the agreement and the conference. That has been fully discussed with the SDLP who support us in that, and the British and Irish Governments are both determined to maintain that position. That does not preclude or prejudice in any way the development of talks with Unionist representatives. That can continue on a parallel basis through a process while maintaining the conference, the secretariat and the Anglo-Irish process generally. That is our considered position. The Deputy is aware that the position in this area has to be considered in a very mature way at present as the three-yearly review provided for in the Agreement is starting.
A brief supplementary, Deputy Cooney. There are seven Deputies involved in the subject matter of these questions.
Does the Tánaiste agree that Unionist leaders with whom he wishes to have talks have been reported as stating that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is an impediment to those talks?
That has been said in some instances. I hope that everybody concerned will get on to the path of dialogue and that we can have such dialogue between all the interested parties side by side with the maintenance of the conference, the secretariat and the process that was started under the agreement.
Would the Tánaiste accept that the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland have considerably softened their attitude to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that what they are asking for now is not that the agreement be set aside but that the workings of the agreement be set aside for a period in order to allow talks to get under way? Would he not consider that it would be in the best interests of reconciliation, stability, democracy and indeed life in Northern Ireland that the Irish Government would seriously consider their request for the suspension of the workings of the agreement to allow talks to get under way and that——
I appeal for brevity so that we may deal with all the questions involved.
I wish to add one further point. Would the Tánaiste not agree that the urgent need is for talks to get under way and that it would be important to give this concession to——
The supplementaries are too long.
Certainly I agree on the urgency and the necessity for bringing the Unionist leaders and representatives into dialogue about the future on this island. There is no question about that. I see no conflict or contradiction between that process and the maintenance of the conference and process under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
You do not, but they do.
I would ask Deputy Cooney — I am candidly surprised at him — to maintain a certain discretion in this area because we are at a very crucial period in our history in which, I hope, we will come to some conjuncture in all of this. Naturally there is concern among everybody in the House on the matter.
I am glad the Tánaiste is finally concerned.
Deputy, the interruptions should cease.
That sort of language does not help.
That is hypocrisy.
Deputy Barrett ought not to provoke matters. He must desist from interrupting.
He was preaching about hypocrisy a few minutes ago.
If you do not desist, you know the consequences.
Deputy Barrett, for your information, and I am very glad about this, there is a growing consensus among all of us in this House and among our people on this matter.
If you had supported the Government at the time we would be well on the road to peace today.
There is no need for disorder.
This sort of thing is not helpful, to put it mildly.
It was not helpful to the last Government——
Deputy De Rossa, it must be a brief question.
Would the Tánaiste accept that the British Government——
If he had supported the last Government we would be well on the road to peace today.
Order. Deputy Barrett seems to be intent on disorder here today. Deputy De Rossa.
Would the Tánaiste accept that the British Government have publicly stated that while they will not allow the agreement itself to be set aside, they will be sensitive to the requirements of the Unionist parties in order to get talks under way and that this clearly implies their willingness——
I am sorry, I am calling another Deputy.
I beg your pardon.
I asked the Deputy to be brief and he proceeds to make another speech. I am now calling Deputy Peter Barry.
The Tánaiste is entitled to answer the question that I am putting to him.
Deputy Barry is not present.
No, I intend to act in loco parentis for Deputy Barry who is unavoidably engaged on other business.
Deputy Dukes has his own question, No. 10.
Would the Tánaiste not agree that it is absolutely nonsensical to try to tell this House that the statement that he made is in line with Government policy as Government policy has been understood up to now? Would he not agree that the statement on his part that the next step in an attempt to reach a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland is a matter for the Unionist politicians and not for the British and Irish Governments? Would the Tánaiste not agree that that statement is a complete abdication of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and everything it is intended to bring about and everything that the two Governments are working for? Would the Tánaiste not further agree——
I ask for brevity again, please.
Would the Tanáiste not further agree that while it is perfectly reasonable to say in this House that the dates of any meeting the Taoiseach might have with the British Prime Minister would be announced closer to the date, it is perfectly valid and proper for this House to ask whether the Taoiseach or the Government——
I am afraid this is tending towards debate rather than questions.
A Cheann Comhairle, this question has not been asked.
You cannot debate this matter now. I am not permitting it to be debated.
The Tánaiste has not answered the question whether this Government have any proposals to make in the context of the review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Could the Tánaiste tell us whether the Government have any ideas or proposals?
To clear the record, I do not know where Deputy Barry got that particular statement.
The Tánaiste quoted from it himself. He made a speech on it in San Francisco.
Please, let us hear the Tánaiste. Deputy Dukes has asked some questions. He should now listen to the reply.
I propose to give the exact quote of my recent remarks at the United Nations on this area that we are talking about. I will be very brief. All of us on the island of Ireland, no matter how our visions of the future differ, have a common responsibility to work towards solutions in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect. Let us as political leaders begin to talk together in an open and generous way. We owe no less to our people who so desperately yearn for a lasting peace. That is the definitive position to which in my view——
That is not the one I am quoting from.
That is the correct one. What the Deputy is quoting from——
Will the Tánaiste now agree that the correct one is the one that he gave under all the blessings required in the United Nations and that what he said elsewhere was a total top of the head abdication of the futility of consistency?
The Deputy is doing himself less than justice.
I am calling Deputy Geraldine Kennedy.
I am doing the Tánaiste more than justice. The Tánaiste has now admitted that what he said outside the United Nations——
May I take it that Deputy Kennedy is giving way to Deputy Des O'Malley?
We both have questions on this matter.
I know that. I am calling Deputy Kennedy firstly. Her name appears here before me.
Given that what the Tánaiste has described as this crucial period in our history one month away from the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I would like to ask him if he has put any proposals to the Unionists for talks parallel to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and if he would consider that the forum of the Anglo-Irish Inter-governmental Council might be a suitable vehicle for such talks?
A number of options are being considered on how we can bring this together. As Deputy Kennedy has suggested, it comes at an opportune moment in that we must carry out this review of the working of the conference. I want to emphasise that the Unionist leaders and representatives in Northern Ireland are well aware of the position. Events are moving, although very slowly, in a reasonable direction. All we can do is hope that they work out. We are preparing detailed papers in connection with the review, as are the British. Apart from the review there is the process of dialogue which we want to see initiated between the Unionists and everybody else here in Ireland who is concerned about its future peaceful development. That is the situation. It is a case of constructive movement in which no definite positive conclusions have emerged. Constructive input into this process from anybody in this House or outside it will be welcomed by me, the Taoiseach and the Government.
Have the Government put any specific proposals to the Unionists for dialogue parallel to the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Would the Tánaiste consider that the vehicle of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council would be suitable for talks with the Unionists?
It would not be helpful for me to decide on what may or may not be the attitude of Unionist leaders in a very complex situation.
I am trying to elicit from the Tánaiste what the attitude of the Irish Government is. I am asking him if at this stage, one month away from the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he has put any proposals in any form to the Unionists for talks with them? Is the answer yes or no?
If I thought that I would elicit a generous response——
The Tánaiste is supposed to be responding.
I cannot tell this House everything that is going on. That should be patently obvious without my having to spell it out here.
The Tánaiste should tell us something.
These questions were put to the Tánaiste. He has not answered them and we can only draw our own conclusions from his unwillingness to answer them. Is he aware that it is now almost three years since the Taoiseach, on 15 November 1985, met the British Prime Minister other than for brief ten or 15 minute periods on the margins of European councils to discuss Anglo-Irish affairs? In view of the fact that the third anniversary of the agreement is imminent, does he not consider that it is a time when a meeting such as this would be particularly useful? Does the Tánaiste agree that while the conference may be working at official level, it appears, in the last year in particular, to have lost political direction and drive and should be put back, by the leaders of the two countries, on the high road that it enjoyed in 1985?
I do not subscribe to the suggestion that the conference has lost any political drive. We have had more meetings in the past 12 months than were ever held in any 12 month period since the initiation of the conference. The question of meeting the British Prime Minister will be considered whenever it is appropriate. That again is a matter that will have to be viewed in the context of what I said earlier on.
Is it not regrettable that the Government should adopt this absolutely minimalist approach to the review of the workings of the agreement?
I did not say that. The Deputy said it.
I did, and I think I am entitled to say it.
I did not say we were adopting a minimalist attitude.
I asked, is it not a pity that the Government should adopt this minimalist approach to the review of the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, particularly when we have seen in recent months a flexible approach of a kind that had not been visible earlier on the part of Unionists in Northern Ireland? Would the Tánaiste agree that if something concrete does not happen within the next three or four weeks, there is every likelihood that that welcome flexibility which was shown on the part of many Unionists will come to an end and will be withdrawn and we will be back to the old sterile Unionist-Nationalist situation again?
We must not forget this is Question Time.
The Deputy's question is very unhelpful and damaging to the prospects of what I hope everybody here wishes to achieve.
It is the Government's attitude, I regret to say, that is unhelpful.
There are two aspects I should like to ask the Tánaiste about. First of all, I am concerned at his first response which is merely a reiteration of what the Taoiseach said 12 months ago, that they are willing to enter talks with the Unionists. If the Unionists maintain their present stance, which seems to indicate that there will be no progress, what action will the Government propose? Given that there has not been a Summit meeting for nearly three years between both Prime Ministers, what do the Government consider to be appropriate circumstances in which to have one?
I am glad the Deputy used the word "consider". We are considering all possible options, taking action where it is required, not taking action where it might cause difficulties and seeking to arrive at a situation where, by mutual agreement, the Unionist parties, their representatives and their leaders will enter into dialogue, and I emphasise that that dialogue need not interfere with or prejudice in any way the workings of the Anglo-Irish Conference. That is precisely where we stand. All avenues are being pursued. We in this House should not need to be told here or anywhere else that our duty is to pursue such avenues. I would expect an alternative Government equally to pursue all the options towards achieving the objective of political dialogue in this way. It would not be in our national interest to abandon our present position under the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the workings of the Anglo-Irish Conference and the secretariat. In any dialogue being entered into the two aspects can proceed in parallel. One does not in any way affect the other and we are seeking to achieve just that objective.
The Tánaiste's aspirations are laudable but given the difficulties in Northern Ireland and the serious nature of the breakdown there, can the Tánaiste not give us one iota of an idea as to what the Government will do if the Unionist leadership maintains its present position?
For obvious reasons I cannot reply to that.
I am calling the next question.
