John Bruton
Ceist:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has satisfied himself that progress is being made so that discussions may take place between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Talks.
John Bruton
Ceist:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will put a proposal before the people to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution if an overall agreement is reached in the talks between the parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:4 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach if he will clarify his recent remarks on Northern Ireland and, in particular, in relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Austin Deasy
Ceist:5 Mr. Deasy asked the Taoiseach the Government's intentions on the holding of a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:6 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he has received a report on the talks between Mr. John Hume and Mr. Gerry Adams; if he will give his response to the report; if it is intended to publish the report; the plans, if any, he has for a meeting with Mr. Hume to discuss the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in view of his recent reported comments on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution during his visit to the United States, the Government intends to place before the people, in a referendum, proposals for changes to these Articles if an overall agreement is reached between the parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the continuing political deadlock in Northern Ireland and the ongoing terrorist campaign of the paramilitary organisations, he intends to seek an early meeting with the British Prime Minister to consider ways of promoting political progress.
Peter Barry
Ceist:9 Mr. Barry asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, the Government has taken to facilitate the resumption of talks on Northern Ireland.
Peter Barry
Ceist:10 Mr. Barry asked the Taoiseach the reason, when commenting on his meeting with Mr. Bruce Morrison, he intimated that his understanding of the position in relation to the resumption of talks on Northern Ireland was based on indications from the British Government in view of the fact that the original initiative for the talks was taken by both the Irish and British Governments and that responsibility for their resumption rests equally with both Governments.
Peter Barry
Ceist:11 Mr. Barry asked the Taoiseach if he contacted the British Prime Minister to express his concern at the reported concessions offered to parties in Northern Ireland in return for parliamentary support.
Austin Currie
Ceist:12 Mr. Currie asked the Taoiseach if he will give the up-to-date position of the Government in relation to Northern Ireland; and the steps, if any, he has taken or intends to take to ensure the maximum advantage of recent opportunities for the cause of peace.
Desmond J. O'Malley
Ceist:13 Mr. O'Malley asked the Taoiseach if he has received a written report on the outcome of the recently concluded Hume/Adams talks in Northern Ireland; if so, the date on which he received the report; and if he will make a statement outlining the Government's reaction to it.
Desmond J. O'Malley
Ceist:14 Mr. O'Malley asked the Taoiseach when he anticipates that the three strand talks on Northern Ireland, which were suspended in November 1992, might be resumed; if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals in this respect; and if, in particular, the Government will table a set of proposals for consideration by the parties.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:15 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach if he has received any recent information pertaining to the Anglo-Irish peace process; if he intends to take any initiatives on foot of any such information; and if, in view of his statement of 29 September 1993, he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:16 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in relation to comments made by him, he will clarify the view he expressed that the talks between John Hume and Gerry Adams were not linked to any other possible solution; if, in view of his stated wish to reassure Unionists in Northern Ireland, he intends to take any steps to help achieve this; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Desmond J. O'Malley
Ceist:17 Mr. O'Malley asked the Taoiseach if, in view of his reported comments in New York on 12 September, 1993, that the Government would be prepared to propose changes in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution to the Irish people as part of an overall settlement package on Northern Ireland, this is now the official policy of the Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Desmond J. O'Malley
Ceist:18 Mr. O'Malley asked the Taoiseach the Government's attitude to the suggested appointment by the US Government of a special envoy to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 18, inclusive, together.
Since I became Taoiseach, I have made the establishment of peace in the North of Ireland my top priority. At my first press conference on 6 February 1992 after being elected leader of Fianna Fáil, I stated: "We have all condemned these killings but we must prove that we have not bankrupted our determination to find a solution to this problem". I went on: "I have a good personal relationship with John Major. I look forward to meeting him to try to end the cruelty of this conflict ... we must put no limits on what we must do to change all that". Over the past 12 months, I have reiterated repeatedly my commitment to the search for a formula for peace.
This priority is reflected in the Programme for a Partnership Government under the heading "Working for Peace", which states that the future welfare of all the people of Ireland is overshadowed by the conflict in Northern Ireland, which causes a heavy toll in human suffering and imposes a pointless and unwanted burden in terms of wasted resources and lost economic opportunity. The Programme further states that a key element in the Government's programme will be the search for an end to this conflict. This search for peace remains an absolute priority for this Government.
At the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference held in London on 10 September last, both Governments reaffirmed their aim of a comprehensive political settlement which will address all the main relationships and agreed to continue to co-operate closely and actively to promote political progress by every possible means. Both sides underlined the urgency and importance of the search for political agreement and stated their conviction that the objectives of the talks process, as set out in the statement of 26 March 1991, are valid and achievable.
The Government is continuing to do everything possible to get these talks going again. For our part, we are completely committed to political dialogue and very much hope that the talks can be resumed.
As regards constitutional issues, the Programme for a Partnership Government refers to the need for the final outcome of negotiations to be acceptable to the people, North and South. It further states that the Government will seek any necessary endorsement in a referendum for an agreed package, which would achieve a balanced accommodation of the different positions of the two main traditions on constitutional issues. There has been no change in the Government's position on this matter. A referendum would give the opportunity to all the people of this island to pronounce similtaneously on the form that future relationships might take on this island.
I met the British Prime Minister in London on 16 June last. A further meeting will, in the normal course, take place towards the end of the year. If, however, I judge a meeting to be necessary before then, I will not hesitate to seek it.
As regards speculation on the possibility of a deal having been agreed by the British Government with the UUP in return for their support in the House of Commons votes on 22 July on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty and in the ensuing confidence vote, Deputies will be aware that Prime Minister Major made a statement in this regard in the House of Commons on 23 July. As I have already made clear, I have had no reason not to accept that statement in good faith.
Regarding the question of a possible US envoy to Northern Ireland, we are very appreciative of the goodwill and firm support of the United States in our efforts to achieve peace and stability on our island. The option of a more active United States role remains, an offer of assistance and involvement that should be welcomed on all sides, although what form this might take, if implemented, naturally depends on developments.
With regard to the process of dialogue between the leader of the SDLP and Sinn Féin, the Government has noted the joint statement issued on 25 September. The present position is that the SDLP leader will brief both myself and the Tánaiste on the progress of that process of dialogue tomorrow morning. When the Government has had time to reflect on the briefing given to us, we will decide how best to continue our efforts for the achievement of the objective of peace on this island.
As the Taoisech has taken a large number of questions together I hope that you will allow as many Deputies as possible from all sides to put questions. Much has happened during the summer and I am sure Members wish to have a chance to hear the Taoiseach's response. I hope that you will be as relaxed as you possibly can——
The Deputy may safely leave that matter in my hands. I am conscious of the fact that some Members have tabled three questions while others tabled one each. I shall take due notice of that fact.
I am merely making my customary respectful representations to you.
Thank you, Deputy. I shall be even-handed.
Will the Taoiseach agree that there will only be peace on this island if both communities in Northern Ireland are happy; that there is no chance of the Unionist community being happy with any deal negotiated without their involvement and which is presented to them as a fait accompli, to say yes or no to, any more than there would be a chance of this being agreed to by the Nationalist community if it involved a dilution of what they have already gained under the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Therefore, will the Taoiseach agree that the really important talks are those between the Unionists and the Nationalists, between the two communities, rather than talks within any one community? In that context there is a key unanswered question about the Government's policy on this matter. The Taoiseach referred to a referendum which he is willing to put to the Irish people. Will this be a constitutional referendum? In particular, can he confirm that he would be willing, if the overall deal is satisfactory, to recommend, as leader of Fianna Fáil, in that referendum an amendment to the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution?
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy——
I have finished the question.
——but I think he will agree that if the Chair is to dispose of all these important questions brevity must be the key note of the supplementary questions.
I am sorry, Sir——
Eighteen questions have been tabled, Deputy. I must insist that the questioning is relevant, brief and succinct. Members should avoid making speeches.
I am sorry to have to say this but I had just completed my question and was about to sit down——
I am aware of that, Deputy but you were going on so long I had to intervene.
It was quite clear that my question was coming to a conclusion and I regard your interruption as unhelpful. Will the Taoiseach answer the question?
The Chair does not interrupt, the Chair intervenes to maintain proper order and decorum in this House. Let us get on with the question, please.
This is a play in which the players do not need a prompter. Will the Taoiseach answer the question?
The Deputy's first question was whether I accept that there has to be an acceptance on the part of both communities before there can be a lasting peace on this island. My reply is quite clearly, yes. The violence in the North of Ireland has two sources, Loyalist paramilitaries and the Provisional IRA. It is logical to expect that there will have to be efforts in both directions in trying to secure a cessation of violence. The Loyalist paramilitaries have made it clear on a number of occasions and are on public record as saying that their violence is reactive to the violence of the Provisional IRA. Therefore, it is logical to try to secure a cessation of violence on the other side on the basis that the Loyalist paramilitaries have made it clear that if the other side ceases they will also cease. I accept, therefore, that there has to be an acceptance on both sides. Not only will this involve the parties in the North, it will also involve the British and Irish Governments who have their responsibilities and a job to do in that regard. On the question of what would happen if an overall agreement or settlement is reached, the Deputy must not have been listening. I said in my initial reply: "As regards constitutional issues, the Programme for a Partnership Government refers to the need for the final outcome of negotiations to be acceptable to the people, North and South." That also answers the Deputy's first question.
I stated further that the Government would seek any necessary endorsement in a referendum for an agreed package which would achieve a balanced accommodation of the different positions of the two main traditions on constitutional issues. Quite clearly, if an overall settlement is the final outcome, that would be put to the people, North and South, in a referendum I have consistently said that and it is what the Government programme clearly indicates.
It is important to pursue this because it is the issue upon which the talks broke down last October. That is what a colleague of the Taoiseach's said publicly at the time and since.
That is his version.
If everything else is all right is the Taoiseach willing to support the inclusion in a referendum package of a proposal to amend Articles 2 and 3?
I expect that an overall accommodation would involve constitutional change. I have said that quite clearly, and that would be put in a referendum.
That is too ambiguous an answer.
The answer is yes. Does the Deputy want it clearer than that?
I have two questions to which I would like a clear answer from the Taoiseach. The first relates to Articles 2 and 3. Does the Taoiseach not accept that this is a time for courage rather than caution and that in relation to Articles 2 and 3 he should now make a declaration of intent to submit to the people by way of referendum a proposal to amend Articles 2 and 3 in the context of an overall settlement to reflect an aspiration to unity?
Does the Taoiseach agree with the view expressed by the Fine Gael Front Bench this morning that the whole situation would be helped by more open debate and transparency and that the best way to achieve that is by arranging a full debate on Northern Ireland in Government time, bearing in mind that virtually everybody in this House is keen to see peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland at the earliest possible date?
I want to make my views as clear as I can to those who want to listen. I said in Bodenstown last year, and it is reflected again in the Programme for Government, that in the event of an overall settlement requiring constitutional change it will be put to the people, North and South. Can I be any clearer than that? It is in the Programme for Government and I said it on a number of occasions.
On the question of a debate in the House, I was asked time and time again to establish a foreign affairs committee, which we have done. It is a very good forum in which this can be done without any bickering or political advantage being taken.
In regard to transparency I do not know what the Deputy has in mind, but to proceed from the position we are in at the moment will demand a considerable amount of work by both Governments. I do not think it would be proper or wise if details of every discussion were made public and would not be helpful to the achievement of the objective of a just and lasting peace on this island. However, the Government will keep the House informed as much as possible.
What does the Taoiseach mean by the words "overall settlement"?
I mean a settlement of the problem in Ireland that takes in and has the full allegiance and consent of the two traditions in Ireland.
In regard to the Hume-Adams talks, will the Taoiseach indicate to the House the principles on which he would judge the proposals being put to him by Mr. John Hume? I draw his attention to statements by Provisional Sinn Féin and the council of the IRA which clearly indicate they have not moved one iota from their demands, (1) for British withdrawal, (2) for national self-determination by the Irish people as a whole and, (3) a demand of the British Government that they pressurise Unionists to accept this particular approach. In view of that, will the Taoiseach indicate the principles on which he will approach the report from Mr. John Hume? For instance, will he stand by Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which clearly states that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom will not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland as distinct from the demand of the Provisional IRA that it be changed as a result of a decision of the people of Ireland as a whole, which is completely different?
I assure Deputy De Rossa and the House that Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains intact. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is an international agreement and cannot be set aside at the whim of any particular person. I hope that is clear.
Is the Taoiseach committed to maintaining it intact?
The Deputy asked a question and he got an answer. Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains intact. It is part of an international agreement that cannot be set aside.
Will it be maintained intact?
These kinds of interruptions are unsatisfactory, if not disorderly. The Deputy asked a series of questions and he should now listen to the reply, without interruption.
There is an important distinction.
In relation to the other questions, I am not so sure what they really were.
The Taoiseach should listen.
The Deputy is putting his own interpretation on statements that are quite clearly not in accordance with the statements I have in front of me. The Hume-Adams joint statement states: "Our discussions, aimed at the creation of a peace process which would involve all parties, have made considerable progress". What I am talking about here is peace and a peace process. The last paragraph says:
We are convinced from our discussions that a process can be designed to lead to agreement among the divided people of this island which will provide a solid basis for peace. Such process would obviously also be designed to ensure that any new agreement that might emerge respects the diversity of our different traditions and earns their allegiance and agreement.
It seems clear that we are talking about a peace process. I will not speculate on what John Hume may report to the Tánaiste and me tomorrow, I will await that report. I assure the Deputy and the House that we are engaged in trying to find a formula for peace and anything that contributes to that will be taken into account by us. We will listen to the report tomorrow. We will evaluate it and have discussions with our Government colleagues next Tuesday. It is not helpful to go into detail and try to impute certain ideas to people. This is a difficult and delicate operation. I ask for restraint and patience from the Members of this House and indeed from the general public. There is no instant solution to this problem and it should not be complicated and made all the more difficult. Everybody knows how sensitive this is. If everybody in this House is totally and absolutely committed to the peace process, as we are, then we should be sensitive and restrained and not make political points. It is not a time for that here or between the communities of Northern Ireland. We want to see the two communities there in an environment that peace can transform totally and to have serious political talks on the future of the peoples of this island and how best they can live together without the impediment of violence.
I thank the Taoiseach for his lecture on peace.
(Interruptions.)
Be quiet. Let me point out to the Taoiseach that one half of the Hume-Adams process, Mr. Gerry Adams, has given two interviews, one in The Irish Times last Saturday and one in The Sunday Tribune last Sunday, both of which I quoted from in my contribution. It is not speculation: it is a statement of what Mr. Adams said. I would also point out that the council of the IRA, from Dublin incidentally, made a statement which also has a bearing——
The Deputy is making a statement. This is Question Time.
I am asking the Taoiseach if he will take note of those two interviews and the statement by the council of the IRA issued from Dublin which clearly contradicts the statement made by Gerry Adams and John Hume. In the light of that, I ask the Taoiseach if, following the meeting with Mr. Hume tomorrow, he will undertake to brief this House on the contents of the report. The US Congress has been briefed——
That should be adequate, Deputy.
——the army council of the IRA has been briefed and the membership of Sinn Féin has been briefed.
I have to satisfy many other Deputies also. I now call on the Taoiseach to reply.
It is very difficult to know what I should reply to. The Deputy referred to interviews given by various people.
Not various people, one person — Gerry Adams.
I am setting out the position of the Government and its approach to the search for a peace process.
It may be a civil war process if the Taoiseach is not careful.
Will the Deputy please let me reply? I did not interrupt him.
He did.
That is not true.
(Interruptions.)
I have set out clearly the Government's position and I am not prepared to speculate on anything until such time as the Government has had an opportunity to evaluate the report from John Hume tomorrow, see in what way it can contribute to the formulation of a peace process and help us in our discussions with the British Government. I am not prepared to speculate on anything until then and I did not think anyone in this House would ask me to do so.
Is the Taoiseach prepared to come back to this House?
In his initial reply the Taoiseach said it was the objective of the two Governments to co-operate openly, actively and directly with one another in trying to find a solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. Having regard to this, does he think that the attitude adopted by Mr. Major in coming to an agreement with the Unionists — this is the perception in Northern Ireland — could be regarded as active co-operation with the Irish Government in trying to find a solution? Given the sensitive nature of the problems in Northern Ireland, both Governments must be constantly concerned to ensure that one community does not appear to be given an advantage over the other. If this happens on the Nationalist side there is a danger that it may play into the hands of the men of violence on that side.
The Government is always conscious not to make any statement or take any action which would drive the two communities in the North further apart. The Government is making every effort both publicly and behind the scenes to try to get the peace process back on the rails; it is totally committed to doing this. Having said that, the Government believes that the achievement of a cessation in violence would transform the situation for both communities in the North. I am addressing the position of both communities as I believe both of them have a vested interest in the achievement of a cessation of violence. Both the Unionist and Nationalist communities have suffered enormously from violence over the past 25 years. There should be no cause for fear about the building of a peace process. People know the objective and no solution will be imposed over their heads without agreement on how both communities can live together on this island in the future. That is the objective of the exercise.
I think the Taoiseach missed the point I was trying to make, that is, he must be seen to be actively engaged with his counterpart in the British Government in any decisions made in regard to Northern Ireland. The fact that the Leader of the British Government sought support from one party seems to indicate a lack of co-operation. An assurance was given that no such deal was done but the perception in the North of Ireland, which can only be of help to the men of violence, is that a deal was done. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs let that vacuum remain for three months by not calling a special meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference and not publicly objecting to this action. There was a dereliction of duty by both of them.
First, there must be something to which one can publicly object. We are conscious of the perception in Northern Ireland but the British Prime Minister has assured me — he has put this on the record of the House of Commons — that no deal was sought and nothing was given. The morning after the alleged deal, Sir Patrick Mayhew contacted the Minister for Foreign Affairs to assure him that no deal was made. We took that assurance at face value and in good faith and we will continue to do so until the opposite is proven.
Twenty-five years after the first civil rights march all our efforts must be directed towards the greatest civil right of all, the right to life. Does the Taoiseach agree that if two essential principles are included in the Hume-Adams peace process — the permanent cessation of all violence and the consent of the Unionists to any change in their status in the future, including the right to say "no" as well as the right to say "yes"— his Government will support this peace process? I am confident that those two essential principles will be included in that peace process. Having worked closely with John Hume for a quarter of a century, I know that those two principles have been part and parcel of all his political activity during that time.
Deputy Currie is correct in what he has said: if one reads the statement issued after the Hume-Adams meetings one will see that those two principles are enshrined in it. I wish to avail of the opportunity tomorrow to seek an elaboration of the statement and get a full report of the present position. The statement is as follows:
Our discussions, aimed at the creation of a peace process which would involve all parties, have made consideable progress. We agreed to forward a report on the position reached to date to Dublin for consideration.
The last paragraph of the statement enshrines the second principle to which Deputy Currie referred:
We are convinced from our discussions that a process can be designed to lead to agreement among the divided people of this island, which will provide a solid basis for peace. Such a process would obviously also be designed to ensure that any new agreement that might emerge respects the diversity of our different traditions and earns their allegiance and agreement.
It is clear from those quotations that the two principles to which Deputy Currie referred are enshrined in the statement.
I have four questions tabled on this subject. I wish to preface my supplementary question by saying that a new system for the asking of supplementary questions seems to be in operation today. It is not a very satisfactory system if Deputies are to be called in the order in which their questions appear on the Order Paper. I would have thought that the system used previously was fairer and more satisfactory.
I assure the Deputy that I have not deviated from the normal procedure in this matter. Even on occasions when I sought to give priority to Leaders of parties it was objected to very strongly.
I may be going, Sir, but I am not gone.
Is that a threat?
The best of luck to you.
(Interruptions.)
Two supplementaries arise from the Taoiseach's initial reply. The Taoiseach referred to the intention of the Government to seek agreement to a referendum being held simultaneously on both sides of the Border when some consensus is reached. Will that be a constitutional referendum? If Articles 2 and 3 are included in such a referendum, how can a question be put in that way? In reply to an earlier supplementary from, I think, Deputy O'Keeffe, the Taoiseach rather grudgingly said that Articles 2 and 3 would be included in such a package. If that is so, how does the Taoiseach reconcile that with the statement he made earlier this year in County Tipperary that there would be no change in Articles 2 and 3? If that can now be agreed by the Government why could it not have been put forward by it a year ago?
May I remind the Deputy as, indeed, I reminded the House on a number of occasions that taking selected lines from a particular speech, he can draw any conclusions he may wish? However, I want to again put on the record of this House that that was a selected extract from a speech given in Tipperary. If the Deputy wishes, I will send him a full copy of the speech before he relinquishes the burdensome office of leadership of the party. I have made the position quite clear today and I would say to Deputy O'Malley and others that we would be happy to arrive at the position where we could sit down and devise a wording for a referendum in the event of an overall settlement being agreed. In that context, I have said quite clearly that it will involve, if necessary or appropriate, constitutional changes. We must wait and see what the overall agreement will be but I have made the position quite clear on a number of occasions and I cannot add anything further to it.
Will the Taoiseach answer the final part of my supplementary question? If this is his position and the Government is prepared to put this proposal forward, why was it not willing to do so a year ago?
It is a different Government.
We will never make the unilateral change and declaration on Articles 2 and 3 requested by Deputy O'Malley, Deputy John Bruton and Members on the other side of the House.
The Taoiseach was never asked to make a unilateral change.
The record of this House will show otherwise. Requests for unilateral changes and declarations in advance were made.
The Taoiseach should be honest and not tell lies.
The Deputy should examine the record of this House. I have never subscribed to unilateral changes.
The Taoiseach destroyed one set of talks with that kind of attitude. Does he want to destroy a second set of talks by a failure to be generous?
If Deputy Molloy made an allegation of a lie perhaps he would withdraw it because it does not contribute to peace in this House, let alone peace on this island.
Deputy Molloy will have to restrain himself. He used the word "lie" in his contribution and I ask him to withdraw the remark.
I withdraw the word to comply with parliamentary procedure.
I thank the Deputy. There has never been any question of unilateral changes and a declaration to that effect made by this Government or, indeed, by my party, I made that clear. When pressure was put earlier this year for a declaration to be made, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, made a statement in Belfast to the effect that he did not expect and would not request the Irish Government to make such a unilateral declaration because he knew that Articles 2 and 3 were a matter for the Irish Constitution, changes can only be brought about by the people and not by any politican.
Will the Taoiseach confirm to the House whether he was kept appraised of progress during the course of the Adams-Hume peace talks? Was the British Government or any other interested parties appraised of progress?
I will not pretend to speak for the British Government. As far as my information is concerned, I have had one meeting with John Hume in the past three or four months, apart from a casual meeting following that great victory by Derry in Croke Park when I chatted to him for a couple of minutes. Apart from that I was fully aware of the objective of the talks but in regard to the details or progress reports the answer is no.
Did the Taoiseach ring him when he was over there?
The Taoiseach referred to a constitutional change possibly being included in a referendum that he might put to the people. Will he say specifically if that constitutional change might involve a change, in particular in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution? Is it legally possible for the Taoiseach to combine in one question a proposal possibly to change the Constitution as well as a political question approving an agreement? Can one referendum combine those two points?
It is futile at this stage to try to answer a question as to what wordings might be included in a referendum and I am not prepared to speculate on the matter. It states quite clearly in our Programme for Government which the Deputy should read, that if we obtain an overall agreement we will be prepared to hold a referendum.
If it was that clear there should be no problem.
Will the Taoiseach return to this House tomorrow or Friday to report on the outcome of his discussions with John Hume tomorrow? The Taoiseach also said that Article I of the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains intact. Does this Government intend that it will remain intact and that it will be maintained despite pressures which may come from the Provisional IRA?
I have said it is intact. It is part of an international agreement. It cannot be set aside by the will of any person or party. It would take agreement by the two Governments to set it aside and we have no intention of seeking to set it aside.
And in regard to reporting back to the House?
I will not speculate as to what the Government may decide to do on the contents of the report by John Hume and the question is futile.
Are we not entitled to know?
I will be answering questions in that regard next Tuesday and Wednesday. This process will be tedious because we are engaged in discussions which will be continued and the input of the two Governments will take a considerable length of time.
So we are not entitled to know?
The Deputy will receive the information in due course.
(Limerick East): I understand that last year, prior to the election, the negotiating position was that the Irish Government would be prepared to concede constitutional change only if it was matched by concessions on the part of the British Government. It was not prepared to deal on the basis of making constitutional concessions here if the response was institutional change in the administration of Northern Ireland. Does that continue to be the position of the new Government?
The new Government's position is set out in the Programme for Government. I have enunciated that on a number of occasions here today and I do not propose detaining the House by reading it out again. Our position in this regard should be quite clear to Deputy Noonan and everybody else. Both communities have rights and traditions and if one is taken in isolation from the other, as Deputy Bruton said, agreement will not be achieved in the long term. Quite clearly, the rights and aspirations of both communities must be brought together in a new process to achieve peace in this island and that is the reality.
Before I call Deputy Michael McDowell I advise the House that I shall be proceeding to deal with Priority Questions at 3.30 p.m. sharp in order that we may provide 20 minutes for that subject in accordance with Standing Orders.
(Limerick East): With respect, the Taoiseach did not reply to the point I made. Does it continue to be the position of the Government that it is negotiating on the basis that it would be willing to make a constitutional concession here provided it is matched by a constitutional concession on the part of the British Government or is the Government prepared to deal on the basis of institutional change in Northern Ireland being matched by constitutional change here?
I am not prepared to conduct negotiations in public but the constitutional position of both communities must be taken into account in any overall settlement, otherwise a settlement will not work.
Bearing in mind that the last set of inter-party negotiations, North-South, collapsed because of the intransigence of the Taoiseach and his colleagues regarding the question of Articles 2 and 3, and his willingness to say——
More evidence of breach of Cabinet confidentiality.
——that they would be put to the people in the form of a referendum if a satisfactory agreement was achieved, would he now hold out to the Unionist community some hope of generosity? Will the Taoiseach avail of the opportunity presented on this occasion — if the only thing standing between this country and peace is the wording of Articles 2 and 3 — to sponsor a referendum to change those articles?
I think Deputy McDowell was not listening to what I said earlier today. I might add that if Deputy Michael McDowell's interference in this House had been less in the past we might have made a hell of a lot more progress in the House——
(Interruptions.)
He is in here now.
And we hope he will be the next Leader of the Progressive Democrats as soon as possible.
(Interruptions.)
He is in here now.
His master's voice talking into the gramophone.
I cannot accept the logic of Deputy McDowell's argument.
Who was the tailor's dummy for two years?
We know why the master's voice of the Progressive Democrats remained for so long outside the House. Now that we have it in the House we might make a little more progress.
There will be a new tailor anyway. They are all very interested in this renewal.
What is the name of the public relations woman who is in charge of them now? This is the new focus Fine Gael here.
(Interruptions.)
I cannot accept the logic of Deputy Michael McDowell's argument, which at the same time as finding a formula for peace — which should be and I believe is the objective of every party in this House — tries to confuse and complicate the issue by including an endeavour to achieve changes in constitutional positions and all the other aspects of a settlement that must be negotiated. What I am saying quite clearly is this: let us establish a cessation of violence and allow the talks to continue in a newly transformed environment in which all issues will be on the table, as I have always said.
Whether one approaches these talks or awaits their development with great hope or reservations, we are all aware that the decisions of the next few days could be crucial. The Taoiseach has indicated that he is not willing, or not thinking of, returning to the House with a report. At the minimum will he consider, in advance of or in conjunction with consideration at Cabinet level, consulting or briefing the Leaders and spokespersons of the Opposition parties, if he is not willing to return to the House for a full debate?
I never said I would not come back into the House. I said I would not be back into the House tomorrow or Friday. Deputies should be well aware of the reasons. I said I will be available in this House at various times along the way. I want to refute any expectations that the next couple of days will lead to a total transformation of the situation; that will not happen. It will be a long and tedious process. It is a difficult and sensitive area on both sides. If we are serious about peace, let us exercise some restraint and put politics aside. Let us first get peace established and then look at the overall political structures required to produce a new and agreed Ireland.
While of course the whole House accepts what the Taoiseach says — that the cessation of violence is the number one priority — will he not agree that that would be facilitated if it were seen by both communities in the North that the talks were continuing among the parties there, knowing that the three strands were in place again and progressing? What is he doing to ensure that that happens as quickly as possible?
I have said on a number of occasions to both communities there, and I repeat it to both communities today, that if there are people who hold genuine fears about the peace formula, let us hear them. I believe that peace is the priority of the vast majority of people on this island, both North and South. I know from my contacts on both sides of the community that they would be very anxious to give every support to any peace process that could bring a lasting and just peace to the North of Ireland. That is the reality. I am not differentiating between one or other community; I am giving the same message to both. If there are fears held, if anybody fears peace, let us know what are those fears. I do not see why anybody should be afraid of peace. I am not tying it to any conditions in relation to long term solutions. I am advocating first the establishment of peace which will produce the process and strategy to allow everybody to sit down in a different environment and endeavour to work out a future for this island.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
It would appear that the Taoiseach did not get the import of what I said. In the interviews to which Deputy De Rossa referred earlier, by the leader of Sinn Féin, it was said their objective was peace. We should not pretend that that prerogative lies with us only. The chances of achieving peace would be much greater if the talks were resumed and seen to be leading to a political solution. Indeed the Taoiseach and his Government have a responsibility, along with the British Government, to get those talks going again. I want to know what the Taoiseach is doing to bring that about and what progress he hopes to make very shortly in that regard. The longer the vacuum that existed during the summer continues, with no talks and no prospect of talks, and an apparent lack of interest on the part of this Government in their resumption, then the greater chance have the men of violence of resuming their activities.
I reject any insinuation that this Government is not active behind the scenes in taking every possible initiative and undertaking every effort to have the talks process resumed. Bilateral talks are taking place between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, his Ministers and the various political leaders there. The Irish Government is ready to sit at the table tomorrow morning. In so far as the other parties there are concerned, it is a matter for them to decide. I understand that the Alliance Party is ready to sit at the table, as is the SDLP. The DUP has made it clear it is not ready to do so. The position of the Unionist Party is not clear but discussions are continuing between them and Sir Patrick Mayhew in an effort to have the talks process resumed. There is no question of this Government sitting back in relation to these talks. That does not mean we should not be involved in endeavouring to get a peace process going and a cessation of violence which would give considerable impetus to the overall talks process.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that it is difficult to accept statements from Mr. Gerry Adams that he is in favour of peace while, at the same time, his IRA organisation continues to bomb cities in Northern Ireland and Britain? Will he not also agree that people are not afraid of peace but rather they are afraid of a process which is intended to bring peace but may lead in the opposite direction because of the conditions laid down for that process? The fear is that it may not be a peace process but rather a civil war process. That fear needs to be allayed by the Taoiseach's returning to this House and telling us precisely what is that process.
I ask the Taoiseach to make a clear appeal to the IRA to stop killing people now, on the grounds that their own declaration that they are in favour of agreement is inconsistent with continuing to murder people. Will he say clearly that no discussions into which he is willing to enter will give any succour or justification whatsoever for the continuance of violence? Will he agree that the main obstacle to the resumption of talks in Northern Ireland is Unionist distrust which emanates directly and solely from the continuance of the IRA campaign of violence?
I began answering questions today on the basis that violence emanates from two different quarters, that there are statements from one side that their violence is reactive and, if the other violence stops, they will stop. I do not know how Deputy John Bruton can be so confused. Our repudiation of violence is as strong today as it ever was. If one party says they will stop if the other stops, then surely it is logical — if one is interested in peace — to endeavour to find a process that will procure a cessation of violence from one side on the basis that, if one gets the first in place, the other will follow suit. I do not accept that this is not a logical direction to pursue on the part of anybody interested in peace.
We proceed now to Priority Questions.