Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the agenda for his meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers - Joint Declaration on Peace in Northern Ireland.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:3 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his planned meeting in London with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, on 19 February 1994; the plans, if any, he has to review developments since the signing of the Joint Declaration by himself and the British Prime Minister of 15 December 1993; if the meeting will consider British proposals for new political initiatives on Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:4 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, for his proposed visit to the United States during March; if he intends to take the opportunity to correct the inaccurate and distorted view of Irish affairs depicted during the recent visit of Mr. Gerry Adams to the United States; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:5 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the date and location of his proposed meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5 together.
As I indicated to the House on Tuesday last, I will meet the British Prime Minister in London on Saturday next to review recent political developments relating to Northern Ireland. I will be joined in the discussions by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs while the Prime Minister will be accompanied by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The meeting will be of an informal nature. It should, therefore, be regarded as complementary to the regular twice-yearly meetings between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister.
Our discusisons will focus primarily on developments relating to the Joint Declaration. We will review progress, share assessments of the current position and examine approaches towards attaining our common objective of lasting peace with justice in Ireland. In this context, the advancement of political dialogue through the three-strand talks process will also be discussed.
Clarification on the Joint Declaration have been sought and given to assist the wide-ranging debate now taking place in the Republican movement. I have already made clear on a number of occasions that the Joint Declaration can be clarified or explained authoritatively by either Government. This is accepted by the British Government. In his address to the Association of American Correspondents on 10 February, the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, acknowledged that the public statements on the Joint Declaration made on behalf of our respective Governments have been within its parameters and spirit. In his interview in The Irish Times on Monday last, he referred positively to my address on 20 January to UCD law graduates which dealt in great detail with the principles of self-determination and consent. He confirmed that self-determination can lead to a range of possible outcomes, including a united Ireland, that the British Government were persuaders for agreement and that they could not “revert to a system of government in Northern Ireland with which only part of the community can readily identify”. All these points closely parallel statements that I have been making since the Joint Declaration. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the overall tone and balance of Sir Patrick's recent remarks. They address the fears of Nationalists, who felt that there has been in the immediate aftermath of the Joint Declaration too much of a one-sided emphasis on Unionist fears and concerns. They go a long way to making up the perceived deficit of assurance to Nationalists, and recognize the breadth of Nationalist support for the Joint Declaration.
The Irish people, North and South, want peace and they deserve it. They want its permanency assured through establishment, by agreement, of equitable political arrangements to which each tradition can give their support and allegiance. For our part, the Government will continue to make every effort to advance these complementary processes.
Regarding my forthcoming visit to the United States on 13 to 19 March, the House can be assured that I will avail of every appropriate opportunity to present and promote, in a fair and balanced way, the complexities of the Northern Ireland conflict, as well as our efforts towards its peaceful resolution. This will be of particular importance in my discussions in Washington with President Clinton and prominent Congressional leaders. I will also have engagements in New York and in Chicago aimed at enhancing bilateral relations in the economic and trade areas.
It is now over two months since the Joint Declaration and there is no sign of agreement on the part of the IRA-Sinn Féin. Can the Taoiseach realistically tell us what he thinks the prospects are that IRA-Sinn Féin will accept the view of 95 per cent of the people of Ireland and declare a cessation of violence? The Taoiseach mentioned clarification in his reply. Does he consider that, from his own point of view or the point of view of the UK, full and adequate clarification has been given and there is no further case for clarification? What is his view on that matter? On the basis that there may not be a cessation of violence, does he accept that a course of action should be agreed with the UK this weekend on the steps to be taken to reinvigorate the three strand talks process and enable that process to get under way quickly?
The prospects are difficult to evaluate but my judgment is that there are still reasonable prospects of a permanent cessation of violence. I have no evidence to suggest that I should be anything other than what I have been for some time and that is cautiously optimistic.
On the question of clarifications or explanations, I regard all the clarifications and explanations I have given in a variety of statements, in answers to questions in the House and in reply to the letter from Mr. Gerry Adams as adequate. It is true that for some time, and especially in the immediate aftermath of the Downing Street Declaration of 15 December, some statements emanating from the British Government were perceived by Nationalists to be rather one-sided and unbalanced. In their view, some doubt was being expressed from time to time that the British Government were really serious about standing over the Joint Declaration and its contents. In recent times the many statements made by Sir Patrick Mayhew and his interview in The Irish Times have made the British position very clear. They stand fully behind the Joint Declaration and they do not refute anything I have said in clarification.
As I have made clear, clarification by either Government is authoritative when both Governments agree as to what the contents really mean. That should be clear to everyone now, especially in view of the recent confirmation by Sir Patrick Mayhew of many points in the Joint Declaration. His recent statements and his interview should he helpful in clarifying any outstanding matters. Everyone in the Republican movement should be in a better position to make a final assessment on it and give a positive response as soon as possible.
Work is continuing between the two Governments on the three strand talks process. That matter was the subject of discussion between the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Sir Patrick May hew at the recent Anglo-Irish Conference and no doubt we will review our position at our meeting in Downing Street next Saturday.
In view of the intimations from the Irish and British Governments that it was intended to give the Provisional IRA until the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis on Saturday week to come to a decision about the Joint Declaration and in view of the fact that they have announced they will not reach a conclusion on it until some time in March or later, can we take it that the Governments of both countries will now proceed to get the talks between the democratic parties under way? Can the Taoiseach indicate if the draft paper which Sir Patrick Mayhew has indicated he has submitted to the Irish Government has been considered? Does the Government consider it is the basis for making progress in relation to political arrangements on this island between Ireland and Britain? When he is in the United States does he intend to avail of television and radio broadcasts to refute the phoney image Mr. Adams presented when he was in New York that he is a peacemaker when he and his organisation have never refuted the use of violence in Northern Ireland and, in fact, continue to support the use of violence by the IRA in the North?
I will take every opportunity I get with the media on the occasion of my visit to Washington and other cities to present a balanced viewpoint on the conflict in Northern Ireland, as I have always done. I will take the opportunity to answer any outstanding questions the Americans may have in relation to the present position of the Joint Declaration and what we expect from others in relation to it. As regards the document sent by Sir Patrick Mayhew to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, he has made it clear that it is a check list of items and is not a document which one would consider to be the basis for going ahead in relation to a talks process.
We have made it clear at all times that we regard the Joint Declaration as the starting point for the talks process, whenever resumed. So far as the Irish Government is concerned, so long as it is clearly understood that it is a three stranded process, that it is on the basis of the statement of 26 March 1991, that the starting point is the Downing Street declaration, that we try to build on the good foundation laid in that declaration, we are ready to start any time. I stress again that we do not see the Downing Street declaration, as being in conflict with or in any way holding back the resumption of the talks process. We have never seen it in any other way, except as being complementary to it. Deputy De Rossa raised another point about——
The third question I raised related to the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis and the refusal so far——
Neither I nor — to the best of my knowledge — the British Government has ever set down the specific deadline of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis. I have said on a number of occasions that people are looking towards the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis as an ideal opportunity for that type of response. I have never set the deadline of the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis nor am I aware that the British Government has. I said there was an indefinite timescale. I understand that the internal debate is continuing and that it may take some time but the prize of a permanent cessation of violence and the stopping of the killing of innocent people is such that a couple of weeks one way or the other will not make me change my mind or set down a specific guideline. Both Governments will be in a position to judge, when the time comes that there is not going to be either a positive or a negative response, if any.
I am somewhat concerned at the use by the Taoiseach of language such as "the armed conflict in Northern Ireland" and "peace with justice", both of which are Provo-speak for an attempt to justify their campaign of terror in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I presume the Taoiseach has some motive for using such language but it is rather worrying that more and more statements——
Ceist le do thoil.
——from the Government tend to use this kind of Provo-speak. If the Taoiseach said the declaration was complementary to the whole process of political development with regard to Northern Ireland, that it does not stand in the way of talks and there is no reason talks should not get under way even without a decision from the Provisional IRA or Sinn Féin, will he take an initiative now to get talks under way? Even talks about talks would help stem the dissipation of the peace momentum generated by the declaration.
The momentum generated by the declaration still continues apace. In my view the declaration continues to gain momentum every day. The talks about talks are continuing between both Governments. It was a matter for discussion at the last meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference. Officials of the Irish and British Governments are in continuous discussion in relation to them but other parties are required to be at the table for the talks process also. It is a matter for the British Government to engage in that aspect of it. We have asked time and again for meetings with the leadership of the Official Unionist Party but we have not been successful as yet.
As regards the use of language, nobody owns any language. The Deputy can use whatever words he wishes. To describe the situation in Northern Ireland as an armed conflict is purely to describe the factual position. That is what it has been for the past 25 years or more and it is a conflict that has continued for centuries. During the past 25 years I do not think anybody would describe it otherwise than as an armed conflict. If the Deputy wished he could probably take exception to some of the language used by Sir Patrick Mayhew; indeed, he could probably take exception to some of the language I use. Everybody chooses their own language but it is the factual description of what has been going on in Northern Ireland for the past 25 years.
I ask the Taoiseach to avail of the opportunity to voice concern to the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, at the threats by the Loyalist paramilitary organisation — the UFF — against the SDLP and the murder attempts on two SDLP members in Belfast and Antrim at the weekend. Has the Taoiseach any views as to what additional measures might be taken in Northern Ireland, from the point of view of warding off these threats to the members of the SDLP? Has he any views as to what steps could be taken in the Republic which would be of assistance, for example, by getting the new Extradition Bill on the Statute Book quickly or other measures of that kind? Has the Taoiseach given any thought to what appears to be an insidious new development in the Northern Ireland scene?
The Deputy has raised a number of questions, some of which would seem to be extraneous.
I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe when he talks about the recent insidious developments of violence from Loyalist paramilitaries. It is regrettable that that is happening, especially at a time when no single life has been lost at the hands of the Republican movement since 1 January 1994. One would hope for a de-escalation on both sides. Unfortunately, that is not happening in relation to the Loyalist paramilitaries. I will certainly put that matter before the Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, on Saturday next and I look forward to hearing the views of the British Government and what they propose to do about it. The attacks on democratically elected people or representatives of local communities at different times are regrettable and are shown to be a threat to the democratic system. We will certainly ask for action from the British Prime Minister in that regard.
Can we do anything?
The Extradition Bill is before the House and I know the Whips will be making preparations to have it taken. So far as the Government is concerned we are ready to take it immediately if necessary, perhaps next week. We do not have any problems with that. We will put it on the Statute Book as soon as possible and I have no doubt that would be the view of the Opposition parties also.
I am not clear on the Taoiseach's view in relation to the three stranded talks process. Does he believe it would be helpful to the peace process if talks were to commerce immediately?
Yes. I said we are ready to start the talks process at any time. I have also said I believe that if those talks could take place in a peaceful environment they would have a better chance of success. That does not mean we are holding back on a resumption of the talks process. We are ready to take part on the basis of what I have said in this House today.
I want to bring these questions to finality. The Chair feels they have been dealt with adequately. A final brief question from Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
The Taoiseach responded to my question in relation to language and said that people can use whatever language they wish. As an experienced politician, the Taoiseach must know that language carries its own message and that certain language in Northern Ireland can result in people being murdered——
We are having repetition.
——depending on how it is used and who uses it. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House whether the submission being made by Sir Patrick Mayhew to the Irish Government should or could contain proposals with regard to internal arrangements in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that in order to achieve a proper and balanced solution in Northern Ireland a resolution of the problem must contain within it, not solely, arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland?
Any attempt to try to find a resolution within a purely internal settlement in Northern Ireland will not work and will not be acceptable to the Irish Government. I have made that clear on a number of occasions. There must be a realistic approach to the talks process. The Irish Government will be realistic about the talks and we will be realistic in considering what will work and what cannot. To try to reach an internal settlement without solving the problems of relationship between North and South would be futile in the end.
It is important to clarify this.
Order. Question No. 6 please.
What the Taoiseach is saying is——
I have given the Deputy quite some latitude. The Chair will be obeyed.
The Taoiseach is telling the House that he has no objection to any internal arrangement which is in the context of a wider arrangement. Is that what the Taoiseach is trying to tell us?
It is not what I said.
That is very interesting.
I said quite clearly that it is a three strand talks process——
We will not get a settlement unless we have some internal process.
——and any deviation from a three stand process will not work.
We will not get a settlement unless we have an internal settlement as part of it.