Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:1 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the nature of the changes he is seeking in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Talks.
Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach whether he will raise with the President of the United States, Mr. Bill Clinton, the reduced US funding proposed for the International Fund for Ireland.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together. The basis of the three strand talks under the 26 March 1991 statement is that it is open to any of the parties to raise any aspects of the relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands, including constitutional issues. Accordingly, at our initiative, we put the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, on the table in the course of the talks during 1992. The 1920 Act also formed part of the background to the formulation of the Joint Declaration, as far as we were concerned, as I shall explain.
I have always made it clear, since I took office, that in any negotiations the Government of Ireland Act would also be on the table alongside Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. This is with a view to achieving a balanced constitutional accommodation as part of an overall settlement, as referred to in paragraph 7 of the Joint Declaration of 15 December 1993. The aim of a "balanced constitutional accommodation" as part of an agreed package is also contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government.
The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, is the principal counterpart to Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution, and each is a statement of the formal constitutional position of Ireland and Britain, with regard to the de jure status of Northern Ireland. It is natural that in seeking to arrive at a balanced constitutional accommodation both statements should be on the table, so that balanced consideration can be given to the question of what reformulation, refinement, or restatement may be required on either side.
I recognise the fundamental importance and sensitivity of this question for people in both communities in Northern Ireland. I have always approached the question in a constructive and conciliatory way, and not in any spirit of coercion. I have sought to point out that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, embodied a constitutional compromise, which has largely been lost sight of in the intervening period. Indeed, the abandonment of the compromise, and of the Council of Ireland in the 1925 Boundary Agreement is perhaps one of the reasons the Northern Ireland troubles resurfaced later.
It is important to understand the original basis and terms on which partitition was enacted. The legislation is far more than just a bald statement of British sovereignty, and was never purely negative from an Irish Nationalist point of view. Even Article 75 was the basis on which the British Government was able to abolish Stormont and end majority rule in Northern Ireland.
Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, while apparently in direct opposition to each other, have one vital principle in common. They are both based on the principle of the essential unity of Ireland. The Government of Ireland Act in section 2 envisaged a Council of Ireland "with a view to the eventual establishment of a Parliament for the whole of Ireland, to bring about harmonious action between the parliaments and Governments" North and South and "to the promotion of mutual intercourse and uniformity in relation to matters affecting the whole of Ireland". Under section 10 it also had the power to exercise delegated powers with respect to railways, fisheries and animal hygiene. It had the power to "consider any questions which may appear in any way to bear on the welfare" of both North and South, and it was asked to consider "what Irish services might in the common interest be administered by a body having jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland".
The provisions of the Council of Ireland were explicitly carried over into the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which was also based on the principle of the essential unity of Ireland, with an opt-out clause. While parts of the 1920 Act were subsequently superseded, it was, nevertheless, the foundation stone of Northern Ireland. The Council of Ireland was revived in the Sunningdale Agreement of 1973.
The Government of Ireland Act also contained in section 5 a very explicit provision intended to outlaw any religious discrimination, and prevent any law that would directly or indirectly "give a preference, privilege, or advantage, or enforce any disability or disadvantage, on account of religious belief". There is now a strong parallel to this at the end of paragraph 5 of the Joint Declaration.
My argument in relation to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, has always been that the compromise and balanced accommodation it contained in relation to the North and to partition has never been implemented. There were three principles: despite partition, the underlying unity of Ireland was not contested, and the long term aim was to reestablish political unity; it envisaged the establishment of joint bodies and institutions with executive authority; it outlawed religious discrimination.
In other words, partition was never intended to give an unfettered freehold to the majority community in Northern Ireland to do as they wished. The same Act, which proclaimed British sovereignty in Northern Ireland, made the re-establishment of Irish political unity a long term aim, provided in the meantime mechanisms to have both parts of the island working together, and sought to prevent discrimination. According to a Financial Times interview and briefing on 3 February by Sir Patrick Mayhew, his recommendations to the parties were to include proposals for a number of cross-Border executive bodies with responsibility for such areas as tourism and the environment. Such institutions are exactly in line with the spirit of the Government of Ireland Act.
If Nationalists are being asked in the declaration for some time into the future to respect the wishes of a greater number of the people in Northern Ireland to remain in the Union, we are entitled to seek implementation of the other balancing compromises contained in the Government of Ireland Act.
The Joint Peace Declaration goes a considerable distance towards re-establishing the spirit of the original compromise. The declaration contains explicit recognition of the right to self-determination of the Irish people for the first time and disclaims any selfish British strategic or economic interest. There is also a strong commitment by the British Government to work for an agreed Ireland, including the creation of institutions and structures enabling people, North and South to work together in all areas of common interest. Our position is that such institutions and structures would need to have at least the scope and powers envisaged in the 1920 Act.
The declaration is also based on full respect for the civil rights, religious liberties and identities of both traditions in Ireland, the more important of which are spelt out at the end of paragraph 5. This, too, would be in keeping with the 1920 Act. My next point would be that in the declaration we have already made substantial progress, following our decision to put the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, on the table, towards reinstating the principles contained in it designed to offset partially the impact of partition, while it lasts.
With regard to the question on the International Fund for Ireland, the position is that the 1994 allocation of $19.6 million is already agreed but the provision for 1995 has yet to be determined. It should be borne in mind that the US budgetary process for that year has only just got under way, and that the proposed $15 million contribution to the IFI represents the US Administration's provisional allocation set out in a draft budgetary paper presented to Congress. This has yet to be processed through the relevant committees and Congress itself. I have already taken up this matter with the White House, and I am hopeful of an early and positive result, but I will, of course, use every appropriate opportunity during my vist to convey the importance of at least maintaining the present level of funding to the IFI in the context of the widespread desire in the United States to assist the advancement of the peace process.
On the overall question of IFI funding, I am pleased to note that the European Commission proposed last week to continue European Union support for the International Fund for Ireland to the tune of 45 million Ecus for the three year period 1995 to 1997. The proposals will now go to the EU Council of Ministers for approval, from which I also expect a positive result.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. Will he accept that there is a political vacuum in Northern Ireland, that the Downing Street Declaration has not been successful to date in securing the agreement of Sinn Féin and the IRA for a cessation of violence and that in the absence of this peace dividend the Official Unionist Party has retreated into its internal settlement shell? In these circumstances will he accept there is a need to maintain the momentum and that it is necessary to adopt a new approach? The case for a Dáil commission has been made by Deputy Bruton but this has been rejected by the Government. Will the Taoiseach accept there is a need to adopt a new approach and that both Governments should now agree to new proposals covering the three sets of relationships to which he referred, internally, between North and South and the two islands, to be presented to the parties later this year? Will he also accept that the challenge now is to produce joint proposals acceptable to the moderate majority in Northern Ireland?
On the question of the International Fund for Ireland, will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to indicate to President Clinton that this is the wrong time to reduce the fund by cutting it from $20 million to $15 million and that this cut should be reversed? I appreciate that the select committee is a matter for the House of Commons and that it is not of great concern unless it is a step towards integration. However, will the Taoiseach agree that by having only one member of the Nationalist community on the select committee it is unbalanced? Can a case be made in favour of raising that issue with the United Kingdom authorities?
I have made my views known on the question of the establishment of a select committee in the House of Commons, it is a matter for the House of Commons. At the recent meeting in Downing Street I reiterated my view that the British Government should always be cognisant of the fact that there is a suspicion among the Nationalist community that their views, rights and identity are not fully recognised by the British Government and a fear that the British Government is not behind the Joint Declaration. The British Prime Minister, John Major, made it abundantly clear to me — and later to the press — that he fully subscribed to and stood behind the Joint Declaration. He has taken many opportunities since to reiterate the view of the British and Irish Governments, that the starting point for the talks will be the Downing Street Joint Declaration, that both Governments are committed to the three strand talks process and that it is regrettable the new strategy of the Unionists is to move away, temporarily or otherwise, from this process.
The British Prime Minister and I made it clear that we do not subscribe to a one strand talks process for an internal settlement, recognising that this has not worked in the past. The British Government stated on many occasions that there will be no return to the domination of a Stormont-type government in Northern Ireland and that any system of devolved government will have to enjoy the support and allegiance of both communities. We are committed to a resumption of the talks process. Provision is made in the Downing Street Joint Declaration for the establishment of a forum for peace and reconciliation — which would be open to all parties — to commence the process of reconciliation of the divided communities on this island. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has already held one hearing, if not more, on the position in Northern Ireland. This objective and strategies will be pursued at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference next week.
Will the Taoiseach accept that there are great dangers in allowing a political vacuum to exist in Northern Ireland and that in the run up to the European elections and the marching season both Governments should try to adopt detailed joint proposals on the three strand talks process to which he referred to be presented to the political parties later this year? Does he agree this is the best way to fill the political vacuum?
I remind Members that on Tuesdays, 30 minutes only are available for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach.
I do not accept there is a political vacuum. Both Governments are actively engaged behind the scenes. Mr. Michael Ancram is engaged in bilateral talks, last Saturday the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland while the Anglo-Irish Conference is due to meet next week. The liaison committee which operates under both Governments is back in action. There is no question of a political vacuum. It is hoped that all parties will be able to come to the table because it is by discussion and dialogue that an agreed future for the island of Ireland and accommodation between the two communities will be worked out. It will never be worked out by a continuance of violence between the two communities. I stressed that on a number of occasions and that is still my strong view. There is now an historic opportunity for everybody on the island to work out an accommodation for the future and it would be in the spirit of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to which I have referred extensively today, to proceed along the road envisaged as far back as 70 years ago.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it is desirable that the three-stranded talks involving the political parties in Northern Ireland be resumed quickly so that people do not say things during the European election campaign in Northern Ireland that will make the resumption of political progress after the election more difficult? What specifically is the Government doing to overcome the obstacles to the resumption of the three-stranded talks? Is it the case that the Irish Government has not to date submitted any paper to the British Government on strand 1, strand 2 or strand 3? If so, would the Taoiseach agree that that omission should be remedied?
I agree that it is highly desirable that the talks process should resume and hope it will as soon as possible. We are all political realists and know that things can be said during election campaigns, North or South, that might not be said in a different atmosphere. The talks process continued right through what is regarded as the marching season in 1992. Although one would hope and expect that it would be possible to resume the talks process quickly, we must be realistic and listen to what other parties say about the resumption of those talks. There is no point in dwelling on a strand 1 talks process that will not endure or yield a result. Nobody in this House would advocate such a course and the Government is certainly not contemplating it.
Is it the case that the Government has not to date submitted any paper to the British Government in regard to strand 1, strand 2 or strand 3 of the talks? Does the Taoiseach agree that the absence of any paper creates an impression that the Irish Government does not take the resumption of the talks as seriously as it ought?
That may be the view of some, but it is not the view of either Government. We have had extensive discussions about the matter the Deputy refers to and we agreed at our last meeting in Downing Street that we would approach matters by first resuming the liaison group between the two Governments. That is the position to date.
Nothing is happening.
Does the Taoiseach see any role for a devolved power-sharing executive in finding a political solution in Northern Ireland? Is he still optimistic that there will be a positive response from the Republican movement to the Joint Declaration?
I certainly hope there will be a positive response. In a practical analysis of the Joint Declaration and the opportunities it can open up, set against the continuation of futile violence for another 25 years with the taking of more innocent lives, any sensible person would have to come down on the side of a cessation of violence and pursue the legitimate political objectives of the Nationalist community within the forum of political dialogue and the political process. That is my honest opinion, and I am still cautiously hopeful that there will be a positive response and that there will be a cessation of violence in due course.
On the question of a power-sharing executive, the problems of Northern Ireland cannot be solved in isolation. The three strands must be taken together. Trying to solve the problems by means of a power-sharing executive simply will not work without working out the relationships between North and South and between the peoples on the island as well.
Will the Taoiseach agree that he is now virtually the only person in this country that has any optimism, cautious or otherwise, that the Republican movement will accept the declaration? The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, is a dubious basis for making progress. That Act was framed specifically in the context of this State being within the Commonwealth but we are no longer in the Commonwealth and now have a Constitution of our own. The 1920 Act has been amended a number of times, particularly in relation to giving the people of Northern Ireland the right to opt out of the United Kingdom if they wish. Will the Taoiseach, therefore, agree that it would make far more sense if he would accept that the two States exist and that it is on that basis that negotiations should proceed, not on the basis of a Government of Ireland Act which, in many respects, resulted in a civil war in this State?
I do not know what other avenue Deputy De Rossa might advocate.
I am advocating that we do not reach back 70 years for a solution that has failed.
If we are looking for a balanced constitutional settlement then, of necessity, we must look at the two positions. I have from the start stated my belief that the Government of Ireland Act and Articles 2 and 3 must be on the table together and not one in isolation from the others. I do not accept Deputy De Rossa's contention that we can walk away and forget about the objectives of the Government of Ireland Act. In the Act and the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum it was quite clear that the British Government of the day saw the eventual unity of Ireland, which would start by ensuring good economic co-operation between North and South and setting up institutions to administer the three or four areas that I instanced. They were the views of the British Government when it put together the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. It is true that certain parts of it have been superseded but that does not negative the fundamental principles laid out then and that is the basis on which I started my talks with the British Prime Minister.
So we are going back into the Commonwealth.
If I am one of the few people who remain optimistic, so be it. I was also one of the few people who believed it was possible to get the Joint Declaration through.
It is an appalling vista.
I understand the Taoiseach's emphasis on the necessity for balance but I find it somewhat surprising that he has drawn attention to certain aspects of the Government of Ireland Act. The Taoiseach agreed that section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 was responsible for the suspension of Stormont, yet in the previous 50 years it remained a dead letter because of a convention that grew up that the British Government would not interfere within Northern Ireland, and that is an important part of the British constitution that should not be ignored. On the Taoiseach's comments on section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act relating to the banning of religious discrimination, could anyone in their right mind suggest that throughout the history of Northern Ireland this remained anything other than a dead letter? It did not refer to housing, jobs or any of the things important to ordinary people. Finally, in regard to the Council of Ireland, will the Taoiseach remember that although the Council of Ireland was proposed by the Government of Ireland Act and the Unionists actually appointed members to that Council, it was the Government in this part of the island which was responsible for the strangulation of that body because it saw no future in it?
I agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy that section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act was a dead letter. What caused the problems was the denial of the rights of the Nationalists and that they were made into second-class citizens. The domination of one community over the other eventually resulted in the suspension of Stormont——
That is not a particularly good model.
We should recognise the facts. In paragraph 5 of the Joint Declaration we carried through some of those objectives, but if we revert to a Stormont-like Government, that is what we can expect. That is not acceptable, it did not work in the past and will not in the future.
Nobody is suggesting that.
I am entitled to draw from what I believe were the intentions of a British Government in establishing the 1920 Act and to say that if we proceed along those lines today we might get to where a British Government wanted to get 70 years ago.
Why not start from where we are today?
That is where we started.
The Taoiseach is going back 70 years.
We want to get away from where we are today.
We should start from today and not from the position 70 years ago.
Order, please. I want to bring these questions to finality and a number of Deputies are offering. I will call Deputies Michael McDowell, John Bruton and Jim O'Keeffe and I appeal to them to be brief. Otherwise we cannot dispose of the remaining questions to the Taoiseach.
In relation to section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which preserves for the Westminister Parliament overall responsibility for Northern Ireland, is the Taoiseach suggesting that in the context of any change while Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom that there should be a diminution in the authority of Westminister over Northern Ireland? Is he suggesting that there should be a watering down or a sharing of authority in respect of Northern Ireland?
Those are matters for negotiation. On section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 the British Government does not have a written constitution like us. The partitioning of Ireland draws its legal basis from that Act. If we are to seek a balanced constitutional settlement it follows that we should consider the two bases of the Constitution, that in respect of Britain and Northern Ireland and Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution. That is what I said and it should be clear to everybody.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it is noteworthy that in his long answer he has not identified a single phrase in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 which he proposes should be changed immediately? Furthermore, is he aware of the risks in a matter of this complexity of attempting to return to the constitutional fundaments of the issue and seek to reach agreement on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed on matters about which there are profound — almost theological — differences between people on this island? Will the Taoiseach agree that the risk of this "all or nothing" approach he is adopting is that no progress will be made because there will be a few remaining issues on which agreement will not be possible? There is a downside to the approach being adopted by the Taoiseach; it is similar to building a house by starting with the roof rather than the foundation.
The exact opposite is the case.
That is my opinion and our party's record stands for itself in terms of the progress we made in Government in getting concrete agreements in place on this subject. We did not attempt to solve fundamental problems, rather we dealt with practical problems first.
I hope I have made it clear that the balanced constitutional compromise which was reached then has not worked. Is Deputy Bruton suggesting that we should forget about the past, for example, that we should forget the petition was instituted and the basis on which it was instituted and in some way say that we have had a happy record for the past 70 years? The Nationalists are well aware that we have not had a happy record for the past 70 years.
I did not say that; that is a slur.
It is deliberate misrepresentation of what the Deputy said.
Let us not have any disorder at this time.
The Taoiseach did not answer my question and this is the Taoiseach who talks about looking for agreement and consensus.
I am seeking to bring these questions to a conclusion in an orderly fashion. Deputy Bruton should desist as the Taoiseach is on his feet——
The Chair should protect Members from tendentious or inaccurate statements.
——and he is entitled to reply without interruption.
The Taoiseach is covering up with insults.
There is nobody insulting anybody. I am talking about the practicalities and the reality and if somebody——
Deputy Allen should keep out of this.
Like other Members I am entitled to speak.
The Deputy is not entitled to speak from a seated position.
If Deputy Bruton is suggesting that we do not have any foundation for what we are doing and that we do not know where we are going, may I suggest that he go back——
I did not suggest anything of the sort.
That is what the Deputy suggested. Deputy Bruton should reread the Joint Declaration because its proposals have gone a long way from the position some time ago.
The Taoiseach should read the Government of Ireland Act.
I will continue to reintroduce the Government of Ireland Act because it is the basis from which we should proceed. How will we solve the problem if we are not prepared to examine the root cause of it? The Joint Declaration has taken us a long way down the road and there is no going back to the position before the agreement on it. We will build on the Joint Declaration. There is no point in fooling ourselves; we must recognise the real problems and search for solutions if we are ever going to resolve the problem. I am not prepared to enter into talks which would merely paper over the existing problems. I am trying to achieve a deep-seated solution to the problem so that the Irish people will not be condemned to another 70 years of violence, death and destruction. That is the reality.
But it will not be based on the Government of Ireland Act.
The Taoiseach might as well go back to the settlement Act or perhaps undo the Reformation.
The sentiments of the Government of Ireland Act and the intentions of the British Government when it enacted it should be followed through by this British Government. The precedent is set for where the then British Government thought the future should be and there is no reason to believe the British Government would not agree with that now.
We all know the results.
We do, but we do not want another 70 years of violence.
I share the Taoiseach's optimism and wish him well in searching for a solution to the problem. Why does he believe he will be more successful in persuading the IRA to leave down their guns when Collins, Griffith, de Valera and Seán MacBride failed? What is persuading the Taoiseach that he has the power those men did not have?
If the proposals by the British Government in the Joint Declaration had been made 70 years ago the course of Irish history might have been different.
That is not the answer.
It is an answer, the Deputy asked me what I did that others did not do. The Joint Declaration represents a historic move forward and if the statements enshrined in it were made by the British Government 70 years ago Irish history may well have taken a different course.
While I wish the Taoiseach well he has not given a convincing answer.
I am calling Deputy O'Keeffe. The time for questions to the Taoiseach is exhausted.
Reference was made to the ill-effects of domination by one community over another in the past. Is it a cornerstone of Government policy that there should be parity for members of the Nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland?
That is absolutely correct. I stated that here on a number of occasions. At all my meetings with the British Prime Minister I made abundantly clear the root cause of the problems that exists between the dividing communities in Northern Ireland and that a large minority of the Nationalist population were treated as second class citizens, that they were being discriminated against for too long and that they had deep fears and suspicions about the British Government and the Unionist population. It was against that background that I wanted equal recognition for both communities in any new arrangements.
As Question No. 4 has been withdrawn, have I approval to deal with No. 3?
It can be dealt with tomorrow.
I will proceed then to questions nominated for priority for which 20 minutes only are provided in Standing Orders.