Vol. 441 No. 8
1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he has received a formal response from constitutional representatives in Northern Ireland to his guarantee that 30 per cent of places in an enlarged Government and public sector would be provided to representatives of the two communities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
2 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the reaction, if any, he has had to his remarks in Malahide, County Dublin, on the proportion of Government seats and public service jobs to be reserved for Northern Ireland in the event of a United Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
3 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the response, if any, he has received from politicians in Northern Ireland to his recent speech to the Ógra Fianna Fáil conference in which he said that he would be prepared to guarantee 30 per cent of places in an all-Ireland Government for representatives from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
A key aspect of the Joint Declaration is that it is entirely legitimate to pursue the goal of a united Ireland. This must be sought by democratic political means only and paragraph seven makes clear that Irish unity would be achieved only by those who favour this outcome persuading those who do not, peacefully and without coercion or violence.
In my address to the Ógra Fianna Fáil annual conference on 16 April, I acknowledged that, realistically, a united Ireland by agreement is a long term goal, but it is also a reality that the ideal of Irish unity in the right conditions is a cherished aspiration which is dearly held by a great many people, North and South. I therefore do not accept that it is inappropriate or that it is illegitimate even to discuss and debate this prospect or to present unity in an attractive form. It is contradictory and illogical to claim on the one hand to support the Joint Declaration and on the other hand to condemn any discussion of Irish unity. That type of attitude, which seeks to deter any democratic discussion of unity, only serves to perpetuate violence.
The underlying point of my speech was that in any future form of Government, the notion that a majority can simply override minorities in either Northern Ireland or in an all-Ireland situation has to be discarded. That clear message was directed to the communities in the North and the people in the Republic. Simple majoritarianism amounts to coercion and is contrary to the spirit and principles of the Joint Declaration. An accommodation is what is required.
The question of what Unionists could expect in a new agreed Ireland has been raised with me on many occasions by moderate Unionists from the North. Would their worst fears be realised? In the course of a lengthy speech, which covered many other topics, I put forward the idea that, in the event of future unity, the two communities could expect their fair share of places in an enlarged Government, and throughout the public sector, for as long as was necessary and in accordance with systems that have been developed on parts of the European Continent and elsewhere. There could also be, if desired, as part of that framework a regional responsibility-sharing Government. Even under a more limited settlement, a regional administration could be one important element alongside North-South institutions in replacing violence by providing a return to real politics in the North. Central to the ideas which I put forward was that in determining a new agreed Ireland the principles of agreement and consent must apply.
Naturally, I never expected the idea to be warmly embraced by Unionist politicians in the short term. Nevertheless, most of the comments from the Ulster Unionist Party have been moderate and measured. The Reverend Martin Smyth, for instance, recognised that there is greater openness and generosity in the idea, but said of course that the plan denied the essence of Unionism. Eddie McGrady of the SDLP said that the speech contained elements which could embody the aspirations of both communities and become a catalyst in future discussions. The Sinn Féin president welcomed the principle of a national partnership government, having already accepted that Unionists should not be coerced into a united Ireland and that their agreement should be sought through a process of democratic persuasion only. A central point in my speech was that, together with the Joint Declaration, this acceptance removes any remaining perceived justification for continued armed struggle. In this regard, I wholeheartedly support Cardinal Cahal Daly's weekend statement when he said: "Politically, the continuance of IRA violence is merely confusing the real issues and obscuring the real problems of the present and the future of this country."
I think it important to repeat here again the underlying theme of my Ógra Fianna Fáil speech. An eventual political settlement must be achieved by agreement and consent. To ensure its acceptance and durability, the system of government which is ultimately agreed must provide rock-solid guarantees for the rights, identities and aspirations of both traditions. In my speech, I set out one possible way in which these fundamental principles would apply in the event of a united Ireland being agreed at some date in the future.
Notwithstanding some reservations expressed by other politicians and in parts of the media, Deputies should take careful note that I am not aware of any reaction which described any element of my speech as manifestly unfair to either tradition. I therefore believe that it deserves over a period of time full and careful deliberation by all who seek a new agreed way of life in an environment of peaceful co-existence for the people of this island.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that on one occasion moderate Unionists raised with him the question of what might be on offer in the context of a united Ireland? Does he accept, in the unlikely event of a united Ireland being agreed, that the make up of a Cabinet would be a matter for negotiation? Does he also accept that the escalation in violence during the weekend indicates that Sinn Féin is not going to accept the Downing Street Declaration and that we need to move ahead without waiting any longer for a response from Sinn Féin?
The answer to the first question is yes. In the event of a united Ireland being agreed, the two communities could expect their fair share of Cabinet positions and positions in the public service. This would be the subject of talks and negotiations. I deplore the continuance of violence and hope that we will not see a return to the tit for tat violence which we have seen in the past. I mentioned last week that Loyalists were responsible for eight of the 11 deaths this year. Since then we have seen a return to barbaric violence on the part of the Provisional IRA. There is no justification for a return to tit for tat violence; there is a clear way ahead to deal with the problems. Many of the reasons for violence have been answered in the Joint Declaration. Both Governments are working strongly behind the scenes to resolve the remaining problems in a peaceful democratic way.
In the context of what has happened since his speech to Ógra Fianna Fáil, will the Taoiseach accept that there was a certain air of unreality, even day-dreaming, about that speech and that what is necessary now is to get back to the current realities? Will he agree there is a need for the Dáil to send a message to the lord high executioners of the IRA that peace will not come out of the barrel of a gun, that they are speaking for nobody except themselves, that they are now hiding behind a smokescreen of violence and killing for blood lust? Will the Taoiseach further agree that the way forward is to try to accelerate the political process, that in that context what is needed is to inject a sense of urgency into the discussions between the two Governments so that the framework agreement mentioned in the past and, again, in the communiqué to the conference yesterday can be ready quickly? In that context can he give any idea when that framework agreement between the two Governments will be completed?
From the point of view of some people, there is always an air of unreality when looking at the problems of Northern Ireland. We have continuously sent a very clear message from this House, supported by all parties that, in the words of the Downing Street Joint Declaration, Irish people — 97 per cent of whom agree with the declaration— have determined how they want to see it work in future and how they want the agreement approached, that is, by consent and by working it out. That is what the Irish people — and the Dáil — want and we continuously send that message. I do not accept that there is any slackening of the efforts of both Governments in trying to work out a framework for a resumption of the talks. There was a long Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday in Belfast at which that topic was discussed for a considerable period. Both Governments approach this as a matter of urgency because we do not want to see another life taken as a result of the problems in Northern Ireland. I have said often enough that there will be no military victory on either side. Consequently, the continuance of violence is the road to nowhere.
Will the Taoiseach accept that one of the major arguments within the republican movement against accepting the declaration is that the Brits, as they would put it, are about to withdraw and all that is required is one last push by them to push them out? Will he also agree that his speech outlining the framework for a united Ireland simply lends credence to that view among the republican movement and that in that respect his speech was unhelpful in bringing about peace on this island? In that regard also, given the Taoiseach's reply today that he understands that Sinn Féin said it does not accept that Unionists should be coerced into a united Ireland, why does he think Sinn Féin and the IRA murdered a policeman last week, two Protestant working men the other night, another man last night and mutilated 16 others? If they believe it is not possible or legitimate to coerce people into a united Ireland, why does the Taoiseach think they are continuing to bomb, murder and maim?
The Deputy should be realistic and not direct questions like that to me.
You are the Taoiseach.
The only people who can answer those questions are the Provisional IRA. I do not speak for them and I do not have the inside track on them any more than the Deputy does.
To say that my speech contributes to their campaign is a gross insult to the intelligence of people in both communities in the North and of the large majority of people in the South. If the Deputy had been speaking to Loyalists and moderate Unionists, as I have been doing for quite some time, he would appreciate that they describe themselves as a community under siege and uncertain of their future. That is what they say to me, and they have said it to others. I have responded openly to every possible angle put to me in relation to the problems in Northern Ireland and I reject Deputy De Rossa's assertion that my speech in any way had the effect he says it had.
Hear, hear.
Does the Taoiseach consider it fair that the suspension of section 31 is being used by Sinn Féin to pick and choose the times when they appear on radio? For example, they are allowed to appear to talk about community problems in Crossmaglen arising from the British Army presence there and allowed to choose not to appear as Sinn Féin to explain their support for atrocities such as those in Garvagh, County Derry. Does the Taoiseach consider that this manipulation of our airwaves and the generosity of the Government in regard to section 31, to put it at its kindest, is fair to the majority of us who do not support violence?
The Deputy is fully aware that I have no function in regard to who appears on radio or television at any given time on any given subject. Consequently, I have no more to say about that. However, since the non-renewal of section 31, support for Sinn Féin as a political party has decreased, if we are to take the results of recent opinion polls as a guide. Therefore, all the arguments that there would be a huge uplift in support for Sinn Féin as a result of not renewing section 31 have proved groundless. My own observation is that they are finding it very difficult, in some of the interviews I heard, to justify some of the things they are doing at the moment and that is the way the people are beginning to see it.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the problem with his Malahide speech to Ógra Fianna Fáil was that, like somebody with long sight, he was able to be a very clear on the detail of something which he now concedes to this House is a long way off, but has signally failed to point out what, in the short run and in the proximate future, is the path to reconciliation in Northern Ireland? Will the Taoiseach not agree it would be appropriate to spell out in detail what will happen in two, three or four years if he can get the moderate people of Northern Ireland to work together, and what kind of institutions he sees in Northern Ireland to bring that about?
I reject Deputy McDowell's assertion that I was trying to set it in the short to medium-term. I certainly was not. If he studied my speech he would see exactly where it was set. It contained a message that had to be delivered not alone to both communities in the North but to many people in the South. If the Deputy saw no purpose in that, he is entitled to his view. I saw a purpose in it and I stand over the usefulness of having delivered that message. Unionists themselves would bear that out. From The Guardian editorial, it is clear that they understood the message and it is amazing that Deputy McDowell does not understand why it was said.
What about Michael McGimpsey who sat on the same platform and said he could not follow what the Taoiseach was up to? He is a moderate Unionist.
I did not interrupt the Deputy. Doctor Martin Smyth said it was very generous. If Deputy McDowell goes further out, that is his prerogative.
As to the question of an internal settlement in Northern Ireland, at which Deputy McDowell is pointing his finger, I have said time and again in this House that an internal settlement on its own will not work.
I am not talking about an internal settlement.
The Deputy asked about internal institutions in the North. I cannot, therefore, understand what he is pointing at if not at an internal settlement.
Will there not be internal institutions?
I said clearly that part of the solution can be a responsibility-sharing Government with strong institutional links between North and South. That is the type of idea being processed between the two Governments in our joint attempt to set out a framework on which the talks process can resume.
I would like more information on the question of the discussions between the two Governments because that is the way forward and the sooner we have an agreed framework the sooner the political process will again get under way. I get the impression that the Irish Government is wholeheartedly behind a framework being produced quickly, but is the UK Government contributing wholeheartedly to the process? Is there similar enthusiasm on the part of the UK Government for an agreed framework in the near future? Can the Taoiseach give us an idea as to when we might have such a framework? Are we talking about months or years?
I certainly hope we are not talking about years. I hope that within a number of months the general framework will be provided. I assure the Deputy that both Governments are working behind the scenes to provide the framework as soon as possible. Some may believe that nothing is happening on the political front, but plenty is happening on that front between the two Governments in an effort to move the process forward. As I stated on a number of occasions here, both Governments have agreed that the Downing Street Declaration is the new starting point. A cessation of violence would certainly be helpful, but we will continue our work in this regard. There is no question of the paramilitaries deciding the agenda for the two sovereign Governments.
The Taoiseach said a number of times that the Reverend Martin Smith welcomed his comments as generous. Is the Taoiseach aware that the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party advised him to come down to earth and face reality? The Leader of the DUP described his speech as a disgrace, the Leader of the Alliance Party said it could not be taken seriously and Michael McGimpsey, who attended the Ógra Fianna Fáil conference, said it was half baked.
The Deputy is imparting a great deal of information.
I am because the Taoiseach does not seem to be aware of these things.
The Taoiseach is not aware of these matters.
The Deputy is scavenging for headlines.
That is unbecoming of the Deputy. If the Taoiseach is aware of those remarks, does he not consider that they carry more weight than the comments of Reverend Martin Smyth? Will the Taoiseach agree that if his speech was intended to encourage the Unionists, it has failed? Will he agree it was a mistake?
The Deputy's question is too long.
Does the Taoiseach believe that Sinn Féin and the IRA, in view of their activities during the past week, are committed in any way to a peaceful resolution of the problems in Northern Ireland?
We are having an element of repetition.
It is clear that Deputy De Rossa does not understand the Unionist People and does not study what they say. He prefers to take the little headline and run with it rather than examining the substance of what James Molyneaux said in his many speeches in the United States, not just one.
The Chair did not allow me to place the speech on the record.
From my experience, the Unionist people are proud and straight talking, they respect people who say exactly what they mean. I have been meeting Unionists for a quarter of a century and I have a good idea how they think. The way in which Deputy De Rossa is trying to portray them here is far removed from the genuine constructive Unionist person who has made a great contribution to many aspects of life in the North. I genuinely believe Unionists could make a tremendous contribution to the overall development of the island of Ireland if there was a cessation of violence. I reject what the Deputy said.
The Deputy did not answer the question.
I thought that at this stage of his life the Deputy might have made a positive contribution.
On a point of order, will the Taoiseach answer the two questions?
Deputy De Rossa has had a good innings, I call Deputy John Bruton.
The Deputy could talk to Ian Paisley.
The Minister, Deputy Smith, is back and overruling the Taoiseach.
Fresh from the Cavan potholes.
He proposes to extend the poll tax to the mainland.
The Deputy voted against the provisions for it.
In relation to the position which the Taoiseach envisages, how does he propose to distribute 30 per cent of the seats in the Cabinet between the two traditions in Northern Ireland? Would people have to vote in favour of one tradition or would the quota be distributed to all parties who obtain a minimum number of seats in a Northern assembly or among the Northern seats in an all-Ireland body? How would the 30 per cent quota apply to positions in the public service? Would it apply to all Civil Service Departments and State bodies or merely at board level? In regard to the scenario which the Taoiseach envisages, namely, a long term position of a United Ireland, can I take it that any settlement would have to respect the rights, identities and aspirations of all? If so, what arrangements does he propose to recognise the British identity and the aspiration to unity with Britain of a minority on the island who are currently a majority in Northern Ireland in the final settlement he envisages? How would such a British aspiration of a certain section of the community be recognised?
I answered the question in relation to the identity of the Unionists here last week, dual citizenship will continue. I stated time and time again that the rights and identities of both communities and traditions must be accommodated in any overall settlement. Anything that falls short of that will not work and will not be durable. In the first instance, the 30 per cent representation in the Government will be a matter for the Irish people to decide by referendum, it is a constitutional matter as the number of Cabinet seats is laid down in the Constitution. At the end of the day, it would be part of an overall constitutional settlement. Deputies Durkan and McDowell may smile but if that is their concern in regard to Northern Ireland it is a symptom of the shallow Opposition.
Just answer the question.
The Taoiseach should come down to earth.
I am down to earth, but others here are not and they do not like to talk about constructive or constitutional republicanism.
The Taoiseach is living in fantasy land.
He should talk about what happened last week.
They would like to have it banished from the dictionary.
Deputy McDowell should not insist on interrupting.
On a point of order, could I ask you, Sir, to prevent the Taoiseach from interrupting himself and ask him to answer the question put to him in good faith.
If Deputy Bruton showed a little more respect for the House and the Chair when somebody is speaking he should keep his seat.
I was raising a point of order.
It was not a point of order.
It was a spurious point of order.
This is a matter of constitutional change. It would have to be put to the Irish people in an overall balanced constitutional referendum and the detail negotiated in major consultations on behalf of both communities.
Does the Taoiseach agree with the comments made yesterday by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs that there will not be inter-party talks before the European elections? If that is the case, will he accept that if we are to keep the momentum going on the Downing Street Joint Declaration we need a major initiative from the two Governments? Has he any plans for such an initiative between now and the summer?
I hope the talks process can resume at an early date. If people are ready to resume the talks before 9 June we stand ready and waiting to do so. To be politically realistic, it is unlikely that the talks process will resume before 9 June. I have laid down the position of the two Governments. We are working hard behind the scenes to produce a framework for the resumption of talks and we will continue to do so; time is not being lost and effort is not being spared in that regard.
The Taoiseach accepts there is an overwhelming desire for peace in Northern Ireland but that could not have been said two or three years ago. Will he accept there is a hidden agenda among IRA gunmen on one side and Loyalists on the other, which has nothing to do with the unity of the country or union with Britain but is to protect a way of life to which those groups have become accustomed? Will he agree that matter should be addressed by the security forces if we are to be practical about making progress for the many people who seek peace and wish to live in harmony with their neighbours north and south of the Border?
It is generally accepted criminal elements on the margins have a vested interest in ensuring peace will not return to the province of Northern Ireland. The security forces continue to search out — as they have successfully done in recent times — those elements which everyone knows are there and are co-operating in rooting out and bringing to justice those involved in different types of protection rackets and all forms of racketeering.
The Taoiseach failed to answer two questions I asked and I will repeat one of them. Given the activities of Sinn Féin and the IRA in continuing to murder and mutilate during the past week, does he consider there is a commitment among them to a peaceful resolution of the problems of Northern Ireland?
That question would best be addressed to the IRA, not to me.
I am asking the Taoiseach the question.
I will continue my efforts to search for peace. We believed there would be setbacks and there have been and will continue to be setbacks. There have been serious setbacks in South Africa and in relations between the Palestinians and the Jews. As the Deputy from Cavan-Monaghan rightly said, some people will continue to undermine efforts to bring peace to Northern Ireland. We cannot be deterred by those setbacks. We deplore the continuance of violence, for which there is no justification. We will continue our search for peace because that is the democratic wish of the majority of people on this island, North and South.
That disposes of questions to the Taoiseach for today. We now proceed to deal with priority questions.
