Vol. 455 No. 2
1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the matters he discussed with the British Prime Minister on the margins of the EU meeting in Cannes; and if they succeeded in making headway on resolving the current difficulties besetting the peace process. [11759/95]
2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Sinn Féin. [11760/95]
3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach when he plans to hold bilateral talks with the SDLP in the context of the invitation to such talks which he recently issued. [11761/95]
4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the response, if any, he has had from Unionist and Loyalist parties regarding his invitation to talks. [11762/95]
5 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will send an invitation for talks to Mr. Robert McCartney, the new independent Unionist Member of Parliament for North Down. [11887/95]
6 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting with Sinn Féin on 22 June 1995. [11890/95]
7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether the Unionist parties have responded to his invitation to talks. [11891/95]
83 Mr. Callely asked the Taoiseach if he will intensify his efforts to have the necessary and important dialogue on the peace process commenced even on a bilateral basis in view of the fact that the first anniversary of the cessation of violence is approaching; and if he will make a statement on the current position. [11952/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, and Question No. 83 together.
As Deputies will be aware, I issued invitations on 19 May to the leaders of all the relevant political parties in Northern Ireland to participate in bilateral talks with the Irish Government on an open agenda. As a preliminary to formal talks, the Government had a meeting on 15 June with the SDLP delegation comprising the party's four MPs as well as four councillors. We had a very useful discussion on a range of issues relating to the peace process. The SDLP shares the Government's view that every effort must continue to be made to bring about the commencement of all-inclusive talks on a settlement.
In a further preliminary contact and at the specific request of Sinn Féin, the Tánaiste and I met a party delegation led by Mr. Gerry Adams on 22 June. We had a very constructive exchange of views on issues of central importance to the peace process. There has not yet been a formal response from the Alliance Party but I have had a lengthy meeting recently with the party leader, Dr. John Alderdice.
The Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr. James Molyneaux, recently informed me that, following consultation with his party colleagues, the Ulster Unionist Party feels unable to partake in bilateral talks with the Government for the time being. Naturally I would have wished that talks with the Ulster Unionist Party could have got under way immediately.
I have not yet had a definitive reply from the Ulster Democratic Party and the Progressive Unionist Party. The Democratic Unionist Party leader has indicated publicly that he will not be responding to my invitation.
The House can be assured, however, that I will continue to do everything possible to encourage the political representatives of the Unionist and loyalist tradition to meet with the Government. Within that context, I would be prepared to meet the new MP for North Down, Mr. Robert McCartney.
The Government, together with the British Government, has been seeking, in a very proactive way, to move the peace process forward. At a very useful meeting in Cannes, the British Prime Minister and I undertook a bilateral stock-taking on the peace process and all issues affecting it. We focused mainly on two issues: how to advance our agreed objective of comprehensive political talks and how to make progress on the decommissioning of illegal weapons. We agreed that we want to see movement towards fully inclusive all-party talks and we believe the close co-operation between our two Governments is the key to achieving this. We canvassed various ideas on decommissioning and have tasked our officials to consider these in more detail and report back to us in a matter of weeks.
The two Governments are firmly committed to the peace process, to an agreed political settlement and to the comprehensive negotiations required to achieve this goal. We knew from the beginning there would be difficulties. We have successfully overcome earlier difficulties and are confident we will continue to do so.
I am disappointed with the response from the Unionist parties and I urge them to change their minds. They have a duty to respond to the wishes of the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland who want to be involved in all-inclusive talks and see their leaders compromising and giving leadership. Is the Taoiseach aware of the comments made this morning by the Secretary of State to the effect that talks could go ahead without Sinn Féin? Does he envisage that happening?
Sir Patrick said that it would be possible for the SDLP to represent Sinn Féin's point of view, or something like that.
Or something like that?
That is not a point of view with which I concur. The objective should be all-inclusive talks in which each party would be able to participate on the basis of its electoral mandate. The SDLP has an electoral mandate, as have the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Féin. There are difficulties with Sinn Féin participation, particularly from the point of view of the Unionist community, as long as the decommissioning of arms has not been dealt with in a substantial way. As I have said repeatedly in the Chamber, the Unionist community is coping with the legacy of 25 years of violence. That has engendered distrust and the fear that as long as there are large caches of offensive weapons these could be used again, as well as the view that discussions with people who speak with some authority for or have a link with, others who have control over these arms would not be taking place on the basis of an appropriate degree of parity of political position. I have frequently expressed my comprehension of that point of view but I am anxious to find a basis upon which we can make substantial progress on the decommissioning of arms. We must have all-inclusive talks involving all the parties on the basis of their electoral mandates if we are to have a settlement. Any formula which does not allow that to happen will not be sufficient to solve the problem.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the acknowledgment by the British Prime Minister, John Major, in Cannes of the reality that the political process must involve all the political parties potentially represents an important breakthrough and a sign that perhaps for the first time the horse has been put before the cart and not the other way round? Having read details of the interview between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and the documents, they appear to say they are resolved to secure a firm commitment from all the organisations concerned to engage in arms decommissioning when the peace process is further advanced —— it is not clear when the commitment will be given but until then the arms will remain in cold storage and will be inaccessible. On the other hand, they appear to say that the British Government must give a commitment to legislate for restoration of the 50 per cent remission as a first step to dealing with the issue of prisoners. Is that a fair assessment? Does he agree that the British Government needs to commit itself to a review of emergency legislation and the judicial system and major reform of the system of policing?
The meeting the Tánaiste and I had with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, was extremely good. There was a very strong level of engagement by the Prime Minister in all the issues. He showed a tremendous grasp of the difficulties which must be overcome and a full understanding of the extent of them and the problems of others in overcoming them. One did not get the feeling that he was simply putting forward his point of view without giving serious thought to the problems others face in this context. In that sense it was a very good meeting.
On the other hand, it would be unwise to read more into what was said. The ideas canvassed in the Deputy's supplementary questions, various publications and speculation in the media and elsewhere will no doubt be looked at in the intensive discussions which will take place between officials. It is premature to say that this, that or the other will happen before the discussions are completed.
Does the strategy the Taoiseach is pursuing with the British Government involve the decommissioning of arms and the prisoners issue?
It is not particularly constructive to link the two issues as there are many issues involved. During our discussions the Prime Minister and I touched on all these issues. I would not pick out any two issues and say there are more links between them than any other issues. We are seeking to move the process forward by looking at the range of issues. The more issues on the table in negotiations the easier it is to find a solution. If the discussion focuses solely on one issue it frequently becomes more difficult to find a solution — there is less room for movement. This is why I am particularly pleased that our discussion in Cannes focused on the broader issues.
It is very important that the Irish and British Governments are seen to work together so that they not only have a certain degree of statutory authority but also have a great moral authority and can give leadership to the communities in Northern Ireland. Political parties should not use this as a cover for not being forthcoming with ideas and concessions. There is a tendency for people to delegate to Governments, their problems, their thinking and the thinking of their communities. Regardless of who they are, political representatives have a responsibility to think for themselves and they should not delegate this responsibility to Governments.
I accept that the Taoiseach does not wish to speculate but it appears from the documents he is trying to achieve a balance between a commitment by the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries to the decommissioning of arms and movement on the prisoners issue. It is clear that Sir Patrick Mayhew does not share the view of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister. The Taoiseach probably cannot say this, but he either subscribes to the progress made yesterday or he disagrees with it, and the comments he made this morning are unhelpful. Am I correct in saying the discussion represented a further development of the talks by the Dalton-Chilcott group which have been ongoing for seven or eight months, that this is the level at which conclusions will be reached on the various elements and these will be discussed at a further meeting between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister in September? Is that the time scale to which they are working?
There are two elements to what Sir Partrick Mayhew said this morning. The first element related to the talks and representations, and I have given my view on this. On the points about decommissioning, this is simply a reiteration of positions which have been adopted by him and other spokespersons for the British Government on so many occasions that one could not count them. It would be wrong to draw any conclusions from that statement. The Prime Minister and I did not reach any agreement at our meeting yesterday on substantive questions of that nature. Rather we agreed to a process for examining the issue more intensively with a view to finding a solution. This is the best way to approach the issue rather than looking at bits of the issue and asking how one could move on these. That sort of approach is not necessarily conducive to a solution. We do not have a timetable but there will be a summit meeting in December and other meetings or contacts in the meantime are not precluded.
I agree both Governments should adopt a similar approach as far as possible. Much as I would like to know, I understand why the Taoiseach cannot spell out in detail the matters discussed at the meeting yesterday. Is he optimistic that the circumstances will be created this summer to allow the all-inclusive talks to begin?
I will not be drawn into any expression of optimism on dates. Any reference to dates, timetables or deadlines is not helpful and does not allow the participants the space they need to think through the consequences of a possible change of position on their part. I will not refer to summer, autumn or any other season of the year in so far as this matter is concerned. I was very struck by the intensity of the engagement of the Prime Minister's attention on this issue and the extent to which he is interested not just in the general question and the need to solve it but his mastery of the detail and his day to day attention to this issue. There was a very serious level of intellectual engagement on this issue on both sides of the table and this was very welcome.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is important at this stage to have clarification on where we are going? Am I correct in saying the objective of the Government — I think it is the policy of all parties in the Dáil — is to move as quickly as possible towards all-party talks which include Sinn Féin, the Unionist parties and all parties with an electoral mandate? Other issues such as the RUC, the decommissioning of arms and the early release of prisoners also need to be addressed but the fundamental issue is inclusive all-party talks, without which the peace process will be jeopardised.
The overall and fundamental objective is inclusive all-party talks leading to an agreement. That is the case and remains the constant concern of the Government. It is a concern we reiterated in conjunction with the British Government yesterday in Cannes. The other issues, which the Deputy mentioned, cannot simply be left over until afterwards from the point of view of some of the parties whose cooperation is necessary for an overall agreement. I refer specifically to the views and concerns of the Unionist community on the issue of decommissioning of arms and on the issue of negotiating with people who still have connections with those who hold arms. That concern is there and there is no way in which it can simply be wished away by saying our objective is all-party talks and that everything else does not matter. Reiterating that point, mantra-like, does not dispose of the problem from the point of view of the Unionist community in particular. That is why the Prime Minister and I, at our first meeting in Downing Street in December, said we wanted substantial progress on the decommissioning issue. I have stuck firmly to that position ever since. What we are trying to do now is to accelerate our joint work between the two Governments so that we can find a formula whereby that substantial progress can be made. It is one of the essential steps necessary to reach the objective which the Deputy and I share — which is essential to any overall agreement — of all-inclusive talks.
Will the Taoiseach agree that there is one avenue open which is fully supported by the loyalist representatives, who appeared at the forum, it is common ground between loyalists and republicans — that something real be done in the case of prisoners? If we have a 50 per cent remission policy in regard to loyalist and republican political prisoners, it represents an area in which there is agreement across the board between the two communities, as referred to by the Taoiseach, in getting Unionist involvement and that represents a practical step that can be taken by the two Governments together now.
I have already expressed my view on remissions and I will not repeat it. The House is well aware of my view on that issue. What I said the last time Deputy Lenihan raised this question — the last time we had questions on the subject — was that one has to be sensitive in looking at this issue also to the feelings of victims and their political representatives. There is a wide spectrum of opinion in Northern Ireland across the board who might have views about releases from their own community but who might have different views about releases from another community where those representatives in that other community might have committed crimes that were particularly offensive in their own community. It is not as simple as Deputy Lenihan is portraying it but I have expressed my view on the remission of sentences frequently in the House and elsewhere and in bilateral contacts with the British Government and I adhere to it.
I wish to ask three brief supplementaries. Is the Dalton-Chilcott process being followed? Will the Dalton-Chilcott group take up discussions at the point where the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister left off yesterday? Will the Taoiseach confirm that the group will take up the work in which they were engaged earlier in the year, as announced last week? Obviously the Taoiseach cannot tell me the time-scale to which they are working. Will the Taoiseach accept that Strand II of the talks requires a resumption of the direct dialogue between the Irish Government and the Unionists which last took place in autumn 1992? I support the Taoiseach's efforts in contacting the Unionist party and join others in expressing regret at the reply. I urge the Taoiseach to continue to exert whatever pressure he can. Strand II is part of the process in which they have already engaged and they should continue. In regard to Question No. 5, Mr. Robert McCartney came down to talks here with the then Taoiseach in 1981 and during his election campaign he claimed to represent the modern pluralist face of unionism. Has the Taoiseach contacted him? If, 14 years ago, he saw fit to engage in talks directly with the Irish Government he will not have a difficulty now.
The discussions that are to take place between our officials are not confined solely to security and decommissioning related issues; they are wider than that. Therefore, not one particular instrument will be used for the channel. The Chilcott-Dalton group was mainly for decommissioning and security related issues. There are other issues that will be discussed as well. I do not think I should dwell on what committee is dealing with the issue. The important point is that we will have very serious and intensive discussions with a view to moving across the range of issues where movement can be made to advance the peace process. On the question of Mr. Robert McCartney I have said in the House that I would be delighted to meet him and I repeat that. If it requires a letter to confirm it I will happily send it. I have said it in the House and I think it is clear in its import.
What about Strand II?
The position is that I invited all the parties to discussions on an open agenda. I did not specify Strand II or any other strand. I said I was inviting them to come to talk to the Irish Government and that at the first meeting items of concern to them would be exclusively discussed. In other words they could determine the agenda for the first meeting and we could continue with our discussions, on their items, until we had gone a considerable distance on their concerns. I am not confining my invitation to an agenda related to the three strands or to anything else. It is an open invitation which allows them to come to put their views to the Irish Government. Even the most fundamental Unionist position accepts the existence of this State as a neighbouring State. It would appear to me that even the most fundamental Unionist position will accept that we would have many bilateral concerns as we share the same island and that, therefore, the invitation by the Irish Government to allow them to come and speak to the Irish Government about those bilateral concerns from the perspective of their own Government is one that has attractions to any party, representing any segment of the population in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the Taoiseach and it is regrettable that the Unionist party was not in a position to accept the invitation, even on that basis. Did the Taoiseach raise the case of Private Clegg and, if so, did he emphasise the importance of not dealing with this case in isolation.
My views on that matter are already on public record. I will not go into any more detail on the matters discussed by the Prime Minister and me in Cannes. We covered the entire ground in so far as issues that potentially affect the peace process is concerned and we agreed on a procedure to intensify the discussions between our two Governments. That is basically all I have to say.
Can we please come to other questions? I want to bring these questions to finality.
The Taoiseach went public on this issue two weeks ago. I asked him at the time why he decided to go public and there were obviously good reasons to do so. In the light of that it is perfecty legitimate for me to ask the Taoiseach, in view of what happened two weeks ago, whether the issue was raised yesterday.
It may be perfectly legitimate for the Deputy to ask the question but it is equally perfectly legitimate for me to give the answer I am giving, which is that all the issues relevant were covered in a general way. I decided I would raise the Clegg issue publicly before seeing the Prime Minister because it has been occupying a substantial amount of media space and attention in the days leading up to that meeting. It was made a public issue by Members of the House of Commons who campaigned in the Irish and British media on this question and it was therefore already in the public arena. As I had not been asked about it in this House during the previous week I had not had an opportunity to voice my view on the subject so I gave it at the earliest opportunity because I believe it was and is a matter of public concern. I did so on that occasion and see no need to give an ongoing repetition on this matter. My views have been made known.
In the text of the doorstep interview the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, raised the decommissioning issue a number of times. He seemed to suggest broadly similar proposals had been put forward by his Government and our Government and a mechanism to move forward had been agreed; the Taoiseach will not say whether it is the Chilcott-Dalton plan but someone else is obviously involved. Is the Taoiseach disappointed that, having reached a position which seems like progress, Sir Patrick Mayhew rolled back from it? On at least two occasions in the last three months we have reached a progressive position on decommissioning and each time Sir Patrick Mayhew has rolled back. Is the Taoiseach concerned that, on the morning after a successful meeting at Cannes, where the Taoiseach announced and apparently achieved progress — which I acknowledged and congratulate him for — Sir Patrick Mayhew seemed to return to his pre-Easter position?
I quote what the Prime Minister said at questions:
One proposal I can tell you about this afternoon. As a result of our discussions we both arrived this afternoon with broadly similar proposals as to how we might move forward in terms of decommissioning. We spent some time examining those in detail and we have decided to put our officials together fairly speedily to examine those proposals and work out a mutually agreeable modus operandi which will enable us to clear the way ahead in terms of decommissioning of weapons.
That is what the Prime Minister said and it is accurate. We agreed on a way of moving forward to deal with and reach a common view on issues such as those reiterated this morning by Sir Patrick Mayhew. The Prime Minister and I were talking about a process for resolving differences; Sir Patrick was reiterating a previous position on the material question, as distinct from the process. It is not for me to reconcile the comments of Ministers in another Government. I do not think the representation the Deputy put on it — that the two positions are divergent — is in accordance with the facts.
It is the one everyone is putting on it.
Further, I do not think it is helpful to personalise these issues, quoting what one person or another said, analysing, parsing and looking for fresh air or clear blue water between them.
Or the eye of a needle?
I do not think it is a constructive activity for this House.
That depends on what is in the Chilcott-Dawson plan.
I ask the Deputy to allow me to say what I have to say, this is a sensitive question and I am giving the best answer I can. It is important to realise the seriousness of what we are talking about. I do not see any constructive purpose in looking for differences within the Government with whom we are dealing.
All we want is clarity.
I ask Deputy Lenihan to recognise this is a serious issue and allow me to finish my answer. I see no purpose in this. The Prime Minister and Sir Patrick were talking about two different things. One was speaking about the process for resolving differences, the other was stating a seriously held position.
That is worse.
