Mary Harney
Ceist:8 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any recent discussions he has had with the British Prime Minister in relation to the peace process; and if he will make a statment on the matter. [16821/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Peace Process Delay.
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:9 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the response, if any, he has had to his proposal to hold an Anglo-Irish summit in the third week of November 1995. [16911/95]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:10 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the main points of difference between the Irish and British Governments and the various parties concerned that are holding up progress in the peace process. [16912/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, together.
As I said in the House yesterday, I believe strongly that agreement now needs to be achieved on a reasonable compromise on those issues still in the way of movement towards all-party talks through the twin track approach and within a speedy timetable.
In working towards that end, I do not believe that it would be constructive to elaborate on the differing positions of the various parties on the best way forward. As I said on a number of occasions, the point has been reached, in my view, where the process requires a joint Government impetus to advance matters. I will, of course, provide the House with all relevant details when I judge it appropriate to do so.
Has there been any response from the British to the Taoiseach's speech on Saturday night? Will the Taoiseach be in a position to hold a summit with the British Prime Minister? I agree a joint initiative by both Governments is required. Is the Taoiseach optimistic a summit can be held within the next week?
As I said on my return from London, there was a response of a general nature. This indicated the view of the Prime Minister, which I share, that we should proceed on the basis of a joint approach to these matters. A definitive response to the more detailed proposals made by the Irish Government earlier is not yet to hand.
What about a summit meeting?
I am not in a position to answer that question in a definitive way. As I said, I would like to have a meeting at which these matters can be finalised at the earliest possible date. It would be preferable to have it before the end of this month rather than next month. However, equally, it would be preferable to have it next month rather than the following month. The sooner we can have it, the better but there is no point having it until we reach agreement on the relevant points, not only in terms of the communiqué, but also in terms of answers to any supplementary questions which might legitimately be asked about it. This all needs to be tied down before we even set a date. However, as soon as that is done, we could have the meeting itself quite quickly.
Will the Taoiseach explain why he presented separate proposals to the British Government to those published by the SDLP and Sinn Féin? Would it not have been better for the Taoiseach to present proposals to the British which had the backing of the northern political parties, as was done by his predecessor and which eventually led to the Downing Street Declaration?
I am puzzled by the Deputy's reference to the northern political parties. There are more than two.
The SDLP, the northern nationalist and republican parties.
Do the others not count?
I am sure the Taoiseach wishes to respond to my question that it would have been better to put the proposals of the SDLP and Sinn Féin to the British, rather than having a division within the nationalist consensus. The Taoiseach would then have been in a position to follow the path so successfully followed by his predecessor, which led to the Downing Street Declaration.
I do not like being needlessly repetitive in the House but——
The Taoiseach is being so.
——I have answered this question in substance on four or five occasions already in the House. If we are to have all-party talks it is important to have all parties at them. The Irish and British Governments have a responsibility to address the concerns of all the parties at the table because, having talks at which an important segment of the community is not represented, is not consistent with the objective of the Hume-Adams declaration, which is an agreement between the communities on this island. Unless the two communities are represented at the table, we cannot have an agreement. Therefore, any proposals I will put forward on behalf of the Irish Government will be balanced and take account of the need to meet the concerns of all the people we need at the table. We need Sinn Féin and the SDLP but we also need the Unionist parties at the table. As I said in response to Deputy Ahern yesterday, I do not regard myself as representing any particular "ism"; I regard myself as representing the Irish people as a whole who, as I see it, represent all the people living on this island whether they be Unionist or Nationalist. As part of my constitutional responsibility I must have concern for the views and fears of all the people living on this island and in that context, as the Taoiseach, I agree with my colleagues that we should bring forward proposals which are balanced and fair on that inclusive basis.
Will the Taoiseach agree that any proposals put forward should consolidate the peace process? It appears that in this situation the Taoiseach is essentially siding with the British Government on the issue of a target date, for example, as opposed to a fixed date for the commencement of talks.
The Deputy can make up his own mind as to what Fianna Fáil policy is on this matter and who will decide Fianna Fáil policy.
The question is to the Taoiseach.
As far as I am concerned, the Irish Government will decide its policy on this matter and we will account to this House for it. In deciding on our policy on this matter, we will take into account the interests and needs of all the people on this island because what we are working for in the peace process is an agreement. However, an agreement can only be reached at a table and we must have everybody at the table who will be party to the agreement for that agreement to be reached. Anything that has the effect of setting up a situation where one part of the community is put into a corner and not represented at the table is counterproductive to the purpose of an agreement, and I am working for an agreement. That is the essence or what the peace process is all about.
Deputy R. Burke rose.
Before I hear the Deputy I remind the House that Members must deal with priority questions at 3.30 p.m.
The Taoiseach talks about the need for everybody to be at the table but it is essential that one section of the community has confidence in the Irish Government, namely, the Nationalist community. I suggest to the Taoiseach it is a matter of serious concern that there is a loss of confidence in the Irish Government among Northern Nationalists and republicans, as clearly stated yesterday by Mr. Adams. The Nationalist community must have confidence in a Taoiseach and it is important that the Taoiseach is expressing their strongly held views.
I note that expression of Fianna Fáil policy by Deputy Burke and I note also the view he takes where he lands himself in this matter with one party in Northern Ireland.
It got us where we are today.
It is more appropriate for us to work to bring both sides together in Northern Ireland. Both sides must come together if there is to be an agreement, the Irish Government has a responsibility in that regard and that is as it should be.
Mr. Redmond is alive and well.
I have demonstrated clearly my concern about the fears and long-standing sense of injustice of the Nationalist community on a range of matters. I was criticised by the Deputy's Leader yesterday for making such a suggestion on the eve of Remembrance Day, which was interesting in the context of what the Deputy is now saying. Deputy Ahern seemed to have a different view of matters by reference to Remembrance Day.
He did not criticise, he noted that the Taoiseach gave the speech on the eve of Remembrance Day.
It was interesting that he should choose to bring up Remembrance Day in the Dáil.
Is the Taoiseach speaking for the bunch of liberals who were in the Ulster Hall last night?
Deputy Burke seems to take the view that we can go either side of the road on this issue.
As Deputy Burke pointed out, it is the responsibility of the Taoiseach to consolidate this process. We have had a problem with the Unionist parties not coming to the table but is the Taoiseach now alienating the other side from coming to the table? In any of his discussions with the Unionist parties did they indicate to the Taoiseach what their position would be if Washington 3 were implemented? Have we any guarantees from them?
The matters to which the Deputy referred are at the heart of the negotiation which is taking place between the British and Irish Governments with a view to reaching a balanced agreement which will get all the parties to the table. If we were to follow the course advocated by Deputy Burke, we would not reach an agreement, we would not get the talks started and we would go nowhere. We need to have talks soon with everybody at the table.
That is what we all want.
If that is to be the case, a view must be taken which is representative of all the community in Northern Ireland and not just one section of it. The Fianna Fáil party is making a serious mistake in the line it is taking on Northern Ireland during Question Time today.
The Taoiseach should not lecture us.
The Taoiseach is in no position to lecture us.
The Taoiseach did not answer the second part of my question.
I did answer it.
Did the Taoiseach telephone the British Prime Minister or does he intend to have a conversation with him later? Also, is it the Taoiseach's view that because of the precarious voting situation in the House of Commons, the British Government is not putting sufficient pressure on the Unionists to engage in all-party talks?
I have already said to the Deputy that I expect a formal response from the British Government reasonably soon to the proposals I have made to them. I hope when I see those — and I have not seen them yet nor do I have advance knowledge of their contents — we will then be able to assess the situation as to whether an agreement will be possible in the short-term. I have not had a telephone conversation today with the Prime Minister; I am awaiting a formal response from him in written form and we will then discuss it.
Will the Taoiseach not accept that John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, has worked for 30 years to get consensus among the two communities on this island? What effort did the Taoiseach make to get agreement between the Nationalist parties before submitting his own proposals? Even at this late stage, will the Taoiseach not accept it is foolish for the leader of any Irish Government to go forward without the support of a majority of the Nationalists in the North?
The Government had an extensive discussion on the proposals in question. The Tánaiste met Mr. Maginnis to discuss the Hume-Adams proposals presented to us early in October. We indicated that in one or two respects the proposals were not attainable. We did not believe they would achieve the objective we were looking for, namely all-party talks with all the relevant people at the table. That was a pragmatic decision which we took in light of the considerations I have just outlined. We want an agreement and to have an agreement we must have the parties to the agreement present. We cannot make an agreement for other people who are absent. John Hume, as the Deputy rightly said, has sought, throughout his political career, to reach an agreement between the two communities on this island. In many ways, he is the architect of this process. As I said in my speech in London, he is the one who conceived the idea that what we need is an agreement between the two sections of the Irish people and not a situation where they talk past one another to a third party, namely, the British or any other government. For that to happen we must have all the relevant people at the table. This requires pragmatic consideration of the interests of all. This is not something that can be done or achieved simply by taking into account the views of one section of the community in Northern Ireland alone.
Build on a good foundation.
I have said in the House on many occasions that the Government has two separate responsibilities, the first of which under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is specific, to stand up for Nationalist concerns, while the second which is also important and complements the first is to build a bridge between nationalism and unionism. The Government is acting entirely consistently with the analysis reached by Mr. John Hume as to how we should move forward.
We now proceed to deal with questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Tourism and Trade.
I wish to apologise on behalf of the Minister who is unavoidably absent. He has to attend another function.
In Lisbon?
The Minister of State is an excellent substitute.
Mr. O'Sullivan
I hope I live up to the Deputy's expectations.