Bertie Ahern
Ceist:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the number of meetings that have been held between Government officials and Sinn Féin since 8 February 1996. [4893/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Joint Communiqué.
Mary Harney
Ceist:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach whether Sinn Féin has indicated its willingness to go to the IRA with a view to having the IRA ceasefire restarted in view of the Joint Communiqué between himself and the British Prime Minister. [4931/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, his officials have had with Sinn Féin since the Joint Communiqué. [4932/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Ms Mo Mowlam, British Labour Party spokesperson on Northern Ireland. [4940/96]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the way in which he foresees all-party talks being held in relation to the Northern Ireland conflict following his meeting with the British Prime Minister. [4953/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:8 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the role, if any, he envisages the United States Senator Mitchell will play in the peace process, following the Joint Communiqué. [4961/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:9 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the contact or discussions, if any, he has had with the Unionist parties since the Joint Communiqué. [4962/96]
Dermot Ahern
Ceist:10 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if it is the commitment of the Government to adhere strictly to the timetable as laid down in the communiqué of 28 February 1996, between himself and the British Prime Minister [5100/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:11 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the role, if any, he will play in the multilateral consultations process which began on 4 March 1996. [5126/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:12 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if a meeting is planned between himself and the British Prime Minister after the ending of the multilateral consultation process and before any electoral process. [5128/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:13 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if a full resumption of the IRA ceasefire is an essential precondition for Sinn Féin's involvement in the multilateral consultation process and in the all-party talks scheduled to begin on 10 June 1996. [5129/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:14 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the contact, if any, his Government has had with Sinn Féin since the Joint Communiqué was published on 28 February 1996. [5132/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 14, inclusive, together.
All-party negotiations on a settlement will commence on 10 June. The British Prime Minister and I have made clear, both in the communiqué itself and in statements on it, that we want these negotiations to be fully inclusive. Full participation by Sinn Féin is contingent, but is contingent only, on a restoration of the IRA cease-fire of August 1994. That restoration is the only requirement for the resumption of ministerial dialogue with Sinn Féin. It is also the only requirement for that party's full engagement in the intensive multilateral consultations now under way and in the substantive all-party negotiations. I call on the republican movement to seize this opportunity now, in the interests of the people they represent and in the interests of the negotiated settlement which we all want.
Official level contact with Sinn Féin is being maintained. Such contacts with that party, and with other parties to the Northern Ireland issue, are confidential. In keeping with the position adopted by previous Governments, I do not propose to comment on the substance of any of these ongoing exchanges. To do so would undermine their usefulness as an aid to Government deliberations and decisions.
In the lead-up to the recent summit, I had an intensive series of contacts with relevant parties, including a very useful meeting on 14 February with the British Labour Party spokesperson on Northern Ireland, Dr. Mo Mowlam.
It is important that the focus should now be on the commencement of all-party negotiations and on the preparatory work now under way in that regard. The process of intensive multilateral consultations with the Northern Ireland parties, which began yesterday, is being undertaken by the Tánaiste and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The elective process, the arrangements for all-party negotiations and the issue of parallel referendums will be addressed in the course of these consultations. The British Prime Minister and I will review the outcome of these consultations immediately after their conclusion on 13 March. As we have made clear in the Joint Communiqué, all-party negotiations will be convened on 10 June.
In view of recent public speculation about the content of a conversation which I had with the SDLP Leader, Mr. John Hume, I wish to say that I had a large number of consultations and contacts with Mr. Hume prior to the summit, covering all aspects of the ongoing situation and the various options to be dealt with. As Mr. Hume indicated, all my conversations with him were, and will remain, confidential. It is important, in the interest of the peace process, that I should be able to have entirely confidential and thorough consultations with political leaders.
In all such contacts with him, and with the many other people to whom I spoke in the days leading up to the summit, I was guided by one overriding goal, that of securing that week, and without delay, the setting of a specific date for all-party negotiations. This was and is the essential route to renewing the peace process. All conversations that I had in that period had that object, and that object only in mind. Speed in setting a specific date was important in view of the unstable situation that had been created by the revocation of their ceasefire by the IRA. I am glad I was successful in this task.
I wish to report to the House that, following earlier contacts, Mr. David Trimble MP, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, proposed, in a letter to me on Saturday last, that it might be helpful if an Ulster Unionist delegation were to meet the leaders of this coalition Government at a mutually convenient time and place. I will be responding positively to Mr. Trimble later today on behalf of my colleagues and myself with a view to an early meeting.
When last week's communiqué, which contained significant advances that we welcomed on this side, was announced, it would have been reasonable to expect that the Government might have tried to prepare the ground for events arising from it. Who was responsible for yesterday's fiasco outside Stormont buildings?
The ground rules for the consultations which commenced on Monday were made known well in advance. They clearly stated that ministerial consultations would be available to parties that were not involved in association with an ongoing campaign of violence. It was also made clear that because of the regrettable decision of the IRA to recommence operations and suspend its cease-fire that ministerial contacts with Sinn Féin would not take place until the cease-fire was reinstated.
However, it has equally been made clear that both Administrations are willing to hold official level consultations with Sinn Féin. What took place in Stormont yesterday was a series of ministerial, as distinct from, official level consultations. I have no doubt that Sinn Féin will be facilitated in holding official level consultations at an early opportunity and that at a very early moment it will be successful in persuading the IRA to cease its military operations and campaign and as a result, it will be possible to resume ministerial contact with Sinn Féin.
The situation I outlined was well known to all those who participated in yesterday's discussions, including all those who presented themselves at Stormont buildings.
Is the Taoiseach happy that John Hume and Séamus Mallon understood yesterday's arrangements to be different and that Mr. Trimble did not receive an invitation? Can the Taoiseach confirm whether we are responsible for yesterday's arrangements, whether the Tánaiste and Sir Patrick Mayhew were jointly responsible or were we going along with arrangements being made by the British Government and then claim we were not responsible for the mess that occurred yesterday?
It is not correct to refer to the matter in the way the Deputy described. The consultations commenced yesterday with a substantial bilateral meeting between Sir Patrick Mayhew and the Tánaiste, which was followed by a substantial meeting with the SDLP. In the time available, it would not have been possible for there to have been many more meetings yesterday.
The arrangements for these consultations are being undertaken jointly between the two Governments, as provided for in the communiqué. A significant but intense period remains for further discussions and I hope Sinn Féin will be able to participate fully in these discussions by virtue of its decision to persuade the IRA to reinstate its cease-fire. It is desirable that Sinn Féin should be involved in every way in the discussions because it has an electoral mandate and people to represent. It is in its hands and those of the IRA to ensure that it can so participate by virtue of an IRA decision to reinstate its cease-fire and I ask it to do that.
Does the Taoiseach agree it would be wrong for a Taoiseach to get involved in lobbying anyone in a vote in the House of Commons about an internal British matter? Will the Taoiseach accept that no matter how laudable the objective, it sets a bad precedent and damages relationships with, for example, other parties in the House of Commons?
I have little to add to what I already said. All discussions I had in regard to all matters leading up to the summit were dictated by my overriding objective on behalf of this country, which was in securing the early setting of a date for all-party talks. That objective was of such cardinal importance that it was essential it should be my overriding and sole objective.
I again emphasise the importance of speed in that context. The situation that arose in the immediate aftermath of the resumption of IRA violence and the planting of three of its bombs in London was fundamentally unstable. The only measure that would have been effective in restoring a measure of stability would not only have been the setting of a date for all-party talks sometime in the future but a specific and speedy meeting to set a fixed date for all-party talks without preconditions. That has been and remains my objective which, I am glad to say, I obtained.
I did not ask the Taoiseach about his private discussions — I know he would not answer that question — but about the involvement of a Taoiseach in domestic political affairs in Britain? Despite the laudable objective, if he did do it, as seems to be the case, he was wrong just as it would be wrong for Mr. Major to get involved in a matter here and seek to influence the outcome of a vote in this House. I do not, however, want to capitalise on mistakes as there has been too much of that in Northern Ireland. If it is the case that officials will continue to meet with Sinn Féin, why were its representatives not met yesterday by officials and why were they allowed a major propaganda coup?
Far from making any mistakes I believe that my approach in this matter was absolutely responsible in the national interest and that this is vindicated by the results obtained speedily. The Deputy should reflect on this.
(Interruptions.)
As far as meetings with Sinn Féin are concerned, I have responded to questions from Deputy Bertie Ahern on that matter. There is the possibility of official level meetings with Sinn Féin, even though the IRA ceasefire has not been reinstated. It would be preferable if ministerial level meetings with Sinn Féin would occur, but that can only happen when the IRA reinstates its ceasefire.
Was the Tánaiste aware of all the contacts and discussions the Taoiseach had in the run up to the communiqué last Wednesday?
As a matter of practice, I keep the Tánaiste fully informed of contacts I have made and he, in turn, keeps me fully informed of contacts he has made.
And the content?
Did he tell his handlers that?
Did he approve?
In regard to the telephone call on the knife edge vote in the House of Commons last week the Taoiseach seems to have made it very clear what his involvement was. In a weekend interview I said that he would at least tell us the truth. I assume that he is now saying that he did try to interfere in the matter. Did he discuss it with the Tánaiste when he asked John Hume to keep John Major's Government in office? In reply to Deputy Harney the Taoiseach gave us his views on the correctness of the decision. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it was gross and unprecedented interference to try to influence the way a party would vote on a domestic matter in the House of Commons. If the Taoiseach believes he was right, on a major internal matter in the United Kingdom of an inquiry into a matter which affected politicians and business people, to try to influence a politician in regard to that vote, what justification does he have for making that decision?
The Deputy is making assumptions without foundation. Any consultations that I had with Mr. Hume are and will remain entirely confidential.
The Labour Party handlers are adverting to it in the corridors.
I am not and will not be confirming or denying the content of any of those consultations. The Deputy's attempt to put words into my mouth in this matter is entirely irresponsible.
They are the Taoiseach's own words. He should not be ridiculous.
It is important that I should be able to have entirely confidential consultations with Mr. Hume and other leaders of opinion who have an influence on the peace process.
Why are they in the public domain?
I am satisfied with the way I conducted my business in conjunction with my colleagues on this matter. This can best be judged by the result obtained, namely, the setting of a specific date for all-party talks without delay.
The end justifies the means.
The retrospective attempts by the Deputies to create mischief in this matter do them no credit.
Since the Tánaiste was involved in the discussions and, obviously, approved of the strategy he should defend the Taoiseach when asked about it and not seek to hang him out to dry in this matter.
The Deputy should not make statements. She is now endeavouring to do what Deputy Ahern is doing, attempting to make assumptions and put words into my mouth that I did not utter.
Is the Taoiseach denying it?
I have made it clear to the Deputy and the House that, as a matter of practice, I keep the Tánaiste informed of things that I do and he, in turn, keeps me informed. I have made a general statement about that matter. I have not and will not be drawn into making any statements about the specific content of confidential consultations I may have had with Mr. Hume or anybody else because it is essential that the confidentiality of such consultations should be respected. The Deputy is not being particularly helpful by engaging in tendentious speculation on this matter.
Apologise.
This matter is already in the public arena. When it entered the public arena a Labour Party source told the media that the first it learned of it was midday last Friday. I did not invent that, this has been said to the media by people responding on behalf of the Government. If the Taoiseach was at one with the Tánaiste as to what he did last week, the Tánaiste should defend and stand by him. I do not think I am being unhelpful in saying that.
The Deputy should not attach the degree of importance that she seems to attach to speculative stories and unattributable statements. I am entirely satisfied that the general course of action I took in this matter was justified in the national interest. This can best be judged by the results obtained, but I am not confirming or denying or becoming involved in comment on the substance of any confidential consultations because those consultations are and must remain confidential.
John Hume did not agree with the Taoiseach.
If they were confidential, why are they in the public domain?
Is the Deputy accusing Mr. Hume of something?
The Taoiseach was away over the weekend. Is it not the case that Labour Party advisers were saying openly around the House that this conversation did take place and that they were extremely unhappy about this? In view of the fact that the Taoiseach is not willing to confirm or deny this, what would his attitude be if John Major tried to interfere in the internal affairs of this State and House?
The Deputy is trying to draw me into much fruitless speculation. The content of my consultations with Mr. John Hume is and will remain confidential. I will not engage in any speculation or comment on the speculation engendered about the content of consultations I may have had because these consultations are and will remain confidential.
Engendered by whom?
I believe the Deputy who has had responsibilities in the area of Northern Ireland related matters fully understands the requirement that political leaders should be able to have entirely confidential and thorough discussions without the content of those discussions subsequently being the subject of disclosure to the newspapers or tendentious speculation.
The Taoiseach is correct. I appreciate the confidentiality aspect, but in a number of interviews over the weekend the Tánaiste stated that the Taoiseach would be dealing with this matter in the House. The Taoiseach has not dealt with it.
I have dealt with it in so far as I am able or willing to deal with it.
Willing?
I am not able or willing to breach the confidentiality of confidential discussions either to serve my interests or anyone else's interests.
The Taoiseach did have discussions.
I have had numerous confidential discussions with Mr. Hume on a range of matters.
Including on his voting intentions?
I do not propose to engage in any discussion, comment, confirmation or denial of the content of those confidential discussions. That is the responsible course for me to take.
Transparency.
My main objective in all consultations was to set a specific date for all-party talks because I believed the unstable position created by the resumption of IRA violence necessitated the setting of such a date as quickly as possible.
Is that what the Taoiseach talked to John Hume about?
I am satisfied my approach was justified——
Very good.
——and the result was the setting of a specific date for all-party talks. In making that my sole objective in consultations I believe I acted in the national interest.
He did not follow the Taoiseach's advice.
The Taoiseach said he would not respond to speculation or unattributed comments but in his initial response, and definitely in his last, he admitted he made the approach referred to in the public arena. May I ask——
The Deputy should not misrepresent what I said.
May I ask the Taoiseach——
This technique of drawing unjustified inferences from what I have said, which Deputy Burke appears to be learning from Deputies Ahern and Harney, does none of them any credit.
We shall have an orderly Question Time.
If I could proceed without interruption, did the Taoiseach receive an approach from the British Prime Minister to make such an approach to John Hume? Is the Government's guiding principle that the end justifies the means?
(Interruptions.)
Does the Taoiseach agree with the honourable stance taken by John Hume and the members of the SDLP in their vote in the House of Commons last Monday?
I did not receive an approach from the British Prime Minister to make specific suggestions on any matter to other political leaders. The Deputy should accept that.
Take full credit for it.
The British Prime Minister acts with the highest integrity in his dealings with this matter. In this and other matters I act with a view to the overriding interest of this State, namely, the restoration of the peace process. My primary concern is with the safety of the citizens of this State and I was concerned about their safety in the immediate aftermath of the resumption of killing by the IRA.
So was everybody else.
I was anxious to stabilise the position by quickly setting a date for all-party talks.
That is why the Taoiseach asked him, the end justifying the means.
The Deputy is going down a political cul-de-sac.
Have the strained relationships with the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Unionist and loyalist parties——
And the Tánaiste.
I do not know if the Taoiseach is talking to the Tánaiste. Have those strained relationships——
We did not lock him out of Government Buildings, as Deputies opposite did.
The Deputy should be careful. He knows what they are saying along the Border in his constituency
Fergus is up to his tricks again.
(Interruptions.)
The truth of the matter is the Deputy does not know where he stands.
Order, please. Let us not erode the precious time available to us.
The Taoiseach is fooling nobody but himself.
How does the Taoiseach propose to rectify the strained relationships with practically everybody in order to restore the peace process? It is obvious there is a lack of coherent policy. The Taoiseach had a good day last week, but if matters are not managed properly we will be back where we started.
With the Taoiseach at the helm.
I thank Deputy Ahern for the compliment about obtaining a specific date for all-party talks. I will not comment on the rest of his rather diffuse contribution.
That is the problem. That is why matters are at this stage.
If at 10.22 on 16 November 1994 John Major had made a telephone call to the Tánaiste to ask him to keep Deputy Reynolds in office, I know what Deputy Bruton would have said. Did the Government respond to the calls from Sinn Féin for clarity on the joint communiqué? Have there been meetings with Sinn Féin officials and how does the Government intend to respond to that request?
There have been meetings with Sinn Féin officials since the publication of the communiqué and we will be happy to continue those meetings as and when necessary. We are anxious to facilitate Sinn Féin in any decision it makes to ask the IRA to reinstate its ceasefire. That is the overriding concern. It is important that we focus on our objectives, the first of which was a date for all-party talks. The next objective on which all Members should be focused is to persuade Sinn Féin to persuade the IRA to call off the killing.