Mary Harney
Ceist:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting sought by the UUP leader, David Trimble, with the leaders of the Government; and the terms of such a meeting. [5602/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Peace Process and Visits to North America.
Mary Harney
Ceist:2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his response to the letter from the UUP leader, David Trimble requesting a meeting. [5605/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the Ulster Unionist Party. [5745/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Washington DC. [6258/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Newfoundland, Canada. [6259/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:6 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the statement issued by the Combined Loyalist Military Command on Tuesday, 12 March 1996. [6261/96]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:7 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he met with the Economic Advisory Group on his recent visit to the United States of America. [6344/96]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:8 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meetings with President Clinton and any other political engagements he had recently in North America. [6345/96]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:9 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make available the full text of his remarks as spoken at the American-Ireland fund dinner on Thursday, 14 March 1996. [6385/96]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:10 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he had in the United States regarding the appointment of an independent chairman for all-party talks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6387/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:11 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister. [6393/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:12 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with an Ulster Unionist Party delegation led by its leader, David Trimble. [6396/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:13 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with President Clinton during his visit to Washington. [6401/96]
Mary Harney
Ceist:14 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had in connection with the IRA prisoner, Patrick Kelly. [6404/96]
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:15 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to conduct all-party consultations in this State before a decision is made on the terms of any referendum to be held affirming the people's commitment to peace and democracy. [6609/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, together.
The main objectives of my visit to Washington and Newfoundland, as with all such visits, were: to maximise international backing for the peace process; to promote Ireland's economic interests; and to maintain the closest possible contact with Irish people abroad. With these objectives in mind, my programme for Washington included meetings with the major US political leaders, with the key people actively involved in developing US-Ireland commercial relations and with the many other Irish-Americans who have a profound interest in Irish affairs.
In particular, I had two useful meetings with President Clinton. I also had detailed discussions with Vice-President Gore, Speaker Gingrich and Senator Kennedy as well as numerous other Members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Other major engagements included a meeting of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board and attendance at the American Ireland Fund dinner where, as is my normal practice, I spoke, on the basis of a prepared script, ex-tempore to the audience.
As regards the Northern Ireland situation generally and the information that I conveyed while abroad, I will, for the information of the House, summarise the Government's position. Currently both the British and Irish Governments are fully committed to the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and will continue to operate them fully unless and until the agreement is transcended by new agreed arrangements. Meanwhile, both Governments and the Northern Ireland political parties are seeking to arrive at new agreed arrangements. As Deputies are aware, at my meeting in London on 28 February with the British Prime Minister, both Governments committed themselves to 10 June as the fixed date for all-party negotiations, thus meeting a long-standing demand. Both Governments want those negotiations to be as inclusive as possible and I hope that the IRA will make it possible to achieve this goal by re-instating the ceasefire unequivocally and thereby enabling Sinn Féin to make its unique and necessary contributions to the negotiations.
The communiqué issued following the 28 February meeting makes clear that the Prime Minister and I are committed to work for a lasting peace and a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the fundamental principles shared by the two Governments and set out in the Downing Street Declaration and in the Joint Framework Document. There can be no exclusively internal Northern Ireland settlement. The negotiations must address the totality of the three sets of relationships and give adequate recognition and expression to all three interlocking strands.
Both Governments and, I believe, the Northern Ireland parties, want the agenda for the negotiations to be comprehensive, allowing all of us to put our basic concerns on the table and have them considered in a constructive and meaningful way. As the February Communiqué recognised, confidence building measures will be necessary, both in relation to the Mitchell report and also, no less importantly, to reassure parties that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of all the participants and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify.
The priority being given to the Mitchell report at the beginning of discussions must not be construed to mean that this issue can be used to block discussion of other issues. No one side or group can dictate the agenda which must necessarily be addressed in full if negotiations are to be truly meaningful.
The ground rules paper sets out the views of both Governments on how negotiations should be organised. While the Governments have invited consultation on it and no doubt others will express their views, the document contains a number of principles which are of their nature essential to the prospect of a successful negotiation and are, therefore, in effect not open to renegotiation.
I am aware of the concerns among Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland that the elective process proposed by the British Government may polarise opinions further. In particular, I am aware of concerns that the proposed forum could be exploited in some way as a rival focus to the negotiations or skew these negotiations towards an exclusively internal settlement. It is for this reason that I have made it clear, and will continue to make it clear, that there can be no exclusively internal settlement. I will continue to do everything possible to insulate the proposed forum from the negotiating process and to ensure that this insulation is further strengthened in the practical arrangements remaining to be made for the 10 June negotiations.
This then is the approach of the Irish Government which I outlined on my recent visits abroad. I am happy to report to the House that I received privately and publicly from President Clinton a strong message of continuing support for this approach by the Government in moving the peace process forward.
The President commended the loyalist leaders on their restraint at this time of significant challenge and I concur with this. I do not think that at this stage it would be helpful to comment beyond this on every individual statement issued by parties relevant to the Northern Ireland issue.
I was invited in the course of my visit to Washington DC to address a joint session of Congress later this year. This again testifies to the strong and ongoing US political interest in matters relating to this country, particularly on Northern Ireland, and the Government will continue to build on this.
Regarding the 11 March meeting in Dublin with the Ulster Unionist Party, I refer Deputy Harney to the reply given to Question No. 1 on 12 March.
On the question of the chairmanship of the all-party talks, this matter remains under consideration and I do not propose to comment further at this stage. The question of our holding a parallel referendum here relating to the peace process in Northern Ireland is one to which the Government is favourably disposed, but Deputies will appreciate that it is related to developments in discussions with the Northern Ireland parties.
In relation to the case for the repatriation of Mr. Patrick Kelly, I can assure the House that the Government has availed of every appropriate opportunity to pursue this. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions with the British Prime Minister. I raised it with President Clinton during my visit to Washington and the Minister for Justice has raised it with the British Home Secretary. The Government's intensive efforts on this case will continue until there is a satisfactory outcome.
The 15 March meeting of the Ireland-America Economic Advisory Board was attended by chief executive officers or chairmen of 16 leading US corporations. I should emphasise that each of these participants gave freely of their time, expertise, experience and contacts to assist in the promotion of our economic interests and continue to do so. I took the opportunity at my meeting with the board to give its members an update on economic developments here. The main issues that arose for discussion were measures to assist the continued development and expansion of the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin, additional steps which might be taken to continue the growth of US and international tourism to Ireland, a review of developments in the Irish telecommunications sector over the last year, an examination of the Irish venture capital market and follow up to the White House Conference on Trade and Investment in Ireland. The US Commerce Department will host a further conference to promote trade and investment, focusing in particular on Northern Ireland and the Border counties. The conference is planned for early autumn in Philadelphia. The conference will focus on public-private sector partnerships and efforts to spur growth in the Border region and Northern Ireland through trade, investment, joint ventures and strategic alliances.
My visit to St. John's, Newfoundland, enabled me to fulfil engagements that had been curtailed last September. While there I met the recently appointed Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Brian Tobin. I conveyed our thanks to the Canadian Government for its particular assistance in relation to the Mitchell body. I also expressed our appreciation for Canada's continued and very clear support of the Irish Government's efforts to achieve a new and agreed political settlement here. My other engagements in Newfoundland included attendance at the major St. Patrick's Day events organised by the Irish Newfoundland Association and the Benevolent Irish Society.
I was most heartened by the goodwill and support shown throughout my visit to Washington and Newfoundland for the Government's efforts in relation to the peace process and Ireland's economic development.
Will the Taoiseach agree that notwithstanding any reservations we have about the elective process it would be counterproductive for any party to boycott those elections?
We should allow parties in Northern Ireland the space to make their decisions on this important matter. I have been asked questions of this nature on a number of occasions during the past week. The advice I have given to all concerned is to keep in focus the main objective, to remember the overriding purpose of the effort we have all been making. That purpose is to start inclusive negotiations on 10 June. Everything that can be done should be done to ensure those negotiations are inclusive and successful and anything that might be contemplated that would not be helpful towards that objective should be avoided. Beyond offering that general advice, it is best that I should not become involved in giving specific advice to parties about their situations other than reminding them that the overall objective is successful talks starting on 10 June. Never before has a specific date for the starting of such talks been agreed. Given that this is genuinely an historic opportunity, it is important that it should be taken. I repeat what I said yesterday in another context, that Sinn Féin has demanded peace talks now and now will arrive on 10 June.
Will the Taoiseach explain why, given all his efforts to work with Mr. Trimble and his colleagues, relationships between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Mr. Trimble are so poor? All he has received in return for his major effort to persuade him is insults. Having met and discussed matters with Mr. Trimble on a number of occasions recently, does the Taoiseach believe that is what he deserves?
I take a somewhat more thick-skinned approach to these matters than perhaps the Deputy. I disagree with some comments the Deputy makes from time to time, but that does not mean I do not have a good working relationship with him. I approach my relationships with other political party leaders in the same way. I replied to the remarks made by Mr. Trimble, which I regard as truly bizarre. They belong in some leprechaun's book of unusual Irish statements.
Be careful.
They are certainly not serious and I have replied to them in that manner. However, I have no doubt that Mr. Trimble has a sense of humour and perhaps he was endeavouring to exercise it on that occasion.
Would the Taoiseach confirm that again?
I agree with what the Taoiseach said in response to Mr. Trimble's remarks. Does the Taoiseach not believe that the Irish Government should encourage parties to participate in the elective process and not merely sit on the fence? Does he not believe that the Government has an influential role to play and should begin to do that now?
I understand why the Deputy is putting that question and I sympathise with the point that lies behind it, but my overall objective is to ensure that the talks start with everybody concerned on 10 June. We need everybody to do everything possible to ensure that they and all the others concerned are present. That conclusion would best be drawn by the parties concerned. There is always a risk involved in others telling any political party what it should or should not do in respect of what is best for the electorate it represents. Therefore, I deliberately confined myself to a general statement. I informed those involved that this is a truly historic opportunity and they should not do anything which would make it difficult for themselves or other parties to attend all-party negotiations. It is important to grasp this opportunity because it was not easy to achieve agreement on a fixed date for all-party talks with the British Government. It is important that people recognise the magnitude of the difficulties involved, avail of the opportunities presented and make the necessary compromises to ensure that everyone attends such talks.
I presume Mr. Trimble did not discuss with the Taoiseach the subject of the internal forum. Will the Taoiseach urge Mr. Trimble to cease boycotting the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body? Will the Taoiseach agree that, if the Ulster Unionist Party continues, under what is effectively Strands II and III, to boycott these important bodies, it would be easier to convince Nationalists that there is some value in the Strand I process — the internal forum? Is it the Taoiseach's understanding that the negotiations are separate from the forum? Is Mr. Trimble's recent statement, that the forum will be used as a springboard to see what progress is being made during the negotiations, out of line with the contents of the communiqué and contrary to the wishes of the Government and Fianna Fáil? Could such statements cause trouble in the future?
The Deputy's question is rather long.
The Taoiseach's reply was very long. Will be clarify the point that the negotiations are separate and that neither a filter nor a conduit will be used at the forum on any matter which will be discussed during the negotiating process?
I will repeat what I stated in my original reply:
I am well aware of the concerns among Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland that the elective process proposed by the Government may polarise opinions further. In particular I am aware of the concerns that the proposed forum could be exploited in some way as a rival focus to the negotiations or skew these negotiations towards an exclusively internal settlement. It is for this reason that I have, and will continue to make clear that there can be no exclusively internal settlement. I will continue to do everything possible to insulate the proposed forum from the negotiating process and to ensure that this insulation is further strengthened in the practical arrangements remaining to be made for the 10 June negotiations.
It is very clear that the forum must not and will not be used to skew the negotiations or create difficulty for the negotiators.
With regard to Deputy Ahern's inquiry about the contents of my meeting with Mr. Trimble and other Unionist delegates, it would probably be better if I did not list, item by item, the matters which were discussed. The Deputy asked about the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, but it would be better if I did not enter into much detail. We had a very comprehensive and lengthy discussion on all important matters which affect the process of political progress in Northern Ireland at present. I must limit my reply because our discussions were, of their nature, confidential.
Is it correct that the proposed forum will have no role in adjudicating on the talks process?
Yes.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the Framework Document with Mr. Trimble and his colleagues? Did the Taoiseach outline to Mr. Trimble the benefits of that document and how it might work in ongoing developments during all-party talks?
I referred to the Framework Document in most of the discussions I had with the various parties. It must be recognised that this document represents an agreed understanding between the two Governments of a possible outcome to the negotiating process which would be acceptable to both of them. The Framework Document was agreed between the two Governments, not between the Governments and all parties. It is, therefore, a guide to the parties, for their negotiations, as to what is acceptable to both Governments. It is also a challenge in so far as its various contents represent the things which the Governments believe must be done to ensure the establishment of a properly balanced, three-cornered relationship, North-South dimension, east-west dimension and context for arrangements within Northern Ireland.
The Framework Document will be a very important ingredient when the negotiations begin on 10 June. At this juncture we must ensure there are all-inclusive negotiations. In this regard, the IRA must reinstate its ceasefire to ensure that Sinn Féin can take part and the best possible agreements must be reached with all parties on the procedures to be put in place during those negotiations. When the negotiations begin, the subject matter of the Framework Document will be of considerable importance.
Is there any mechanism to ensure that larger parties do not present more than one version of themselves to the electorate, and, therefore, prevent some parties participating in the talks?
That possibility was considered. At present I am not in a position to reveal the mechanism which will be used to prevent such action or the likelihood of this being done. The matter was raised in discussions and I have no doubt that the legislation will be framed in such a way as to deal with it.
The Taoiseach will accept that there are many outstanding questions in relation to the mechanisms and procedures, elections, negotiations, appointment of negotiating teams and the role of the forum. It is essential that these crucial questions are clarified at the earliest possible date because polling day, 31 May, is fast approaching. I accept the Taoiseach's view that the forum and negotiations will not be linked. These matters must be clarified through definite statements of policy from both Governments and legislation, not by means of a wish list. When does the Taoiseach expect that such clarification, and legislation to enable it, will be forthcoming?
Will the Taoiseach also inform the House with regard to the position, within the negotiating process, of the referendum suggested by Mr. John Hume? This was not fully clarified in last week's statement by the British Prime Minister. How does the Irish Government view the matter?
The Irish Government will be happy to have meetings with all parties to offer clarification on any specific questions they may wish to raise. Where such clarification must be given jointly by both Governments, or by the British Government alone, we would be anxious to ensure that every question is put to the quarter where it can be fully, immediately and completely answered. We are willing to provide clarification, through the appropriate channels, to any party seeking it. Any queries with which we cannot deal will be conveyed to the quarter where they can be answered.
As to when a definitive statement will be made, the detailed arrangements for the election which are a matter within the competence of the British Government will be dealt with in legislation, which has yet to be presented. Obviously, on the presentation of that legislation certain questions will be answered. I urge anybody who has any particular queries to put them on the record so that we can have them answered. I do not want anybody to be in doubt because of the absence of clarification on any matter.
The question of a referendum was one of the matters dealt with in the paper published by the British Government. For our part we are willing to hold a referendum in parallel with the referendum to take place in Northern Ireland. Arguments about the wording will arise and there may be more than one proposal in this regard. There may be difficulty in obtaining agreement on a particular proposal, but the British Government will be providing in the legislation for the possibility of holding a referendum. If they do that, obviously we will have to provide for the possibility of a referendum but getting agreement on the wording across all the parties is another matter and is a task that requires a considerable degree of work. It is not possible at this stage to say whether an appropriate degree of agreement will be possible. As I said at the time, I see a lot of attractions in the proposal for a referendum as tabled by Mr. John Hume. I think it would have considerable merit but as the Deputy is aware there are parties on both sides of the traditional divide in Northern Ireland who do not share that view.
Will Sinn Féin's participation in the forum be dependent on the restoration of the IRA ceasefire?
I think the participation of Sinn Féin in the negotiations will certainly be dependent on the restoration of the IRA ceasefire. As to the forum, I am not in a position to make a statement on that matter at this juncture. I cannot answer precisely the Deputy's question. The important thing is that the IRA should restore the ceasefire. Mr. Adams said at the weekend that the tasks are now primarily democratic and that the problem is not a military problem. If that is the case, what is the point of the IRA maintaining military operations? IRA military operations are not relevant even in accordance with the words of the leader of Sinn Féin, Mr. Adams who said that the tasks are democratic and the problem is not military. I believe that is something the IRA needs to think about.
Does the Taoiseach agree there is great merit in the suggestion that a high level political figure such as Senator Mitchell should be appointed to chair the talks within a set time frame and this would improve confidence in the process and would certainly help the IRA ceasefire?
I had a meeting with Senator Mitchell during my visit to Washington and I told him privately what I had already said publicly that this Government and all the parties in the Dáil have immeasurable respect for the contribution he has made, not just in terms of his conciliatory and careful approach but in terms of the lucidity of his thinking, his ability to sum up a difficult problem in a few simple and plainly understood words. I believe he is somebody who can make a major contribution to facilitating the resolution of the difficulties. However, it is too early at this stage to make a prognosis about a role for Senator Mitchell beyond expressing our appreciation of his continued willingness to be of assistance. The House will recollect the colloquial term used by President Clinton at the joint press conference that he and I held on the matter —"Senator Mitchell is still on the case".
I object in the strongest possible way to the Taoiseach transferring a question I tabled to him on negotiations with the British Government on the form of elective process in Northern Ireland to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to be answered, I believe, on 17 April. It begs the question as to who is in charge of the peace process on behalf of the Irish Government. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, supports the elective process whereas at the same time the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs is objecting to it. Does the Taoiseach agree that this confused double-speak or treblespeak is very damaging at this critical time and that it is time for him to take charge of the peace process on behalf of the Irish nation?
The reality is that the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, is dealing on a day-to-day basis with the negotiations with the British Government and the parties in Northern Ireland in regard to the political strand, the discussions about the nature and format of any possible elective process and all of those matters. It is not at all inappropriate that he should answer the questions, given that he is the man who is dealing with it. Of course, everything that the Tánaiste does is concerted with me just as everything I do in regard to Northern Ireland is concerted with him and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa. We are working effectively on these matters and that is as it should be. Democratic Left operates in both parts of Ireland and that party in Northern Ireland has its own views as one of the parties contributing to the dialogue in Northern Ireland. It is entirely reasonable that the views of their members in Northern Ireland are not necessarily the views of the section of the party that is a participant in Government here whose views, of course, are entirely concerted with those of the other two parties in Government.
One phone box does not tell the other phone box what it is doing.
The SDLP and Sinn Féin have sought clarification from both Governments in relation to the forum in particular. What plans has the Taoiseach to give that clarification to both parties?
I offered considerable clarification in my reply to the Deputy's questions today as to the Irish Government's view of this matter. I prepared my reply to today's questions with both the Deputy's questions in mind and also the queries to which she has referred that had been tabled by other parties. I hope that by replying to these concerns today I will be able to give some degree of reassurance but, as I have already said to Deputy Raphael Burke, if further private or more extensive clarification is necessary these will be met in a constructive way.
That is the end of questions to the Taoiseach today.