Vol. 465 No. 6
1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister regarding the establishment of an all-party committee, as part of the all-party negotiations, to deal with the issue of decommissioning. [10211/96]
2 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the arrangements, if any, being made for the separate consideration by the Government of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. [10213/96]
3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with the British Prime Minister regarding the procedures which will apply on the opening day of all-party negotiations. [10215/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
The British Prime Minister and I had a constructive review last night of developments in the lead up to the 10 June all-party negotiations. We discussed the key issues relating to the arrangements for the negotiations. I assure the House that our intensive efforts are aimed at elaborating in detail on how we can deliver our joint commitment that the negotiations will be substantive, fully inclusive and will not become blocked on the decommissioning issue.
Both the British Prime Minister and I have made clear on a number of occasions that we want a process of negotiation at which all relevant mandated parties will be present. In that regard, yesterday's statement by Sinn Féin represents a most significant step. The commitments given underline the importance of the Mitchell report in the negotiations. The Government believes all sides should now agree to pursue the different elements of the report in resolving the outstanding issues on decommissioning. We hope the IRA will now build on this by reinstating the ceasefire. That would ensure that the circumstances will be right, including as set down and agreed in the February communiqué, for the success of the fully inclusive all-party negotiations commencing on 10 June.
Regarding constitutional change, the position of the two Governments on such change, including possible amendments to Articles 2 and 3, is set in the context of a wider constitutional balance to be agreed in an overall settlement. That position is given full expression in paragraphs 14 to 21 of the Joint Framework Document. The ground rules for the all-party negotiations make clear that any participant will be free to raise any aspect of the three relationships, including constitutional issues.
Does the Taoiseach agree that if Sinn Féin's commitment to the Mitchell principles is a prelude to a renewed IRA ceasefire, we are on the verge of an historic breakthrough in the peace process? Does he also agree, however, that a commitment to the principles is not a substitute for an IRA ceasefire and that in the absence of such a ceasefire Sinn Féin cannot be admitted to the all-party talks on 10 June?
It is clear from my reply and from what the Government and others said last night that restoration of the ceasefire by the IRA is essential. The relevant paragraph of the communiqué of 28 February states that both Governments are agreed that the resumption of ministerial dialogue with Sinn Féin and its participation in negotiations require the restoration of the August 1994 ceasefire. In political terms, the Mitchell principles require an IRA ceasefire. They commit those who agreed them to principles which, by their very meaning, are not consistent with anything other than an IRA ceasefire from Sinn Féin's point of view. For that reason, I hope the logic of Sinn Féin commitment yesterday and the opportunity of holding all-inclusive negotiations on 10 June will require the IRA to restore the cessation of violence.
Does Sinn Féin's commitment to the Mitchell principles alter in any way the ban on ministerial meetings with Sinn Féin?
There has been no change in the situation so far as this is concerned, but I have indicated on a number of occasions already that discussions between officials are continuing and are intensive and fruitful.
I welcome the fact that these discussions are being maintained and intensified to clarify some of the issues that need to be clarified. They are crucially important at this stage. I agree with the Taoiseach on the logic of following through, but there are some matters that need to be clarified. One important one is how the Framework Document stands. On behalf of Fianna Fáil I welcomed the British Prime Minister's Irish Times article. However, that article omits any mention of the Framework Document. In the Taoiseach's Finglas speech he said that the whole basis of the discussion was the Framework Document. The British Prime Minister noted the Finglas speech but did not endorse it. Last week in the House the Taoiseach stated that he would be speaking on behalf of both himself and the British Prime Minister. To remove any ambiguity, what is the position of the Framework Document? Do both Governments remain fully committed to it, and will both Governments jointly table the Framework Document at the commencement of the discussions on 10 June?
The position, as I think the Deputy knows, is that the Framework Document is referred to where it really matters, that is in paragraph 4 of the ground rules paper for the talks where it is stated by both Governments that the Framework Document represents a shared understanding by the two Governments of the parameters of a possible outcome of the negotiations. That is an agreed statement between the two Governments in the ground rules paper for the talks. That is a very firm and important commitment. It is important to stress that it is only in the context of a fixed date for all-party talks that the Framework Document can move from being simply a theoretical construct agreed between the two Governments to becoming something else, a working document out of which can come an agreement between all of the parties, not solely between the two Governments. It is the setting of the fixed date for all-party talks, 10 June, that has given increased relevance and potential to the Framework Document which was absent as long as there was not a fixed date and procedure for all-party talks.
The Taoiseach said in his reply that both Governments were agreed that the decommissioning issue would not be allowed to block all-party negotiations. The Prime Minister made that clear in his Irish Times article. That being the case, have the two Governments agreed to the establishment of a fourth strand to deal with the decommissioning issue?
The two Governments are working together on the best way of dealing with that matter in procedural terms. We are agreed on our objective, which I have already referred to, that this issue will not be allowed to block the talks. This is consistent with the approach we took in the 28 February communiqué where it is clear that, although this issue must be dealt with, it must be dealt with along with other issues, and assurances must be given to all of the participants that the issues which are of concern to them will be dealt with. That is set out in the last paragraph of the 28 February communiqué. The detailed procedures and personnel arrangements for translating that into working arrangements after 10 June are being further developed between the Prime Minister and me and between the Tánaiste and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the basis of what we have already agreed, which is the ground rules paper, a detailed, very strong document in terms of giving direction and focus and assuring comprehensiveness in regard to the talks.
Does the Taoiseach believe it would be useful if the British Government made a clear statement on where it stands on the Framework Document? Would he agree that, following the Downing Street Declaration and the original negotiation of the Framework Document and its presentation, the Irish Government should consider it a matter of public face that the British Government should make it clear, without shilly-shallying, where it stands? There are several references to the belief of people who are important in this process that the omission of reference to the Framework Document in a number of statements and interviews is significant. If it is not, will the Taoiseach ask the British Government to make the same clear statement he made in his Finglas speech about the Framework Document?
The Deputy is under a misapprehension. I do not believe there is any doubt in this area. The British Government has agreed in the ground rules paper for these talks that the Framework Document, which is specifically referred to by name in the ground rules paper for the talks, represents a shared understanding on the part of the two Governments of the parameters of a possible outcome of the negotiations. That is carrying forward into the ground rules for these talks the statement made when the Prime Minister and I launched the Framework Document. In other words, the commitment of the two Governments to the Framework Document is not only the same now as it was when the Framework Document was launched but has been enhanced by being included specifically in paragraph 4 of the ground rules for these talks, and is further enhanced by the fact that we have agreed on a mechanism for starting talks on 10 June which gives the possibility of bringing the Framework Document from theory into reality. That is there currently. I respectfully suggest to the Deputy that he should not have the worries he seems to have on that point, nor should he encourage others to have them. I believe the commitment of the British Government to the Framework Document in the ground rules document is as clear as can be.
I am glad the Taoiseach is so confident. I would like to hear the British Government say exactly what he is saying. I find it difficult to understand why it will not do that. Would the Taoiseach agree that Senator Mitchell's involvement in the process should not be confined to a strand IV relating to the decommissioning issue, but that he should also be the chairperson of the strand II process which is the North-South dimension?
The question of the personnel for the various roles to be fulfilled, the structure of their responsibilities etc., has yet to be settled between the two Governments and announced jointly by the two Governments. All discussions about how individuals might be involved should be conducted jointly by the two Governments, not individually by one Government. Having said that, I have to say very strongly that I believe Senator George Mitchell has an unrivalled capacity to make a valuable contribution in this area.
Anybody who looks at the Mitchell report in the context of the passage of time will see that constantly people return to the original Mitchell-de Chastelain-Holkeri text as constituting the solution to problems as they arise. It is a document of great durability in terms of the balance it strikes, which becomes ever more evident with the passage of time. It is clear that, increasingly, various parties return to the Mitchell report as constituting the basis for future progress. That is a tribute to the subtlety, intelligence, balance and ability to understand various points of view, of Senator Mitchell in particular, but also of General de Chastelain and Mr. Holkeri in the report of the international body. Clearly they have a very valuable potential role to play in the matter but any announcements or decisions are matters for joint action by the Governments rather than unilateral action by one Government.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the decommissioning process is qualitatively different from the other potential subject matters of talks, deserves different treatment — whether they be called "fourth strand" or whatever — and requires a different process, approach, in all likelihood, different participants and a less party political approach than might be required in the case of other issues? Will he agree, therefore, that decommissioning should not be viewed simply as a subcommittee of a political process but dealt with in a different, separate channel of its own?
While I might agree with Deputy McDowell's conclusions, I would not necessarily agree with the entirety of the argumentation he advanced in favour of his conclusions. The truth of the matter is that undoubtedly the decommissioning issue involves specific technical aspects but also political ones. For example, it is important to recognise that decommissioning will happen in practice only if progress is made on political matters. Therefore, there is an inherent link between the technical and political aspects and it is in finding an appropriate way of making that link one must proceed.
I was delighted to hear the Taoiseach's comments on the subtlety and importance of the Mitchell report, something recognised by all sides but particularly by Members on these benches and accepted prior to its publication. Since part of that report talked of the need for confidence-building measures — and while, of course, prisoners have played a vital role in the overall peace process — will the Taoiseach say whether he will make representations to the British Prime Minister to bring forward clear statements on their position? While recognising what has been achieved this side of the Border and the role of prisoners generally, will the Taoiseach seek clarification about their future, with some early releases, as confidence-building measures, in an effort to bring about a reinstatement of the ceasefire?
I have already indicated in the House the view I and the Government take as to how we will approach the prisoner issue in the aftermath of an IRA ceasefire. It is also fair to say that the transfer of prisoners' arrangement agreed with the British authorities indicates a willingness on their part to show humanitarian concern in regard to prisoner issues. From the victims' perspective, clearly the possibility of such an occurrence would be greatly enhanced by a restoration of the IRA ceasefire. It should be clear to those who must take the decision on a complete cessation of violence on the part of the IRA that it will have undoubted benefits for those who are imprisoned — and their families.
I am glad the Deputy raised the matter of confidence-building measures, a very important element of the Mitchell report — the treatment of prisoners being one issue referred to in it — as well as policing, targeting and punishment beatings. There is a range of confidence-building measures that can be taken right across the spectrum to ensure the negotiations proceed in the best possible atmosphere. I urge everybody to look at the Mitchell report as a whole, not merely to pick some of its confidence-building measures because they like them and are ones somebody else will have to implement but rather to look particularly at those to which they themselves can contribute. That should be something that would influence comment on the matter as well.
Does the Taoiseach agree it is important that the British and Irish Governments quickly agree to the agenda and procedures for the all-party talks? That being the case, does he intend to have a meeting with the British Prime Minister before 10 June?
It is important to make the point that the British Government and ourselves have made it clear we want to see an open agenda but, equally, we want participants to be able to place matters on the agenda. Therefore, it would be a bit presumptuous for the two Governments to agree to set the agenda before the participants have met. On the other hand, we must clarify to the greatest extent possible the procedures whereby the agenda items, including those we, as Governments, might wish to place on the agenda as well as items others might want to place on it, will be processed.
Does the Taoiseach intend to have a meeting with the British Prime Minister before 10 June?
That is neither excluded nor included at this stage; it may or may not be necessary; I do not know.
Will the Taoiseach say whether the two Governments have agreed in principle to a conclusion date, or preferred conclusion date, for the all-party talks?
I answered that question last week when I referred to the fact that there is a time limit of a year in the legislation, with a possible extension of one year. I indicated I consider it might be useful if all the participants could agree a tighter timeframe on an indicative basis, without creating a cage within which everybody is confined, at least to assist us in goal-setting in the talks. I have already said that but probably it is something best done by the talks' participants themselves, with the urging of the Governments, rather than by the Governments before the talks begin. If everybody is to adhere to a timetable they must have ownership of it; therefore, the people concerned should set a timetable and agree it rather than have others do it for them before they meet. I agree with Deputy Dermot Ahern — and indeed it is true that the Ulster Unionist Party in a statement also indicated it would like to see a concentrated period — that there be a relatively limited timeframe for negotiations. I do not think there is really a difference here but it is best that it be done in the talks rather than in advance of them.
Has a decision already been taken on whether the Taoiseach and British Prime Minister will attend the opening sessions of the talks?
Nothing has yet been decided on that. It is possible that we will — in fact it is likely that we will — but no formal decision has been taken.
Has the Taoiseach agreed the composition of the Irish Government team for the talks?
That matter has not been settled but we will settle it shortly.
