Mary Harney
Ceist:3 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach whether there has been any formal response from Sinn Féin to the two questions posed to it by the Government on Tuesday, 18 June 1996. [14123/96]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
Mary Harney
Ceist:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach his views on the claim by the President of Sinn Féin that his party has given the Government frank, honest and clear responses to the questions posed to it by the Government. [14124/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
I set out the position on this matter in considerable detail in this House on 25 June. That remains the position.
The Government continues to be fully committed to the peace process. We are keeping open the lines of communication with Sinn Féin.
In the past three weeks we have had the murder of Detective Garda McCabe, the bombing of a shopping centre in Manchester, the explosives find at Clonaslee and, last weekend, the attack on the British base at Osnabruck. Will the Taoiseach agree that the last thing on the minds of those in the IRA is a ceasefire? Will he accept that a cessation of violence by the IRA is very unlikely? Will he join with me in calling on those people in Sinn Féin who have influence with the IRA to use that influence to bring about a ceasefire?
It is self-evident that violence achieves absolutely nothing. Anybody who wishes to bring about any form of unity between people must recognise that violence is contrary to the achievement of unity. That understanding is open to everybody. The organisation in question can draw its own conclusions on that matter. An opportunity for talks is currently available. Sinn Féin can take part in those talks if the IRA calls a ceasefire. The negotiating process is open and available. There is no question that action of any kind can be justified on the basis that a vehicle for advancing negotiation is not available. It is available and it is a matter for the people concerned to make a decision. As far as the Government's approach is concerned vis-à-vis Sinn Féin, our door is open but, if I may mix the metaphor, the ball is in its court.
The Taoiseach did not answer my two specific questions. Does he believe there is any reason to be optimistic that Sinn Féin and the IRA are moving in the right direction in this regard?
I did not answer the question deliberately because I do not think there is any point in my entering into speculation of the kind the Deputy is inviting me to enter into. It is a matter for the organisation itself to realise that violence is futile.
I asked the Taoiseach if there was any reason to believe they were even moving in the right direction. I am entitled to ask the Taoiseach about his thinking on these matters.
I am unconvinced of the need for speculation of the kind the Deputy is inviting me to engage in.
The Taoiseach gave exclusive interviews to journalists at the weekend. He should at least answer questions here.
It is a matter for everyone to observe for themselves the direction in which the republican movement is going. We have seen some appalling atrocities in recent times which were difficult to reconcile with a peace process. I have explained at great length the reason I believe Sinn Féin stated on 20 May that it was willing to accept the Mitchell principles, one of which involves a complete renunciation of violence. If that statement was true, there must be some basis for believing that some people at least are willing to renounce violence but the weight those people carry remains to be seen. In this instance the judgment should be based on results rather than speculation of any kind.
Will the Taoiseach agree that every new attack by the IRA makes it more difficult for people to deal with them, not just from the point of view of talks but also in regard to establishing relationships between Sinn Féin and others? Even if another ceasefire is announced the saying "once bitten, twice shy" will apply not only to Sinn Féin but to other political parties. Will the Taoiseach agree that the best way to move the democratic process forward is for the IRA to renew the ceasefire that was working successfully? Does the Taoiseach consider that further assurances can be offered to improve what is clearly a bleak situation?
I agree with the points the Deputy made and careful note should be taken of them. The republican movement should reflect carefully on what Deputy Bertie Ahern has just said. As far as the matter of further action is concerned, I have not as yet heard any specific request of any kind from the republican movement. It indicated at the last meeting it had with Government officials that it regarded the basis for the talks, which started on 10 June, as broadly satisfactory. I have no reason to believe it has altered its view nor have I heard any further request on this matter. Lines of communication remain open. The conditions have long existed where, by any standard, there should be a complete cessation of violence. The talks which were sought have started.
We all condemn the atrocities which have been carried out and I refute the right of anybody to say they are doing this in the name of the Irish people. As regards the slow progress of the talks process, perhaps the Taoiseach would comment on Mr. Séamus Mallon's criticism of the lack of action, direction and drive of the two Governments to try to break the logjam in the talks process.
I have not heard the comments to which the Deputy referred so I will not say anything about them in detail. The two Governments agreed the ground rules for these talks. They established the talks, they sought the services of Senator Mitchell and his two colleagues to act as chair for the talks and they are participating in them. It is important to recognise that the other participants in the talks are meeting one another and the two Governments for the first time in a political context. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should have time to establish a mutual understanding which would enable them to proceed. The talks process is slow but the problem the talks are designed to remedy is of great depth, complexity and length of duration. One should not expect that all such problems in these talks will be solved quickly. The nature of a political exercise means one must be patient.
Bearing in mind that the Canary Wharf explosion killed two innocent people, the Manchester bombing could have killed hundreds of people but for the effective action of the police, and the Osnabruck explosion was designed to kill as many people as possible and only for the grace of God in the form of malfunctions it did not, would the Taoiseach not agree that the terms "inane" used by the Tánaiste and "futile" used by the Taoiseach are rather mild terms to use about a campaign of murder which is being orchestrated from this country, as we saw today with the discovery that the vehicle used at Osnabruck originated in this State? Would the Taoiseach not agree that the time has come to make it clear to those who are perpetrating this violence that they are setting back their cause and to demonstrate to them that every atrocity they commit will put the clock back? Is that not what politicians should do?
I do not know if the Deputy recollects, but recently in this House I described the IRA campaign as anti-national and anti-Irish and said that it represented the antithesis of all we stand for. It is not necessary for me to repeat those words every time there is an IRA atrocity because if I do the words will begin to lose their meaning and force. The Deputy can be assured that those remain my sentiments as far as IRA violence is concerned. I do not believe it is useful to repeat those words with further emphasis all the time. The Government's view and the view of the people about this campaign are well known. This campaign is futile and inane but it is also, as I have said, anti-Irish, anti-national and unrepresentative of all that we hold dear as democrats in this House.
This is the fourth oldest democracy in Europe. The Dáil has functioned as a democratic assembly for an uninterrupted period longer than any other state institution in Europe, with only three exceptions. There can be no doubt about the resoluteness of all those who occupy positions of influence in the institutions of this State to deal with violence of any kind designed for political purposes. In so far as there is a hope that those in that movement can persuade those who have used violence to stop doing so, it is reasonable to give those people who are working to have violence stopped the space and time to do so, however bleak the prospect may appear.
I was a member of the Government in 1991-92 which was continually disrupted by the involvement of senior figures in the talks process, but the then Taoiseach's view was that the best and strongest team had to be involved in those talks. The Taoiseach recently outlined the Ministers who would participate in the talks on behalf of the Government. The Taoiseach has continually told the House about the success of getting the all party talks started. However, he did not mention the substitute panels. Is the Taoiseach not concerned that the Government is represented by Ministers and Ministers of State who are inexperienced, have no track record on the North and who never uttered a word about Northern affairs during their time in this House? Would it not be advisable, regardless of other pressures, for the Government to appoint appropriate people to represent the Government?
The representation of the Irish Government is at the highest level. Northern policy is a collective matter within the Government. All members of the Government can and should be expected to do the Government's work in this important matter. There is also an expert official team backing up all the Ministers in Belfast. They are there full time. While it is true that the demands of this House, which meets at the same time as the talks are being held in Stormont, and the demands of the European Presidency, which is taking place simultaneously, create a problem for Ministers who cannot be in three places at the one time, we have made good arrangements to ensure that the Government is effectively represented at these talks at political and official level and will continue to be so.
I made the point in response to an earlier question from a Fianna Fáil Deputy that at this juncture in the talks one must recognise that it is not the two Governments who are the main players because they have been negotiating for a considerable time, they understand one another's respective positions and they have an agreed position in the form of the ground rules for the talks.
The task at this juncture is to establish some form of modus vivendi or understanding between the other parties in the talks, many of whom have never worked before with one another in a co-operative political enterprise of any kind. Given the deep seated mutual disagreements and, to some degree, mutual suspicions between the parties there, it is not surprising that some time is necessary for them to come to understand how best to work with one another and with the two Governments.
We are now in the fourth week of multi-party talks and initially there were great calls for a short timeframe to conclude them. Will the Taoiseach accept that what is visible from those talks is very disillusioning and disappointing? Could the Governments not do more to inject a momentum into the process to ensure we move beyond procedural and preliminary matters to substantial issues? Will the Taoiseach agree that the manner in which the former Senator George Mitchell is being treated by constitutional politicians leaves a great deal to be desired? We are all fortunate that he is still with us in the process, but there will come a time when the Governments will have to use their influence over the constitutional politicians in Northern Ireland to force the pace of change on these preliminary matters.
I do not agree with the Deputy's use of the term "disillusioning" to describe the talks. That particular choice of word is unfortunate, given the depth of the division that exists in Northern Ireland with which the Deputy is very familiar and that this is the first time in history that some of these parties have sat down together.
To squabble over where they sit.
It is unrealistic to expect that in a week or two they would be able to overcome centuries of disagreement in terms of their respective historical positions. It is evident from the talks in Belfast that there is a will on the part of the participants to stay together, to argue and to disagree until they eventually reach agreement. While I naturally share some degree of impatience about the matter, it is important to make the point that the Governments have been working together for months on the procedures and ground rules and the parties to the talks were involved only indirectly in those discussions. Since 10 June they are becoming directly involved for the first time in some of these matters. As any people would wish, it is natural that they would want to put their stamp and input on the method of work being undertaken. That is only human because people want to have some sense of ownership of the process and they are in the course of doing that. While I can understand that from time to time some of the participants will naturally want to express their impatience, it is also important to recognise the complexity and depth of the issue. It is a long time since there have been all-party talks of any kind in regard to Northern Ireland. There were talks on a more limited basis in 1991 to 1992 which did not achieve their objective. Now we have talks with a much wider range of parties which, unfortunately, are taking place against a background of continuing violence. That must be borne in mind with the fact that we got them all together on 10 June and that they are still working together, unfortunately, against a background of continued street demonstrations and other issues which cause division and provocation in Northern Ireland. If one has a sense of proportion, one would not use a term like "disillusioning" about the normal disagreements that are part of politics. There is evidence of disagreement in this House every morning. Even this morning there was disagreement between the Deputy and myself about certain matters; that is part of politics.
I remind the House that we must proceed to deal with priority questions at 3.30 p.m. and that we have devoted some 45 minutes to only four questions, albeit very important ones, but all questions are important to the Chair and I would prefer that we made much more progress.
I understand the Chair's natural frustration, but this will be the last opportunity we will have to question the Taoiseach on the talks for some months before the summer recess. I fully appreciate that making progress requires co-operation among the parties to the talks, but surely it is essential — I disagree with the Taoiseach in this regard — that the main players remain the Governments and they must continue to drive the process forward, they cannot step back from it. Surely the wrong message is being sent out by the Irish Government, if less than a front-line team is being sent to represent the Government's point of view at this crucial time when we should be moving the process from the detail into substantial talks. We are not having substantial talks and is it not essential that, having agreed the ground rules document and the position of the former Senator George Mitchell, the Governments should stand over what they agreed and push forward the agenda rather than stand back and let disagreement on detail rule the day for the past month? As we approach the summer recess, I urge the Taoiseach to ensure the Government drives the process forward, assumes its role as one of the main players and does not to take a hands-off approach which seems to be very evident at the moment. The Deputy Leader of the SDLP, Mr. Séamus Mallon, who is close to the process and was involved in the talks in 1992, is frustrated by that approach and expressed a view on television the night before last of the need for the Governments to play a role. I urge the Taoiseach to play that role.
I assure the Deputy that the Government has a front-line team representing it and the Irish people at the talks every day they take place. It is a highly professional team made up of a mix of Ministers and officials. The Deputy might reflect upon this point, it is important to recognise that if agreement is reached at the end of these talks a referendum must be held in the North and the South where a majority would endorse the proposals. I do not believe it is possible for the two Governments alone to achieve the degree of consensus necessary, particularly in Northern Ireland, for an affirmative vote in such a referendum. If we are to get the affirmative vote in such a referendum that we need to endorse a settlement, it is essential that the political parties representing the people in Northern Ireland, in addition to the two Governments, are fully engaged in the process and are fully supportive of the outcome whether in regard to internal arrangements in Northern Ireland, relationships between the North and the South or relationships between the two islands. It is essential for the success of the exercise that the political parties in Northern Ireland, who can recommend to their neighbours that they should vote "yes" for a package, are fully involved in and have a full sense of ownership of the entire process from the beginning. The political parties, who have been presented with a very firm proposal by the two Governments, are in a process of taking ownership of it. That is important if we are to get an affirmative recommendation for the outcome of the talks that we need for a settlement to take effect. Will the Deputy reflect on that and bear it in mind? While I fully understand his sense of urgency, that we should move matters forward, if this political exercise is to work, it is important that we bring all the required people with us.
Does the Taoiseach accept it is hard for people to feel an ownership in the process if they are beaten down on matters like seating arrangements? He took me to task for using the word "disillusioning" but, as Deputy Raphael Burke said, Mr. Séamus Mallon, MP, said very clearly on Monday evening how frustrated he felt and called on the two Governments to adopt a hands-on approach and become involved in resolving the difficulties. Would the Taoiseach accept that the parties causing the problems are not those new to the talks process but those who were involved in the talks process in 1992 who are causing the difficulties on this occasion?
I will not comment on the internal arrangements for the talks or on what is happening because the talks are confidential. However, the inferences the Deputy is drawing are not correct.
When the Taoiseach says a referendum will be held, presumably involving an ultimate constitutional change, will he emphasise that there cannot be a referendum unless the settlement is comprehensive? Furthermore, will he agree that a definition of a comprehensive settlement involves a recognition of the Nationalist community in the North by way of cross-Border institutional balance?
Of course, what Deputy Cowen said is quite right.
Will the Taoiseach agree that a bad mistake was made by both Governments, mainly the British one, in 1995 in losing momentum? Regardless of what occurs in the summer months, will the Taoiseach make every effort to ensure that momentum is not lost? Will the Taoiseach confirm the Government will take whatever action is necessary to highlight the fact that the talks will not be allowed to be disrupted by a few people with legalistic minds who do not participate in the talks but who believe they can argue about everything? Does he agree that if those people were outside the talks they would be sufficiently free and speedy in saying who was causing problems? Does he agree the Government should not be reluctant to highlight what they are doing?
I do not want to repeat myself continuously. In the previous talks held in 1991-92 there were five or six parties only involved whereas now there are ten. Obviously, it is more difficult to get a greater number of people to agree but, sometimes when one does get them to agree, the agreement is more durable. While I am not in a position to vindicate every stance taken by every participant in the talks in the past month — and it should be remembered that it is only a month since the talks began — we should be reluctant to involve ourselves in the sort of instant comment of the kind in which Deputy Harney engaged when she described the talks as "disillusioning". These talks represent the views of some people who have radically disagreed in the past attempting to come together and be reconciled. Far from being "disillusioning", that they are all together is far more inspiring than disillusioning. That they have not yet agreed is only to be expected. We should be much more optimistic and supportive of the efforts of the political parties there, and the respective Governments.
We are trying to encourage rather than discourage.
The Taoiseach said the more parties involved the more durable would be the settlement. Will he confirm that the only settlement in which his Government is interested is one involving all parties, which is comprehensive and can be durable only when the principle of majoritarianism has finally been eliminated from Northern Ireland politics?
One of the longstanding views, certainly of one section of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland is that no one party should have a veto. Obviously, when one says that, one cannot stipulate that everybody must agree before reaching a settlement. We want the widest possible agreement, if possible, one to which all of the parties can subscribe, including the one party unfortunately not now participating because of the continuing IRA campaign. I accept that it is important, from the point of view of the Nationalist community that there be North/South institutions which represent and institutionalise the Nationalist identity of the Nationalist community, so that, as inhabitants of Northern Ireland, they feel part of an Irish entity. Equally, it is important that those who have a British identity in Northern Ireland have visible institutional expression of that loyalty. It is a question of finding an institutional mechanism which can be agreed which represents both of those requirements, which is what we are working toward——
If it is not agreed, there will not be a settlement; is that not the position?
——and, as the House is well aware, the people who will have the final say in this matter are the people of Northern Ireland and the people of this State. The people of Northern Ireland in a referendum will have to say "yes" as will the people of this State. That is the ultimate outcome we seek. Given that the people in the two jurisdictions must say "yes", it is important that the representatives of both communities, in Northern Ireland in particular, as far as that jurisdiction is concerned, have full ownership of the process and are fully involved in it. In that context, what we are seeing is a gradual, painful and difficult process whereby the representatives in Northern Ireland, working together, sharing their disagreements, arguing together, through this common work, are acquiring a sense of ownership of the process. Once they have that sense of ownership of the process it will be easier to deal with the practical details of the agreement.
In view of what the Taoiseach said a few moments ago, that people were being unhelpful does he accept that if people in this House take a different view and ask questions of him, they do so for the best of motives, to be helpful and not to be unhelpful? Furthermore, does he accept that I have a right to ask questions in this House, even if at times they are awkward ones? I take it the Taoiseach is not denying me an opportunity of putting forward a different perspective here in asking him questions about this and other matters.
The Deputy was entirely wrong to describe the talks in Northern Ireland as "disillusioning". That was not the right phraseology to use, bearing in mind this is the first time these parties have come together, that no previous Government or Governments were able to create an opportunity for all those parties to come together and bearing in mind that they are now together against a background of some 25-27 years of violence.
Was Séamus Mallon wrong?
Bearing in mind that they are dealing with 300 years of division in Northern Ireland, the fact that they stayed together, worked together, even if disagreeing, for the past month is something that ought to be described as inspiring and constructive and not as disillusioning.
Would the Taoiseach agree with independent commentators' views expressed on numerous occasions, that one of the reasons for the breakdown in the peace process was that the two respective Governments took their eye off the ball, and that one of the reasons there is now a call for more positive Government intervention is that the arguments relate to very peripheral matters rather than to the fundamental questions that have yet to be addressed?
It is probably easy for us to say the arguments are about procedural matters which are of relatively minor importance, but, if one looks at any conflict anywhere else worldwide, at any other peace process worldwide, for example, at that in the Middle East, or any other peace process one chooses to mention——
I did not hear any argument about seating arrangements in those cases.
——one will find that a great part of the emotional energy and disagreement centres on procedural matters. Why is that the case? It is because, before one can reach agreement on matters of substance, there has to be a sense of shared ownership of the process whereby one will reach that agreement. What is happening at the moment is a gradual and painful process of building up a sense of shared ownership. Certainly the Governments will exercise the responsibility to take the appropriate leadership in the talks at the appropriate time. However, at the end of the day, it is the parties in Northern Ireland as well as the Governments who must recommend the ultimate package and ensure that it is approved in a referendum. Against that background I do not think we should be displaying the sort of impatience that I detect in some but not all of the contributions.