THE Taoiseach called for an end to the recriminations which followed Mr John Major's controversial reaction in the House of Commons to the Mitchell body report.

While repeating his disappointment, with the British Prime Minister's response, Mr Bruton added: "I do not see any great purpose in going back on what people did or did not do last week in order to reinforce negative viewpoints that we might have."

He said that in their conversation on the night before the publication of the report, Mr Major had indicated that he would be making "favourable references" to the idea of an election in the North. But he had not indicated that he was going to present it as an alternative precondition to all party talks. Nor had he indicated that the election would come before talks.

"I specifically said to him that the talks would come first and that any idea of an election would flow from talks and not the other way round," the Taoiseach added.

He said that the conversation had taken place at 10.30 p.m., when there was agreement that the texts of the response to the report would be exchanged. The Irish text was supplied in sufficient time on the next day, but the British text did not arrive until 2.20 p.m. He was in the House at 2.30 p.m. and did not have an opportunity to see it. Attempts by the Government to have changes made were not successful.

Mr Bruton answered Opposition questions on the controversy for an hour yesterday. He had heated exchanges with the Fianna Fail leader, when Mr Bertie Ahern referred to a private conversation about the merits of an elected assembly at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation on the Friday before the report was published.

Mr Ahern claimed Government officials were actively canvassing that the idea of an assembly should not be rejected out of hand. The Taoiseach said he was intrigued by Mr Ahern's bringing into the House a version of a conversation in which he had not participated.

He believed, he said, that the conversation had taken place on the initiative of Dr Martin Mansergh (Mr Ahern's adviser) with Mr Shane Kenny (Government Press Secretary). It was true that "in the privacy and informality" of the forum Mr Kenny did express views allowing openness towards the possible role that an election might play in the peace process.

Mr Bruton recalled that in welcoming the forum he had expressed the hope that it would create an opportunity for people and parties to have private and informal discussions with each other. But that value of the forum was not helped if people of the standing of the leader of Fianna Fail were going to introduce second hand accounts of conversations designed to make a political point.

Mr Ahern said that two senior officials from the Taoiseach's office had canvassed the senior people from three parties on a particular line.

Mr Bruton said he had received a very full account of the discussions from Mr Kenny. Mr Kenny had not been accompanied by an official from the Taoiseach's Department; in fact, the person was an official from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Kenny had been approached by a member of Sinn Fein and a Fianna Fail adviser separately in the course of normal contacts at the forum. During the conversations, Mr Kenny gave assurances that the proposal for an elected body should be considered in the political track under the terms of the November communique. He also had said that any such proposal would have to be firmly anchored in the three strand approach and that the Government would not countenance the return of a Stormont type assembly.

He expressed the view that they should be open to discussion of the proposal since it was put forward by union provided for in the terms of the communique. The Fianna Fail adviser had made it clear that his party would reject the Mitchell report if it proposed such an elected body.

Mr Bruton suggested that it was "quite unworthy" of Mr Ahern, to attempt to present "biased and inaccurate" versions of conversations of the kind that took place in the forum. "I would ask Deputy Ahern to repent of the mistake he has made in this instance," he added.

The Ceann Comhairle, Mr Sean Treacy, said he was sorry that personalities outside of the House had been introduced. Mr Ahern said that Mr Bruton's "people" were talking to Deputy Noel Dempsey and not Dr Mansergh.

Asking how many more conversations Mr Ahern wanted to introduce, the Taoiseach said he had no doubt that members of his party had been speaking to virtually every Fianna Fail member of the forum at some stage.

Replying to Mr Dermot Ahern (FF, Louth) Mr Bruton said that in accordance with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution he had a responsibility for all the people on the island, whatever political ideology they might have. The Constitution did not say that only the Catholics were Irish.

He did not see himself as leader of any part of the Irish people. It was something to which Fianna Fail might address its attention.

Mr Bruton suggested that the only way unionists could satisfy themselves of Sinn Fein's commitment to the report's six principles was to sit in the same room with the party and go through them one by one. "That is the way trust is built, through dialogue. It is not achieved by refusing to talk to one another," he added. He also urged the unionist parties to meet the Government.

Mr Bertie Ahern suggested that the "real tragedy" of the British response was that it stopped all parties having a careful, considered view of the report, particularly the six principles. The Taoiseach, he added, had the support of Fianna Fail in rejecting the "unilateral action" of the British government.

Mr Breton said he heartily agrees that the entirely unnecessary controversy created by what was said in the House of Commons had diverted attention from the detail of an excellent report.

When the PD leader, Ms Mary Harney, suggested that the British strategy had changed following the leak of the report to the Irish Independent, Mr Bruton said he did not believe it had anything to do with the positions adopted by the British government.

Asked by Ms Harney if the Irish Embassy in London was lobbying support for the report before it was published, Mr Bruton said a lunch had been held ink the Embassy for a party of Conservative MPs who were coming to Ireland.

In the course of the discussion, questions were asked by the MPs about the Government's position on the reported content of the report which had yet to be published. His understanding was that the Irish Ambassador quite properly gave his best assessment of the Government's view. This was a perfectly normal process of briefing. Any suggestion that it provided a pretext for any change of position on the part of the British government was ludicrous.

Ms Harney said that what had happened in the House of Commons last week had been damaging to the peace process. She believed that happened because of the leaks of the report to The Irish Times and the Irish Independent. The well intentioned lobbying of back benchers had put pressure on Mr Major and forced his response.

Mr Bruton said he did not share Ms Harney's assumptions. He did not believe that the leaks had occurred in "this jurisdiction". Nor did he accept that they came from Irish sources.