Bertie Ahern
Question:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether he has declined a request from Mr. John Hume for a joint meeting between the Government, Mr. Hume and Mr. Adams; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15500/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Northern Ireland Peace Process.
The Government believes it is vital to the ultimate success of the peace process that we be seen to act in a way which includes, and is based on parity between, all the Northern Ireland parties that we need to have at round table talks. Consistent with this inclusive approach, the Government has pursued a general policy of holding bilateral meetings with each of the individual parties. The problem with meetings to which some parties have been invited but not others is that misunderstandings, suspicion, and a sense of exclusion have arisen among the parties not invited to such meetings.
The Government's approach of favouring bilateral meetings at this stage in the process, for the reasons I have just outlined, has been successful, in that we have now been able to arrange discussions with a number of Northern parties who had not previously been willing to formally meet any Irish Government. This is very important in that it is now fully accepted that the agreement of the people represented by all these parties is essential to any lasting settlement. It was in this context that we made our decision on John Hume's recent request, received at short notice, for a meeting between the Government, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Both parties were offered individual meetings on the same day.
I want to emphasise, further, that the Government is continuing to work very closely on an almost daily basis with both those parties, and with others as well, towards our ultimate objective of political agreement, achieved through negotiation and underpinned by consent. Meetings with two or more selected parties can take place in the future if the timing and circumstances are judged by the Government to be right, and if clear reasons have been adduced in advance as to why a particular matter cannot be effectively handled bilaterally.
Will the Taoiseach accept that it was the meeting between his predecessor, John Hume and Gerry Adams on 6 September, 1994 that sealed the peace and helped to underpin the IRA ceasefire at the time? Is the Taoiseach aware there is great anger within the SDLP at this refusal of a meeting and that it has shaken the confidence of Northern Nationalists in the Taoiseach?
Under the Anglo-Irish agreement this Government has a particular responsibility to concern itself with the interests of Northern Nationalists. It is important from the point of view of Nationalists that we get all-inclusive talks started on a round table basis at an early date. It is very important that all of the parties are willing to come to those talks. There are considerable difficulties in terms of trust, to be overcome in ensuring that all of the parties come.
It is particularly important from the point of view of Nationalists in Northern Ireland that an agreement can be reached with Unionists about a fair system of Government which recognises parity of esteem between the two communities. That can only happen if the Unionists as well as the Nationalists are willing to come to the same table to reach an agreement. My concern in arranging meetings has been to ensure that both communities in Northern Ireland are confident in the Government, that they feel it is fair to them and that there is no sense that one group of parties can get privileges that another group of parties cannot get.
We know from experience that there is a danger of grave misunderstanding when people are not involved in a meeting to which others have been invited. Anybody who thinks about his own daily life knows if invitations are issued to some people and not others there is liable to be considerable and disproportionate misunderstanding on the part of those who are not invited. However, if I am satisfied that the circumstances are right and an adequate reason is indicated why a particular matter needs to be dealt with, not on a bilateral basis but by two parties meeting together with me, I will consider such a request.
In this instance the request for this meeting was only brought to my attention 24 hours before the proposed time of the meeting. Given the responsibilities a Government has and the fact that we must be concerned about the impact of such meetings on others who would not be represented at them, we need a little more time and preparation to consider requests of that nature and avoid the sort of misunderstanding that occurred the last time such a meeting was held. I can quote some of the comments made on that occasion and they cannot be dismissed. The leader of the Alliance Party was very concerned about a meeting which took place on this basis to which he was not invited.
The Taoiseach has overall responsibility for many matters but he is leader of nationalist Ireland and that does not mean closing his door to leaders of parties in Northern Ireland who democratically represent nationalist Ireland, particularly John Hume. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware of the great disquiet caused by his attitude which he is now attempting to explain. It is reflected today in a critical editorial in the Irish News. It describes the loose nationalist consensus as the greatest protection unionism has against a return to violence. That is a fair point. Some people try to use the pan-nationalist front to be critical. Surely the other point of view is that what we have achieved in the last two years is the success of a united nationalist grouping.
I am sure the Deputy is aware that violence can come from either quarter. It is very important that we are seen to be fair. Of course I have a very important concern to ensure that what would be described as broadly nationalist parties in Northern Ireland are given access all the time. Discussions take place between my Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Sinn Féin on an ongoing basis, even this very day.
However, the difficulty with meetings to which certain parties have been invited is that the parties which have not been invited believe there is something going on about which they have not been told and that there is some reason for excluding them. For example, three of the parties in the Forum which are active in Northern Ireland are not represented by either Sinn Féin or the SDLP, that is the Alliance Party, Democratic Left and The Workers' Party who have representatives in Northern Ireland. The Alliance Party and The Workers' Party have a reasonable case for saying they have taken a decision to come to the Forum and asking why they should be excluded from meetings in which other parties have been included. They may not have many substantial bases for their concerns but as we know there is a serious risk of misunderstanding. My concern is to ensure that we have all-inclusive talks with everybody at the table. The Government must, therefore, be able to make judgments as to what is best at a particular time. In the past — I expect this will also be the case in the future — I have had joint meetings with John Hume and Gerry Adams. In looking at the overall situation in consultation with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Social Welfare, I, as Taoiseach, will have to decide whether particular meetings at particular times are helpful.
What were the reasons advanced by the two leaders for a joint meeting with the Government? Did they reject the idea of separate meetings?
I am not aware that any reasons were advanced at the time of the request as to why a joint rather than a bilateral meeting was necessary. It was subsequently suggested to me after the decision had been taken and the time for the meeting had passed that it was intended to convey a proposal to me. I understand that that proposal had previously been conveyed to us through official channels. We offered a meeting to the SDLP at 8.30 a.m. that morning and one to Sinn Féin at 10 a.m. However, they chose for whatever reasons not to take up those invitations even though I was available to meet them.
Is the Government pursuing a different strategy from the one being pursued by John Hume and Gerry Adams? Is this not the reason they wanted a meeting with the Taoiseach?
The Government is pursuing a strategy of seeking agreement based on dealing with the principal obstacles to all-inclusive talks, one of which is the decommissioning of arms. There is concern about the need to reach a formula which will deal with that matter. The Deputy will not be surprised to learn that my position and that of any elected Government on para-military arms is not the same as that of Sinn Féin. The Government believes — I think the previous Government shared our view — that the only proper authority for the holding of arms in this State is the Government. Obviously our position on this issue is not identical to that of Sinn Féin. However, this is not to say that we are not seeking to take into account the very real concerns of the Nationalist community in regard to their defence in extreme situations and their anxiety to be reassured that other aspects in regard to demilitarisation of the situation in Northern Ireland are being dealt with.
Is there a difference between John Hume's strategy in regard to this matter and the Irish Government's strategy?
It is appropriate to set out the Government's strategy on this matter, which I do regularly in the House and will continue to do. I believe that, like the Irish Government, John Hume is trying to find a solution to the present difficulties, particularly in regard to the issue of arms. He has sought to put forward various formulae which would be acceptable to Sinn Féin, the British Government and, in the long run, the Unionist community in Northern Ireland who also need to be at the table. This is not an easy task and no one party or individual in the process has it in their gift to solve the problem. Everybody must be willing to give some ground if we are to solve the problem. For example, if an international body dealing with the decommissioning of arms is to have a useful function then the people associated with organisations which hold arms must be able to put forward their views to it, speak on their behalf and give undertakings on their behalf. If the ability to enter into engagements is not present there is a risk that the body will engage only in a paper exercise which will not deal with the substance of the fears which exist.
Is it true that John Hume and Gerry Adams wanted a joint meeting because they had worked on joint proposals, as they have done over the past few years? If he is concerned about adverse reaction from the Alliance Party and Unionist parties, will the Taoiseach make arrangements to brief these parties either before or after a meeting?
Yes.
This morning's edition of the Irish News stated that the difficulty is that the last Government had an open door policy——
I must dissuade the Deputy from quoting at Question Time as it is not in order.
——and this Government is sending too many unclear signals.
I agree that in the case of joint meetings of this nature it is important to talk in advance with those parties which are excluded and which have a legitimate interest in what is being discussed. However, it is difficult to do that if one gets only 24 hour's notice.
What about afterwards?
The Deputy knows well that is too late afterwards given that in the present situation people react immediately to what they hear on the media and there is little point in ringing them up the following day if they have issued a statement based on misunderstanding. One of my concerns is to ensure that everyone understands what is going on before they read about it in the papers. If some parties are invited to a meeting while others are not it is reasonable to have an adequate opportunity to say what will be discussed. To do this one must know what will be discussed and to be in a position in advance to tell them there is nothing about which they should be concerned in that context. Given the timing of this request and the fact that the meeting was specified for a particular day, unfortunately it was not possible for the sort of prudent preparation of the other parties which would not be invited, as suggested by the Deputy.
Will the Taoiseach reconsider his use of the word "privilege" when describing access by the leader of Nationalist thinking in Northern Ireland, John Hume — he has had access to successive Governments over the past 25 years — to him and the Government? Does he agree that a joint meeting was requested because the Government has been drifting along for the past two months since the failed summit and is waiting for President Clinton's visit in the hope that something will turn up on the day? It is fundamental to the peace process and moving forward that the Government gives clear signals and not one from Merrion Street, another one from Iveagh House and a different one from Democratic Left. The Taoiseach said he would agree to a joint meeting if clear reasons could be given for it. There is no clear reason for agreeing to a joint meeting at this time than the delay in the peace process. I ask the Taoiseach——
This question is going on for too long.
——to seriously consider his use of the word "privilege" in describing access by John Hume to the Government.
We have been dealing with this question for approximately 20 minutes. There are many other questions to the Taoiseach with which I wish to deal.
I offered to meet Mr. John Hume on the day specified by him and I was available to meet him in my office at the time. However, he was unable to come because of illness. I used the term "privilege" solely to describe the idea that one set of parties would be allowed to participate in joint meetings while others would not. I have no problem with the idea that it would be normal for parties to come to joint meetings in twos and threes, but we have not yet reached that stage. It would be better to work on a bilateral basis initially. I used the term "privilege" in that limited sense only. If there is a general view that we should have joint meetings with all the parties, that is fine. After all, we meet all the parties together at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
The Taoiseach met John Hume and Gerry Adams last July.
They can meet me literally any time they wish.
Except together.
I am available to meet them at any time they wish. I am also willing to meet them together as long as, in conjunction with my colleagues, I am satisfied that the timing and circumstances are right, that all the necessary preparatory work has been done so that others will not misunderstand the purpose of the meeting, that there are reasons a joint meeting is necessary at this juncture and that the business cannot be adequately transacted at an individual meeting.
It is obvious to the children on the street that a joint meeting should be held.
On the question of whether a particular purpose was adduced in seeking a joint rather than an individual meeting, I am not aware that any particular reason was given. I was told subsequently in my conversation with Mr. Adams that they had hoped to put a proposal to me.
How frank was it?
It was a friendly conversation.
An inordinate amount of time has been devoted to this question. I will hear the Members who are offering provided they are brief, relevant and succinct.
President Clinton will arrive here in 38 days' time. From his telephone conversations and discussions with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, what does the Taoiseach expect to achieve in the intervening period in advancing the peace process?
The question deals with the invitation from Messrs. Hume and Adams. We are having an extension of this question.
It is related.
It is related to the same subject matter. We are trying to reach the position where a twin track approach is adopted whereby a body will be set up to deal with the arms issue and, in parallel with this, the process of preparatory discussions is intensified with a target date being set for all-party talks. It is important that all-party talks on an inclusive basis are held at the earliest possible moment.
I was concerned not to do anything that would reduce the likelihood, for example, of the Unionists coming to round table talks at the outset. It is important that we do everything possible to get them there as one will only be able to give Nationalists the assurance they need if the Unionists are present. At the end of the day the people who can best assure Nationalists of their rights and security are the Unionists in Northern Ireland and the people who can best assure Unionists of their rights and security are the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, not the British Government. We, therefore, have to do everything possible to get those two groups together around the same table.
As leader of the Irish Government, I will do everything possible in an even-handed way to ensure that all the parties have the necessary confidence to be at all-party talks on day one. I have to have the right to be able to say that I do not think a meeting in a particular format would be helpful on a particular day in particular circumstances. Equally, I will not rule out the possibility of holding such meetings. As Deputy Ahern indicated, in the past a joint meeting of that nature was necessary and important, but it was not evident to me that, on balance, such a meeting would have been helpful at the particular time it was sought on this occasion. This does not mean that in a few weeks' time a joint meeting might not serve a useful purpose. That is something we will judge pragmatically in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time——
Did the Minister for Social Welfare veto it?
——and having made the necessary preparatory arrangements to ensure that others not invited to the meeting will understand what is happening.
I must dissuade Members from the notion that we can debate the question of Northern Ireland today. Questions should be brief and relevant.
Did the Taoiseach indicate to the other two party leaders that he intended to refuse the reasonable request for a meeting which I understand was made more than 24 hours earlier and, if so, was there unity or a divergence of opinion as to whether it should be acceded to?
I only became aware of the request for a meeting 24 hours before the proposed time for it. It may have been communicated to some officials a day or so before. In that 24 hour period it would not have been possible for me to undertake the necessary preparatory work that Deputy Ahern suggested would be prudent. The party opposite should understand that. The decision was taken jointly by the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare and me, jointly. We were in complete agreement and felt that the approach adopted was the right one.
Was there a divergence of opinion?
I am happy to be able to tell the Deputy that there was no divergence of opinion.
So the briefing from the Labour Party was wrong?
Bearing in mind that one has to be sensitive as different negotiations are taking place all the time, will the Taoiseach indicate whether the impression he gave this House last week that significant progress had been made by the Tánaiste in his dealings with the British Government to break the apparent logjam is still his impression? In that context, have the two Governments discussed the question of using an elected assembly as part of the solution?
Significant progress was made, but there is always the problem in presenting the contents of a particular meeting at a press conference immediately afterwards that tonal factors can be given greater prominence than substantial matters. A very good meeting took place between the Tánaiste and the Secretary of State at which substantial progress was made. A meeting is also taking place today between officials of the two Administrations to advance matters further. I expect that this will build on the work done by the Tánaiste at his meeting with the Secretary of State.
On the question of an elected assembly, this proposal has been made by the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party in different forms. There has not been any substantial discussion of the proposal by either of those two parties with the Irish Government at this juncture. I am aware that serious reservations have been expressed on the Nationalist side in Northern Ireland. That is, obviously, an important concern in regard to the proposal. I have, however, suggested that parties should look as constructively as they can at all proposals put forward by all other parties rather than adopt a negative approach.
I know there have been very successful and useful discussions between the SDLP and the Unionists on economic matters, but these have not extended to political issues, such as the one referred to in the Deputy's question. It would be useful if that important political channel for discussion was opened between the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists. It would put another link in place to get us to the all-inclusive round table discussions at which we are aiming.
I put it to the Taoiseach that if for no other reason than that someone of the stature of Mr. John Hume asked for a joint meeting, the Taoiseach should have had a joint meeting. Mr. Hume has achieved so much since 1988 in relation to the peace process that the Taoiseach should have trusted Mr. Hume's judgment on it.
This Government has a responsibility to the entire community in Northern Ireland to ensure everything is done to get us to all-party round table talks. We have to make an independent judgment as to the format or arrangement for particular meetings and how those meetings might be construed. This Government, as did its predecessors from time to time, has to make an independent judgment on matters of this nature. We will continue to do so. That is not to say we do not place a very high value on any advice proffered by Mr. John Hume nor that we are not very conscious of the huge debt owed to him for the work he has done to date.
I am happy to be able to tell the House that I will visit Mr. Hume in Derry later this week with a view to having further discussions with him.
It is quite clear the leaders of Nationalist parties continue to have ready access to Governments here.
Except on request.
I want to touch on a different angle to the question. Much has been said about parity of esteem between the two communities in Northern Ireland. Perhaps we might have some indication of that from this House. Will the Taoiseach confirm that in so far as access to Government is concerned there will equally be ready access to our Government by leaders of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland in so far as they wish to have such access?
If they request it.
On request.
There is almost daily contact between the Irish Government and the Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland. There were meetings today involving Sinn Féin. I believe there were discussions yesterday, the day before and the day before that too. That will continue to be the case. We have had a 25 year gap between a meeting between a Taoiseach and a leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. I am proud to be the first Taoiseach in 25 years who was able to meet the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, something which I am sure my predecessors would have wished to have done but were unable to do, perhaps, due to various circumstances beyond their control. I am happy to have achieved it. It is very important that we should continue to build on that growing understanding with both communities in Northern Ireland. A settlement can only be reached if both communities trust the Irish Government. That is important. Obviously, much work has to be done in respect of both communities in terms of building trust. I would like to see more intense contact on an official level between Unionist parties and the Irish Government. The ice has now been broken by the meetings with three of the four Unionist parties which is a major step forward. I hope I will be able to report to the Deputy the next time he tables a question on this matter, that there has been intensified discussion.
I recognise that we have an important responsibility under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to have a special concern for the interests of Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland and Nationalist people there. That is a responsibility which we take very seriously but we must make an independent judgment as a Government as to the best way to give expression to that. That is a responsibility which rests on the shoulders of Government, which cannot be delegated to any other parties outside this House.
We have dwelt on this question now for over 33 minutes. I want to hear a few more brief questions. I will call Deputies Mary Harney, Jim McDaid, Rory O'Hanlon and Bertie Ahern. Then we shall pass on to another question.
I presume the Taoiseach has had an opportunity since last week to study the Hume-Adams proposals. Are these proposals acceptable to the Government and is the Government prepared to pursue these proposals with the British Government?
There are a number of issues which would need to be looked at in regard to any approach to finding a solution. There has to be clarity. Those meeting with the international body who have associations with people who hold arms are able to speak about arms in a meaningful way. It is also important that we have an understanding about the terms of reference of the body.
It is also very important that we have a basis established in terms of trust to ensure all the people will turn up if a date for talks is set. There is a risk that there could be quite a substantial setback if talks are called for a particular day and, for whatever reason, an important segment of public opinion in Northern Ireland is not represented on that day. It is very important in formulating any proposal for a date that it is likely — one may not necessarily have absolute guarantees but one must be satisfied — that all the relevant people will turn up. Everything that can be done by the Irish Government and, indeed, other parties in this House should be done to ensure all the parties feel sufficiently secure in regard to this Government's commitment to parity of esteem, vis-á-vis both communities in Northern Ireland, that they will feel confident to turn up at talks of which the Irish Government may be a joint sponsor.
The Taoiseach referred to the invitations he would extend to particular parties in the North and that there had to be a balance in the invitations extended. We are not talking about invitations here, we are talking about a request from the leader of the nationalist party, Mr. John Hume, and from Mr. Gerry Adams to come to see the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach referred to the particular responsibility the Government has under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Does the Taoiseach realise the risk he is running of alienating the Nationalists in the North in refusing to meet Mr. Hume, when he requested it — something which has not happened in the past?
Is he aware of the concern of many Nationalists that the Government may sell them out, in the light of statements made by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, which are at variance with other statements coming from the Government?
I am sorry to have to correct a Deputy as experienced and moderate in his language in this House as Deputy Rory O'Hanlon but I did not refuse to see Mr. John Hume. I offered to meet Mr. Hume. I also offered to meet Mr. Adams. There was no question of them being declined a meeting nor will they be declined any meeting.
Divide and conquer.
Indeed, I have no doubt they would have met before a separate meeting with me and afterwards to ensure there would not be a question of one being told something which the other was not told. The Deputy will remember what happened in the forum the last time there was a meeting where some of the forum parties were met by the Government and others were left outside.
What is the big deal in not meeting them together.
That caused extreme concern in a number of parties, notably the Alliance Party, who were very worried about why they were excluded from this meeting and wondered did they have less relevance to the issue than the parties who were included. There was also concern expressed among the Unionist community who felt that because a meeting was being arranged on this basis, there was something happening which they were not being told about. That was not the case. The meeting in Dublin Castle with John Hume and Gerry Adams was a useful one which served an important purpose in advancing the process.
Why not have another?
I have no problem having another such meeting as long as, in light of the experience of the last meeting, adequate time is taken to prepare for it and ensure that no one, including the participants, misunderstands the purpose of the meeting prior to its commencement. In my judgment and in that of the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Welfare, those circumstances were not met on this occasion. They may well be, and I hope are, met at a future date.
The Taoiseach misread this. He and the Government fell for the oldest British Government policy trick of all regarding Irish policy. He succeeded in dividing the Nationalist parties. The status quo is fine. We have a cease-fire but political stalemate.
A question please, Deputy.
There seems to be confusion——
I want to assist the Deputy to elicit information but he must proceed by way of question.
——emanating from talks between the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Tánaiste. They met last week and we were delighted to hear the Northern Ireland Secretary state that he was prepared to perhaps change his attitude on the issue of decommissioning and yet——
The Deputy must ask a question.
——John Major stated in the House of Commons the following day that there was no policy change.
The Deputy may not continue to make a speech.
If there is confusion——
I sought to help the Deputy. This is not the time to make a speech. I am calling Deputy Ahern for a final question.
Is there any confusion arising from these meetings between the Tánaiste and the Northern Ireland Secretary?
The Deputy referred to the emotive phrase "dividing the Nationalists" which no doubt has a certain appeal to many people. I wish to make my objective clear: it is to unite sufficiently the Unionists and Nationalists so that they all come to the same talks in the same room at the same time. If there is to be that degree of unity between Nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland both must feel that the Irish Government has a concern for their interests. They must not feel that one group is in a position where its concerns are of lesser importance. If you invite some people and do not invite others there is a risk of misunderstandings. I do not mean to use a banal example but if social invitations are issued to a particular category of people and half the people in the category are invited those who are not invited will feel there is a reason for excluding them.
(Interruptions.)
I would not like to see the Taoiseach organise a wedding.
As far as meeting the parties is concerned I was willing to meet both of them on the day they specified they wanted to meet me — the day they were in Dublin.
And the stalemate will continue.
I do not believe there is any confusion of the kind the Deputy seeks to portray. Progress in reaching an accommodation on this issue is slow but steady. It is important to recognise that the distrust in regard to arms goes very deep in Northern Ireland. The distrust in the Unionist community, which has been the victim of IRA arms, is extremely deep. Equally, the distrust in the Nationalist community remembering what happened in 1969 and on previous occasions in the history of Ulster is very deep. Anyone who tries to pretend that getting over that level of distrust and getting people around the same table will be easy is not living in the real world. It is extremely difficult to overcome the legacy of violence and get people to sit down together. We are seeking a formula to deal with the arms question that will be fair and acceptable to all and, while it may not solve all the problems relating to arms, at least it may get them into the process of discussion. Anyone who suggests it can be solved by a simple act of political will or by setting a date——
Who said that?
——is probably not living in the real world.
The Taoiseach said he was tantalisingly close.
It needs a bit of dynamism.
I thank the Chair for the time he has given for this important question.
I hope it will not be taken as a precedent.
No. It is the only question to the Taoiseach today. We thank the Chair. In reply to my earlier questions the Taoiseach seemed to be over worried about adverse Alliance and Unionist reaction. He contradicted himself when he stated he is prepared to meet the parties on the same day but not together. It was not a question of meeting the Alliance Party and Unionist Party but of not wishing to meet John Hume and Gerry Adams together. He has not answered that.
I have done so.
Can the Taoiseach cite a single example where the British Prime Minister refused to meet Mr. Molyneaux or Dr. Paisley to discuss the Northern Unionist opinion? Why should the Taoiseach be so worried about meeting John Hume and Gerry Adams to discuss Nationalist opinion when the Taoiseach leads the democratic Nationalist consensus? The Taoiseach of this country can do exactly what John Major can do in his country and no one should be aggrieved by that.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Anyone who listened to what I said in the House on this subject over the last four or five years knows that I am trying to build a bridge between Nationalists and Unionists on this island. The traditionalist approach of my side and their side of saying: "I will back my side and not take account of the interests of their side" has not worked.
It brought the cease-fire.
That approach has not worked for the last 300 years. My approach, which is yielding some results, is one of seeking to build a bridge between the two communities. I am the first Taoiseach in 25 years to have had a meeting with the Leader of the Official Unionist Party. That is an important step forward in an inclusive approach to solving the problem.
They changed their leader.
God help us if the Taoiseach thinks that is all it takes.
I do not believe the problem will be solved if everyone stays within their traditional category of thinking.
There is no clear policy.
That approach is not conducive to resolving conflict anywhere in the world. If we are to solve this problem people must be willing to step out of the traditional category of thought associated with their section of the community and must, therefore, be willing to take account of the sensitivities of the people on the other side of the traditional divide. I did that in a responsible, reasonable and balanced way.
The Taoiseach is misrepresenting our position.
The Taoiseach refused to meet John Hume.
The job of the Opposition is to criticise. The job of the Government is to make balanced decisions on the day and I believe the right decision was made in this case.
The Taoiseach misread it.
We have been very restrained.
Irish Nationalists do not agree with the Taoiseach.