Vol. 485 No. 1
2 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on whether the May 1998 deadline will be met in relation to the all-party talks at Stormont; and if he will make a statement on the current state of these talks. [22490/97]
While there is much work to be done if we are to meet the May 1998 deadline for agreement in the multi-party negotiations, there has been very substantial progress since the negotiations resumed in September. The participants have set out their views on all items of the comprehensive agenda, across the three strands.
What is now required is a tighter focus on the core substance of the negotiations and I am encouraged by the recognition of this among all the participants. In particular, the review plenary agreed last week to establish a restricted subgroup to identify key issues and determine the best way to structure consideration of those issues. I am hopeful that agreement on these matters will be reached at the review plenary on its resumption next week. This will enable us to move into a still more intensive phase directly after Christmas and make it possible to proceed from analysis into direct negotiation on the broad lines of an agreement.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the continuing excellent work of Senator Mitchell and his colleagues. Their judgment and skill as chairmen are proving to be invaluable.
The Government also has valuable ongoing bilateral contacts with all of the parties involved in the negotiations. Most recently, the Taoiseach had useful and constructive meetings during his visit to the talks on Monday. We will be maintaining the closest contact with all the participants.
We are very much focused on the May deadline and there is no reason it should not be met. Indeed, I believe that participants would prefer to move even more speedily, if that were possible. Of course, if some additional time were required to complete negotiations which were going well, I am sure there would be general agreement to this, but I hope and expect that will not be necessary.
I wish the process well over the coming months because we are entering a key phase of negotiations when, as the Minister rightly said, people will have to focus on the core substantive issues. I want to get clarification from the Minister on certain events that have taken place since the last time we had questions to the Minister. In particular, around that last time there was an incident where the Minister apologised to the Unionist Party for his remarks in relation to Articles 2 and 3. May I take it that the Minister again admits that remarks he made about cross-Border bodies were misjudged and inappropriate? Is it not necessary that he should be somewhat more careful in interviews as he after two relatively substantive interviews had to apologise to those across the table from him?
As I indicated before, there have been many difficulties in these talks and there will be many more in the future. We would not be spending up to three days each week in Castle Buildings if there were not major fundamental difficulties to be addressed. I pay tribute to the Deputy's involvement and patience——
Sure-footedness.
——in that regard. Whatever difficulties there may be now or in the future all of us at the talks are determined to overcome them. In relation to my remarks in the past, we should look to the present and to the future. We should draw a curtain on what was said in the past because I do not believe it serves any useful purpose referring to it. I do not believe it progresses the talks or the peace process any further. Raising those remarks again does not advantage or advance the current very healthy state of the talks process.
I must differ with the Minister who is a long standing colleague and a man for whom I have enormous respect. The reality of being Minister for Foreign Affairs is that one is accountable to this House. Whereas the Minister has enjoyed the freedom of giving interviews any time he wished, ultimately he is responsible to this House and he must account for his actions and the conduct of his office to this House. The Minister gave two interviews and on both occasions he ended up — I do not want to misquote him — saying, "I wish I could unsay the interview". Is that a way to conduct foreign affairs diplomacy? I would be perhaps the last person in this House to underestimate the difficulties involved and why three days a week are required in Stormont buildings. I, too, compliment Senator Mitchell and his colleagues for the enormous work, resilience and patience they have shown, but I ask the Minister to be more careful in the remarks he makes about Northern Ireland because whatever possibilities we have of overcoming the enormous difficulties they will not be overcome if on a monthly basis we have to have the Leader of the Irish Government's delegation apologising to others across the table.
The Deputy has used the word "apology" with great abandon and I do not believe it reflects accurately the situation. I set out in my reply today the position of the Government. Last week I made whatever clarifications were necessary arising from my BBC interview and I was happy to do that because Governments have a particular responsibility to clarify, reach out and move quickly to calm any problem that arises. All of us in the past faced similar difficulties. That is accepted on all sides. We must now move on. We can all drop the ball from time to time, as the Deputy will appreciate. In the circumstances even people who transgress from time to time——
Did the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, write that script?
I do not know anything about rugby.
Let us have another couple of tries.
That is my position.
As the Minister has strayed into sporting parlance I can only assume there were no cameras when he played for Connacht.
I may be a little older than the former Minister.
Yes. I can only assume there were no cameras. Can the Minister give us an indication of any meetings he has had with the leaders of the Unionist parties or with the other parties about correcting the situation? Have there been meetings between the Minister and Mr. Trimble about the BBC interview? Has the Minister sought to clarify those in private?
I will be delighted to do that. That is probably one of my difficulties; I am too open, too honest and maybe I am too direct from time to time.
The Minister was direct on Sunday but he had to go backwards on Monday.
No. The Deputy should consider what happened on Tuesday.
The Taoiseach had to go up and clean up the mess.
No, the Taoiseach did not have to intervene between the Monday and the Tuesday. The talks went into a mode that I believe will be successful for the future of what I believe will be an historic judgment and outcome. In relation to my dealings with the Unionists, I met Mr. Trimble on his own on one occasion. I then met Mr. Trimble with his party, including Mr. Maginnis, Mr. Taylor and others, with my officials and my very able Minister of State. Subsequent to that the Taoiseach met with Mr. Trimble and his party in London and subsequent to that again the Taoiseach met with Mr. Trimble and his party in the Stormont buildings the other day. There is no problem with that. It seems extraordinary that the storm on the Monday was probably necessary in a way because we are now into a situation from which I believe will emerge an historic judgment.
