Gay Mitchell
Question:3 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs his views on the future of North-South institutional bodies which may flow from the current peace process. [22491/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Priority Questions. - North-South Bodies.
The policy of the Government in regard to the outcome we wish to see emerge from strand two of the multi-party negotiations, as part of an overall settlement, is based on the framework document. There should be a North-South body which would provide a focus for practical joint action at island level, for which there is ample scope, and which would also provide the necessary institutional expression of the Irish identity of Northern nationalists. The creation of a North-South body is essential if nationalists are to feel able to give their support to an overall agreement. Equally, there would have to be unionist agreement to such a body and to its functions.
The powers and structures of a North-South body are matters for negotiation, as is every other issue in the talks. An indicative list of possible functions for the body is set out in the framework document, paragraphs 31 to 33, but again this is obviously for negotiation. We have made clear our view that the body must, in certain agreed areas, have meaningful powers to make decisions and to have them implemented. In addition, it should operate exclusively by agreement between representatives of North and South and should be politically accountable in both jurisdictions. We would see it as having the capacity to develop over time, by agreement, in line with the further evolution of the relationship between the two parts of the island.
Does the Minister agree that the use of terms such as "powers not unlike a government" is sending confused signals to those who are participating in the northern talks as is the fact that his colleague, the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, unilaterally changed the symbol for tourism in the Republic to replace the joint symbol which existed for North and South? Does he agree that Ministers in general, at this stage in the negotiations, should really hold their breath and give the process an opportunity to run its course? It seems to me that discussions are at a delicate stage and that the sort of outpourings from Ministers outside the process are anything but helpful.
What role does the Minister envisage for the party leaders' and Ministers' group in progressing the peace process? How will they go about their work, when will they complete it, will they report to a plenary group and what machinery will be in place for those meetings?
The machinery, which is complex, is well set out. It involves deep negotiation between all the parties involved and entails a commitment on my part and that of the Minister of State to be in Belfast two or three days a week. From time to time it entails meetings with the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach.
Next Monday and Tuesday, an interim report will be published on the position of the peace process. I would like to think that when that becomes available in the public domain, the Deputy and other Members will appreciate the ongoing work which will continue within the talks process.
I am not much wiser having heard the Minister's reply. What view does the Minister take of the reported views of the Unionist leader, Mr. Trimble, on the whole question of a Flanders-Netherlands type relationship between the northern minority and the Republic? What is the Minister's view on that proposal and is it on the agenda for discussion at the party leaders' and Ministers' meetings?
No, it is not but it would be open to Mr. Trimble to bring that proposal to the negotiations if he had a desire to do so. I have no doubt the Deputy has special knowledge of this proposal. If it is to emerge, it will emerge for negotiation within the talks process. I cannot anticipate that form of proposal until it appears within the process.
The time for priority questions has now concluded. Question Nos. 4 and 5 will be taken as ordinary questions.