Jan O'Sullivan
Question:14 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the way in which he will provide a full public debate in relation to the Government's consideration of Ireland's joining Partnership for Peace. [27574/98]
Priority Questions. - Partnership for Peace.
I have set out my views on the issue of Ireland's participation in Partnership for Peace on a number of occasions in recent weeks — in reply to a question in this House on 5 November, in an article in The Irish Times of Saturday, 28 November, in an RTE radio interview on Sunday, 6 December, and in reply to questions in this House as recently as 8 December. I also expressed a point of view on “Morning Ireland” on 11 December.
My intention is to try to enhance understanding and informed discussion of the realities of PfP and also to move discussion away from the polarised views and slogans which seemed to me to characterise a good deal of such discussion as there has been about PfP, on either side of the argument.
I welcomed the initiative earlier this year of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to devote attention to new developments in European security, including Ireland's possible participation in PfP, and I believe that the committee's deliberations have enhanced understanding of the issues within this House.
I have already made my view publicly clear that participation in PfP is not the same as membership of NATO, as the participation of 27 non-members of NATO, including the other EU neutral states and Russia, should surely demonstrate. The case against our participation on grounds of neutrality is not persuasive.
Is the Minister for it?
It is very disorderly of the Deputy to interrupt during Priority Questions.
I want a straight answer.
The Deputy knows he should not interrupt.
It is, I believe, generally recognised that Partnership for Peace has developed into a major framework for co-operation, training and preparation for UN-mandated peacekeeping, humanitarian tasks and crisis management.
I believe that the public debate has already started on this issue, and I have played an active role in giving impetus to the debate. It is not my intention to prejudge or pre-empt this debate. I am prepared to facilitate discussion of the issue, both in this House and more broadly. I would be happy to have a debate on the issue in this House at a time to be agreed by the Whips. I would also be happy to hear the views of interested parties, whether political parties, individuals or other organisations. Some organisations have already made their views known to me and my Department.
The forthcoming European Parliament election campaign will no doubt provide an opportunity to parties in this House——
That is good.
——including my own party and Deputy Gormley's party, as well as our partners in Government, to set out their approaches.
As the Minister said, he indicated on 5 November that he was seeking a debate on Partnership for Peace both inside and outside the House. We expect him, as Minister, to lead the debate. There has been no indication of that debate moving forward recently. The Fianna Fáil Party's position before the general election and that of the current Minister and the former Minister indicate some differences of opinion.
It is important this debate is held. There are strong views on the issue inside and outside the House. While the Minister has indicated his party's willingness to participate in the debate, I suggest the Minister lead by facilitating the debate and indicating to those inside and outside the House the Government's exact position on this issue. There is doubt among many people as to the actual position of the Government on Partnership for Peace. It is important we should know its position.
The Government's position on Partnership for Peace is that it is outside of it. I have taken the ball and run with it.
The Minister has kicked it into touch.
I assure the Deputy I am carrying it safely. I never dropped a ball in my life.
He is in an offside position.
Deputies should not interrupt during Priority Questions.
Sports was one of my better pursuits.
The Minister has developed butter fingers in recent months.
That is a matter of opinion.
The Deputy is being disorderly.
It is for the Whips to agree a time for debate. I favour such a debate taking place at an early opportunity.
We have been waiting months.
The Deputy should not interrupt Priority Questions.
I am not the Whip. I would be delighted to facilitate a debate. The Deputy's party has a Whip and my party has a Whip — if they dip into the greasy pot maybe they will come out with a debate.
I have already heard the views of some organisations and either I or my officials could meet with other interested parties and organisations to hear their views. I would also welcome written views from interested parties. I undertake to listen carefully to all opinions expressed on this matter. As I have already made clear, the opportunity of referring to the people as to whether participation would be desirable should be for the Government to decide after listening to the debate and will arise in the course of the European Parliament election campaign next June, in which no doubt parties such as Deputy Gormley's party, my party as well as partners in Government will have an opportunity to express their point of view, for or against participation in Partnership for Peace.