Mary Harney
Ceist:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on Thursday, 7 December 1995, with the leader of the Alliance Party, Dr. John Alderdice. [18767/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meeting with Alliance Party Leader.
Bertie Ahern
Ceist:2 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 7 December 1995, with a delegation led by the leader of the Alliance Party, Dr. Alderdice. [18802/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare and I had a very constructive meeting on Thursday last with an Alliance Party delegation headed by Dr. John Alderdice.
We discussed all aspects of the current situation in Northern Ireland and agreed to continue to maintain close contact.
The Government in particular welcomed the support of that party for the twin track approach to substantive all-party talks.
Would the Taoiseach agree with the view expressed by Dr. John Alderdice after his meeting with the Government that all-party talks will only take place before the British general election, if there is an election.
I do not believe that is necessarily the case. I have no information as to the date of the British general election and would not wish to comment on it. The position is that, in agreement with the British Government, we are providing for a firm aim of commencing all-party talks at the end of February, and we have provided in the twin track approach a way of overcoming some of the roadblocks to starting those talks at the time specified with the participation of all the relevant parties.
Does the Taoiseach believe that the commencement of those talks is dependent on the findings of the international commission on arms decommissioning, and is it dependent on parties accepting the commission's findings?
Obviously the findings of the international body will be extremely important. It is well known that different views about the timing of decommissioning of arms are at the heart of the difficulties in getting all the parties around the table at the same time. Clearly the report of the body will be very helpful in that regard.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with Dr. Alderdice the widespread concern about the hard-line statements of the British Government and the Secretary of State in particular, in effect belittling and marginalising the work of the international commission by continually insisting that it has no role in finding a compromise? Will he agree that such statements, of which there was another yesterday by the Secretary of State, are a discourtesy to Senator George Mitchell and to President Clinton?
I had no discussion with Dr. John Alderdice about statements by the British Government. Therefore, the rest of the Deputy's question does not arise.
If the Taoiseach did not discuss that matter, I have no doubt that he discussed the matter of North-South co-operation and North-South institutions with Dr. Alderdice. Dr. Alderdice has continually stated at the forum that he has no particular difficulty with North-South institutions and all his statements on that matter are very constructive. Is the Taoiseach aware that a Northern Minister, Baroness Denton, clashed with the Tánaiste at a conference this morning where she challenged the whole notion of North-South institutions, in direct contravention of the Framework Document? Will the Taoiseach be taking the opportunity, either at his meeting with Mr. Major next week or with the Secretariat, to bring up the matter of such an attitude by a British Minister?
These questions before me deal with the meeting with the leader of the Alliance Party, Dr. John Alderdice, and there is no other person involved. I cannot allow any extension to involve another personality. Baroness Denton must not be mentioned in this question.
It is bad enough that questions are ruled out of order when they are tabled, but when they can be asked the Taoiseach will not answer them. Will the Taoiseach give me the views of Dr. Alderdice on North-South institutions and the Framework Document which, I have no doubt, was discussed at the meeting?
It is not for me to go into any detail on the position of the Alliance Party on the Framework Document. We did not concentrate in particular on the Framework Document at this meeting. We had meetings with the Alliance Party closer to the time of the publication of the Framework Document at which that document was discussed in greater detail. I am very anxious to ensure that there is a strong North-South strand in any settlement of this long-standing problem in Northern Ireland. We recognise strongly that the North-South dimension provides part of the necessary reassurance to Nationalist-minded people in Northern Ireland that their allegiance, their sense of uniqueness, their sense of values are institutionally recognised. The North-South dimension is extremely important in that regard. To balance that, it must also be said that the east-west dimension is important from the perspective of the Unionist community. What we are seeking is an arrangement that respects the allegiances, loyalties and values of both communities. It is very important in the context of all public statements that may be made that that should be understood. That underpinned the thinking behind the Framework Document. It underpins the approach of the Irish Government to North-South co-operation. We regard it as important in itself. We also regard it as important in the institutionalisation it gives to respect for the values, loyalties and allegiances of the Nationalist community. It has two dimensions, and it is important that those two dimensions should be understood by all who comment on the topic. This is not exclusive. It does not preclude or in any way take from the institutional recognition that is also owing to the Unionist community in terms of their allegiances which must also be accommodated and valued.
In his discussions with Dr. Alderdice and his party, did the Taoiseach cover the area of Dr. Alderdice's views and the fact that he is able to continue to work adequately at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation without difficulty prior to decommissioning whereas the Unionist parties continually say they could be intimidated were they ever to take up their seat at the forum as long as there has been no decommissioning of weapons? Dr. Alderdice has put his view forward consistently and positively on a number of occasions. Did the Taoiseach flesh that out with Dr. Alderdice and, if so, does anything arise from it that he could usefully say to Mr. Trimble and his colleagues about their participation in the forum during 1996?
Dr. Alderdice and the Alliance Party were very strong in their affirmation of the value of the forum and the way it afforded them an opportunity to talk to parties with whom they would not previously have had the same level of day to day contact. Interestingly, they expressed regret at the low level of coverage of the activities of the forum in the media in Northern Ireland and felt that the importance of some of the positions that were being taken at the forum by all parties was undervalued and underestimated in Northern Ireland because of lack of coverage of what was happening at the forum. They made that point strongly. As far as the Unionist Party is concerned, as the House will recall I made strenuous efforts when in Opposition in support of the Government to try to get the Unionists to take part. Apart from supporting the Government in the House I made personal approaches to all the Unionist parties urging them to take part in the forum. I regret they did not do so then and I continue to regret that they are not doing so at this juncture. They would not lose anything in terms of their constitutional rights from having the confidence to take part in the forum. However, I respect their decision. The Unionist Party is an autonomous political party and while we can offer advice as to what is in its and its constituents' best interests we must respect its decision.
I know the Taoiseach spoke to Dr. Alderdice about the international commission. Is the Taoiseach satisfied, given the IRA statement last Thursday, that Sinn Féin can speak authoritatively to the Mitchell commission on IRA arms?
Yes, I am. I quoted statements made by Mr. Martin McGuinness on behalf of Sinn Fein on 8 November in regard to speaking authoritatively on IRA and other arms. I accept the validity of that statement by Sinn Féin. I do not propose to comment on statements made by illegal organisations.
Does the Taoiseach agree that many of the reasons given by the Unionist parties for refusing or being unable to participate in the forum 14 months ago have been removed? The main obstacle was that the ceasefire was in operation for only a few weeks. Now that these obstacles have been removed does the Taoiseach agree we should call on them as members of the forum to reconsider their position in 1996 and participate in constructive dialogue, mainly with people from Northern Ireland? At the last eight meetings our discussions were with members of the communities represented by the Unionists and SDLP. We have moved away from the phase we were in between October 1994 and March 1995. Does he agree they should reconsider their position?
These questions concerning a meeting with Dr. Alderdice should not precipitate a wide ranging debate on the problems in Northern Ireland generally.
That is what we are discussing.
I agree with Deputy Ahern when he states things have changed since the announcement of the forum. We should ask the Unionist parties to have the confidence to take part in it. They have a case to make and should do so wherever they get an audience. They will have an audience at the forum, not necessarily one that will agree with what they say but a respectful one. The Unionists should take part in the forum in whatever way they think appropriate — as full members or in any other way. The circumstances have changed and the forum is making a serious effort to understand the problems of the community represented by the Unionist parties.
The forum is not in the conventional sense a negotiating body and does not prejudice people's positions when making their views known before it. They are not asked to negotiate their positions but to discuss them. Any justifiable self-respecting political philosophy should not fear having its case made in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.
The Taoiseach and my party leader are correct when they say the position has changed. The British Government now sends representatives to the forum. The British Ambassador attends, as do members of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body who were at first reluctant to do so. It is incumbent on us all, particularly the British Government, to urge Unionists to attend.
Some time ago Dr. Alderdice gave an interview on RTE radio in response to unhelpful comments which had been made by the leader of the Unionist Party, Mr. Trimble, regarding the contact made by the Taoiseach with Mr. Trimble. Does the Taoiseach agree with the view expressed by Dr. Alderdice in that interview that Mr. Trimble and his party were going back on progress made a number of years ago when they came to Dublin and discussed various issues which they are now reluctant to discuss with the Irish Government?
I do not see much advantage in using questions about the Alliance Party to give out about third parties.
He had a view on the matter.
It is not necessarily the best way to achieve the result we wish for. It is not our function to lecture any other party. Naturally I wish to see the Unionists take a more forthcoming approach to finding a settlement in Northern Ireland. Those whom the Unionists represent will benefit from any settlement. They will gain as much, if not more, as representatives of the Nationalist community and should be more forthcoming in reaching out to and meeting representatives of that community. We must recognise that lecturing them on what they should do is almost as counterproductive as their lecturing us on what we should do. Frequently such behaviour has the opposite effect to the one intended. That is a factor which a sensible and reasonable person, such as Deputy Ahern, will fully understand.
The comments made yesterday by Sir Patrick Mayhew on the commission being an advisory body could be regarded as the second snub to President Clinton, the first being delivered a week after his visit. Did the Taoiseach elicit Dr. Alderdice's opinion on the international commission? Does he, like the British, regard it as an advisory body?
In the final analysis decisions will be made by the two Governments. The body is there to help the Governments, take evidence, listen, work out possible solutions to problems and deal in the broadest fashion with decommissioning. However, in the final analysis, the decisions are to be taken by the Governments and I have no objection to a restatement of that. I am not sure I have a copy of Sir Patrick Mayhew's statement to which the Deputy refers and I hope my comments thereon are apt.
Did the Taoiseach discuss with Dr. Alderdice the Government's submission to the Mitchell commission? Has that submission been made and does the Taoiseach intend to make it public?
The answer to all three questions is "No". We did not discuss the Government's submission. We discussed the fact that the Government would make a submission but not its detail. The submission has not yet been made but will be made shortly. It is not our intention to publish it. The body can do its work best by taking confidential evidence and taking oral elaboration of that evidence in a confidential setting.
The risk attendant on the publication of one submission is that it would invite the publication of all other submissions and the work of the commission would then become simply a facility for the recitation of long known, long held and, potentially, rigid positions. The approach of the body in taking confidential submissions would be more appropriate. Our view on maintaining the confidentiality of our submission is not directed to any concerns we might have about the content of our submission, but rather to the wider consideration of the more effective nature of confidential proceedings in general.