I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House.
Opsahl Report: Statements.
A Chathaoirligh, thank you for your welcome. I am glad to be back in the Seanad to join with the Members for what I consider to be a very important debate. I am glad that we found the opportunity to have this debate at an early date. I welcome that decision.
This debate adds to the opportunities for dialogue on the subject of Northern Ireland which have been arranged both in this House and in Dáil Éireann in recent months.
I congratulate the Seanad for providing this occasion to assess the significance of the work undertaken by Professor Torkel Opsahl and his six colleagues: Pádraig O'Malley, Eamonn Gallagher, Professor Marianne Elliott, Lady Faulkner, Professor Ruth Lister and Rev. Dr. Eric Gallagher.
The Opsahl Commission was established in May of last year by the independent citizens' group, Initiative '92, to inquire into possible ways forward for Northern Ireland and beyond with an opportunity to discuss and consider possible ways forward and to express their ideas, hopes and fears.
In this goal, the expectations of the commission have been amply vindicated. In total, 554 submissions were received representing the work of around 3,000 people. Six weeks of oral hearings were held by the commission throughout Northern Ireland and nearly two hundred presentations were made.
In his introduction to the report, Professor Opsahl draws one central conclusion from this process, which is that "the people of Northern Ireland do want dialogue, at every level". This theme is echoed, indeed, in virtually all the submissions made to the commission.
Indeed the report shows more than just that the people want dialogue. One of its great merits is to illustrate how, beneath the apparently frozen lines of political division, there is a serious and mature process of reflection on the problem taking place in Northern Ireland. People are not only willing to think of ways out of the present impasse. They also took the trouble to formulate and communicate these views and showed, for the most part, a willingness to listen to the views of others. The submissions are in general thoughtful, positive and constructive. This report refutes any notion that Northern Ireland is somehow a society bereft of political ideas. It is rather a society which has so far failed to find a generally acceptable framework to mobilise these ideas and to harness the goodwill and the willingness to accommodate others which inspired them. I believe that failure poses a challenge to political leaders in Northern Ireland, no less than to the two Governments, to develop an adequate response.
For my own part, I welcome the stress the report lays on dialogue as an indispensable tool in the search for political consensus. Nowhere is it of greater relevance and urgency, furthermore, than in the search for solutions to the problems of a divided society like Northern Ireland.
The Programme for a Partnership Government places beyond all doubt the commitment of this Government to the pursuit of a lasting accommodation of the Northern Ireland problem founded on dialogue. We made clear that a major priority for us is “to recommence and sustain the process of dialogue with the parties in Northern Ireland and with the British Government, building on progress already made”. We indicated prominently our intention to seek “an urgent resumption of political dialogue to address comprehensively all of the relationships involved in an open and innovative spirit, ready to discuss every issue and to incorporate all agreed changes”.
We are not just ready ourselves "to discuss every issue". We believe that such willingness on all sides is a precondition for a successful outcome to talks. That was indeed the commitment entered into by all the participants in the talks process, when we agreed in the statement of 26 March 1991 that, "in order to ensure a full airing of the issues, it will be open to each of the parties to raise any aspect of these relationships including constitutional issues, or any other matter which it considers relevant". I believe that open-ended approach should be maintained.
All of us in the talks process have recognised that our purpose is an ambitious one. Our declared objective is to achieve "a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands".
To be faithful to the 26 March terms, we must be willing to explore every issue. We must be willing to go beyond the known and the familiar and to embrace new horizons in the search for agreement. We must be willing to follow whatever fresh paths our dialogue may open up to us. If there is one conclusion which stands out clearly from any consderation of the problem, including this report, it is that past approaches have failed. New ideas and new approaches are needed on all sides.
Some apt lines from the poet Michael Longley serve as a foreword to the Opsahl report. Longley speaks of the "space" offered by this initiative:
for me
And you to stay alive
By sharing thought and word.
He goes on to ask "Are you within hearing? Am I being heard?".
It is, I believe, essential that we should all be able to create space for dialogue. We must give ourselves complete freedom in our search for ways in which we can reach better understanding and communication with each other. The more we restrict the space for dialogue by setting tactical or defensive limits or preconditions to it, the less likely it is that we can usher in the new thinking and new approaches that are so patently needed to come to grips with this problem.
The Opsahl Commission has contributed admirably to the creation of such space. It has brought together a wealth of ideas and insights across the entire spectrum of political thought relating to Northern Ireland. It will, I am sure, stimulate considerable reflection over the months and years ahead both on the nature of the problem and on the solutions that may be called for. It will enrich the public debate and will make its own special contribution to the task of deepening understanding between the two traditions in Ireland.
The Opsahl report bears powerful and moving testimony to the countless individuals and organisations in Northern Ireland who have steadfastly refused to succumb to fatalism and despair. However diverse the remedies proposed, their contributions to the Commission reflect in most instances a degree of honesty, commitment and tolerance for the viewpoint of others which is deeply reassuring and offers hope that a lasting and just accommodation is achievable.
The late Professor F.S.L. Lyons posed a harsh question in a 1978 lecture that retains its validity today: "...have we in our entanglement with history locked ourselves into a hall of distorting mirrors so grotesque that we can no longer distinguish the realities of what has happened in this island from the myths we have chosen to weave about certain symbolic events?"
True political leadership involves distinguishing reality from myth and offering a vision which suits the complex circumstances of the present rather than the comfortable simplicities of the past. A true coming together of both traditions in Ireland must involve transcending the legacy of history and re-defining our relationships with each other and the relationship between these two islands.
The work done by the Opsahl Commission is a very helpful and constructive contribution to this process. It is a merit of the report that it stands back from dogmatic assertion and boldly questions many inherited attitudes and positions. It also presents a wide range of options on possible ways forward. It is a welcome and wide-ranging stimulus to political debate on the realities to be addressed as part of the search for a lasting accommodation between the nationalist and unionist identities. It has performed a timely and valuable service in reassessing traditional positions and in exploring common ground between the two traditions. The report is, I believe, of great service in underlining, first, that the approach to a solution must be one of compromise between sincere, deeply held and legitimate positions, and, secondly, that such a compromise must be radical and innovative.
One of the most striking and resonant themes to emerge from the submissions to the commission is the overwhelming desire for peace. It is abundantly clear that people in both parts of Ireland and in Britain wish to see progress made as rapidly as possible towards a resolution of the conflict and the ending of violence and suffering. An opinion poll which was commissioned in order to test the findings of the report found that the resumption of political dialogue is favoured not only by a substantial majority of those questioned in Northern Ireland but also by a clear majority of public opinion in the South and in Britain.
I believe that it is the democratic duty of the two Governments and the Northern Ireland parties to respond to this unequivocal statement of public preference by resuming political dialogue without delay. It is difficult to conceive of a task more compelling for democratically elected public representatives in Northern Ireland than to participate in discussions aimed at ensuring a future of lasting peace and stability for those whom they represent.
The expectations of public opinion in this part of Ireland, in Northern Ireland and in Britain, are crystal clear. Surveys have established a great public receptivity to the broad lines of the report. Our peoples wish above all to see a political agreement. They find it difficult to understand those who obstruct the pursuit of agreement and frustrate their clearly expressed wishes.
Both as Governments and as political leaders, our role is to serve the people. We are at all times accountable to our respective electorates. Our efforts to achieve a political agreement are undertaken on their behalf and, as the agreed terms of 26 March make clear, the fruit of our labours must finally meet the test of their approval.
This critical dimension to our work must not be overlooked. The people are not remote from, or disinterested in, our efforts. They wish us to return to the table immediately and to negotiate an agreement upon which they will be given an opportunity to pronounce at the appropriate time.
The wealth of insights and advice contributed to the Opsahl Commission by ordinary people in both parts of Ireland testifies to a profound public desire to see progress made at the earliest possible moment on this most intractable of problems.
In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, therefore, the commission rightly emphasised the importance of consultation with the people, and of persisting in the search for a new and deep accommodation which all could ultimately support, irrespective of the barriers in the path to agreement.
A continuing failure to resolve the fundamental conflict between the two traditions in Ireland will steadily undermine the appeal of constitutional politics and promote increased recourse to paramilitary violence. It is in all our interests that we should devise urgently new political arrangements which will give expression to the identity and validity of both traditions. No lasting stability will be achievable unless structures can be found which ensure complete equality of treatment between nationalism and unionism.
This is one of the cardinal principles which the Opsahl report has highlighted. The report has identified the need for "parity of esteem" between the two traditions. It has also proposed that a Government of Northern Ireland "should be put in place based on the principle that each community has an equal voice in making and executing the laws or a veto on their execution and an equal share in administrative authority".
This suggestion develops to a logical conclusion a fact of life which is becoming increasingly apparent in Northern Ireland. Neither community has the capacity to dictate terms to the other. The path to progress lies in co-operation between them, on a basis honourable to both. If fear of discrimination is one of the roots of mistrust between the two sides, are there not good arguments for a system such as this, where each community surrenders, as it were, every power or possibility of discrimination or unfair dealing into the custody of the other community? I am also attracted to the proposal to give legal approval to the concept of "parity of esteem".
There are many other proposals and suggestions in the report which I found helpful and illuminating. The recommendation in favour of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is persuasive. The wide range of recommendations made in relation to discrimination and the combating of deprivation also match Irish Government concerns.
I also welcome the emphasis laid on the creation of a cross-Border economic institution to develop the full range of economic co-operation between North and South. Another crucial point emphasised in the report is the importance of the European Community dimension to the development of common ground between North and South.
I am also happy to respond to the fears expressed in the report about the continued existence of the Adelaide Hospital. In the period since the commission formulated its recommendations, the Government has announced measures which have, I believe, resolved this potential problem to general satisfaction.
The importance of the commission's various conclusions and recommendations lie in their role in encouraging a wide-ranging public debate which, I have no doubt, will be of significance in the context of a resumption of political dialogue. The report has also furnished a comprehensive analysis of views in all sections of the community. Much of this strikes a sympathetic chord in this part of the island.
What all of us must move towards, and what lies at the heart of the Opsahl report, is an abandonment of the concepts of victory and defeat in relation to a solution of the Northern Ireland problem. These categories have no place in any rational approach to the problem. The only victory must be a common one; the only gain a shared one. Domination by one community over the other, in whatever context, it always fated to fail because it is a permanent source on instability and injustice.
We now have a compelling need for new thinking in which recognition of the validity of one tradition is not seen as a threat by the other, or affirmation of the rights of one not seen as denial of those of the other. It is in that spirit that this Government has diligently pursued the process of political dialogue. That continues to be our objective and I would hope that the two unionist parties will find it possible to join us at the table in a common search for a solution.
If, despite all our efforts, we do not succeed in our shared endeavour to achieve a resumption of dialogue, it will inevitably be necessary for both Governments to take stock of the situation and to decide on further options. The issues are too important for the Governments to succumb to immobility or ritual gestures or to allow themselves to become bereft of policy options in the face of persistent refusal to engage in dialogue. If one avenue to progress closes down, others must surely be looked at.
One alternative, which I have already signalled, would be for the two Governments to consider how they could make best use of their joint resources in the search for a settlement. We could together identify the key elements which would need to be part of any new accommodation and could present proposals to the other participants on what we considered to be the right way forward.
The Taoiseach and I and the Government remain utterly determined in our conviction that the only way forward in relation to Northern Ireland lies in the pursuit of a comprehensive political accommodation which is built on the rights of both traditions in Ireland. I repeat the hope that all political parties in Northern Ireland will delay no further in joining both Governments in the discussion and negotiation of such an accommodation.
It is for the two Governments and the political parties to heed this message, to reflect on the different views and ideas put forward both by the commission as well as the individual contributors and to move forward imaginatively to meet the overwhelming desire for lasting peace and stability. In this, I pledge the unremitting dedication and commitment of the Irish Government.
The gravity of the situation in Northern Ireland has been given fresh emphasis in the Opsahl report. For too long, the people of Northern Ireland have endured hardship, division, political stalemate and unacceptable violence. The Opsahl Commission has provided a voice for their concerns and that voice, insistent and compelling, demands an end to the present unacceptable situation and a commitment to seek new ways forward.
I warmly congratulate the Opsahl Commission, all those who made submissions to it and all those who assisted it in an undertaking of singular value and importance. It has been an extraordinary experiment in public participation and has provided a unique forum for public debate about, as Professor Opsahl puts it, the corner of our common Europe that is Northern Ireland. It has been a vehicle through which many authentic and often perceptive and moving voices make themselves heard. When the achievement of new structures in Northern Ireland, within Ireland and between both islands is at last realised, I believe the work of the Opsahl Commission will be seen to have made its own contribution to this process.
At the outset I wish to welcome the Tánaiste to the House and thank him for his participation in the debate this afternoon. The most striking aspect for me of the Tánaiste's speech was his renewed call for dialogue among the political parties in Northern Ireland. I did not read his interview in The Guardian as an attack on the unionist community but, unfortunately, it was seen by many in the unionist community as such and as representing an abandonment of the whole policy of dialogue and a settlement based upon the widest possible consent between the various communities. I am glad his speech today tones down that impression and commits the Government to renewed dialogue with all political groups in Northern Ireland.
I am also glad the Tánaiste made clear in his speech that there will always be a point at which the sovereign Governments must follow their own dialogue and initiative and must be more painstaking, imaginative and innovative in their search for ways to break down the distrust between the communities and the two parts of the island. I am glad the Tánaiste took the trouble to clarify many of the misconceptions which arose from his interview in The Guardian and which featured so strongly in the speeches at the various fields to mark 12 July yesterday.
On the question of the Opsahl report itself, "A Citizens' Inquiry" is one of the most valuable exercises that has ever been undertaken in Northern Ireland in the search for peace and reconciliation. It is on a par with the New Ireland Forum report which was the first attempt by the nationalist community on this island to analyse the problems and produce some sort of framework within which the problems could be resolved. It is a great pity that at the time or afterwards the New Ireland Forum — which, as I say, was a nationalist analysis and prognosis — was not followed by a similar unionist analysis of the nature of the problem and ways in which it might be resolved. There might have then been the beginning of real dialogue.
One of the great values of the Opsahl report is that it is a comprehensive omnibus analysis, an attempt to make use of the enormous amount of scholarship and study in various disciplines which has taken place over the past 20 to 25 years of the Troubles. Secondly, it has attempted to talk to the real people whose everyday lives are affected by the continuation of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, it has set out to provide some remedies, some ways of finding solutions to the ongoing problems.
The most moving part of the Opsahl report is undoubtedly the second section where the ordinary, and the not so ordinary people, of Northern Ireland talk about life there, the effect of the Troubles on them and the agony and nightmare in which they find themselves as a result of problems which they have not created. The report contains many useful ideas many of which were mentioned by the Tánaiste. These ideas, where possible, should be acted upon and implemented in the areas of policing, the operation of the security forces, integrated education, integrated housing and the protection of human rights. As far as possible action should be taken now on many of the worthwhile proposals in the Opsahl report.
The report is one of the first great exercises in dialogue across the communities in Northern Ireland, a structured dialogue with the aim of producing worthwhile solutions. The authors of the Opsahl report deserve the fullest commendation, not just for their objectives which I think all of us share, but for the way in which they have carried out their work. I believe it will have a significant effect on the thinking of politicians on both sides in the medium term, if not in the immediate future.
We do not expect a document such as the Opsahl report to produce solutions which can be immediately implemented. We do not expect a document consisting of hundreds of pages and hundreds of thousands of words to make an immediate impact in as sophisticated an age as today when so many other messages are being beamed at the community. Nonetheless, I believe and hope the fundamental underlying message will make an impact.
Unfortunately, however, there is little evidence that the thinking of the authors of the Opsahl report had much impact on the speeches or the behaviour at 12 July parades yesterday. There, the staple political diet continued to be one of triumphalism and intransigence, with politicians who should know better joining in the fray and playing to the lowest common denominator, rather than trying to move forward along the road to reconciliation. The only reported exception to this trend was significant, and that was Mr. James Molyneaux whose speech and radio interviews yesterday looked pragmatically to the future and talked about better community relations, getting the talks back on the road and helping towards the restoration — or, as some would say, the establishment — of an accountable democracy in Northern Ireland. He is a politician of significance and it would be encouraging to believe he meant what he said yesterday, that he seriously wants to move towards realistic talks and has generous proposals to make which would help in this process but, on past performance and in the present climate, there is little reason to be overoptimistic. In spite of the Opsahl report and the opinion polls which followed it, it is difficult to be other than pessimistic about the prospects for progress at the moment.
As somebody remarked recently, Northern Ireland is not a community frozen in time but a community frozen in the present. At its most fundamental level it seems to lack the will to tackle and surmount its own problems. More than that, it seems to have a collective capacity to reject those who want to help to sort out the mess. In saying this I am not being patronising, as many of my Northern friends have accused me in the past when I voiced these sentiments, which I am sorry to say are widespread in the Republic. What I am saying is, I believe, unfortunately a statement of fact.
In this context one of the most depressing aspects of the politics of Northern Ireland, today is the virtual abdication of the political process by the middle classes — and the affluent middle classes, in particular. Ms Nuala Ó Faolain had a fascinating and wickedly accurate, but ultimately repulsive, article in The Irish Times last Saturday on life in north County Down. It painted a picture of an affluent and almost idyllic lifestyle with big houses, rolling lawns, big boats, cricket and golf clubs, BMWs and Mercedes — a life almost without care with an affluence and low prices that few other parts of the world could match. Above all, the article offered a picture of exclusivity; it was a picture of people who have a lot more than their fair share of good things in their society having done very well out of Northern Ireland, but who ultimately and fundamentally do not want to and will not get involved in the politics of their own society. These people are very ready to sneer at and despise all politicians and to blame them for causing the problem and for not resolving it. They see the problem as somebody else's and abdicate their responsibilities.
What we have in Northern Ireland is the antithesis of a civic culture where people feel a sense of responsibility to their own society and translate it into support for, and involvement in, the political process. Until those who own so much of the community, and have so much to gain from Northern Ireland being prosperous and stable, are prepared to participate fully in the process, an almost insurmountable problem will remain. These are the people who in the Opsahl report's opinion polls support moderation and accommodation, but where are they when political leaders in their own communities attempt to push the boat forward by expressing new ideas and beginning to take risks? They are nowhere to be found.
One of the problems in Northern Ireland in recent years — in both communities, but particularly in the unionist community — is that where politicians have been brave and sought to express ideas that were tribally unpopular the immediate reaction has come from the hardliners who attack such politicians. Rarely, if ever, is there open support from those who know better, but are not prepared to stand up and be counted. No healthy society can exist without a strong sense of civic culture and, although there are many honourable and brave exceptions, for example, the people in the Opsahl report, unhappily within the large affluent middle class community on both sides of the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland that civic culture is not to be found. Until it is, we will look very hard indeed for any solution that will last.
Many down here were surprised and shocked by the words of the distinguished historian Dr. A.T.O. Stewart at the weekend, when he said that it was only a matter of time before the full effects of the Protestant paramilitaries were unleashed with a greater ferocity than seen up to now. People should not have been shocked; Dr. Stewart was merely recounting the reality. In our last debate on Northern Ireland in this House, I made the point that the Protestant paramilitaries are better armed and more disciplined, organised and ruthless than at any time in the past 20 years. We in both communities ignore at our peril the capacity and the willingness of the Protestant paramilitaries to step up their campaign to a higher level. There are powerful forces that can disrupt any peace process and unless there is a major political move forward they will continue to pose a threat. They may well do so, even if there is real political dialogue.
One of the most dramatic proposals in the Opsahl report is the recommendation that Sinn Féin be brought into the political process and that the political parties talk to that party. It is certain that the forces which Sinn Féin represent will have to be part of any final settlement; that is common sense. I would encourage any third party groups seeking peace and reconciliation who are capable of engaging in dialogue with Sinn Féin to do so. Anything that can be done to move Sinn Féin and those behind that political face away from the present paths of murdering and bombing would be welcome. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the constitutional political parties can engage in dialogue with Sinn Féin as long as that party continues its ambiguity about its relationship with the Provisional IRA. It is in a sense the political front of the Provisional IRA and does not condemn the murder campaign of the Provisional IRA.
During the last debate on Northern Ireland we were told there were straws in the wind that the Provisional IRA was beginning to change its attitude, that the political section of the movement was gaining the upper hand. There was talk of a possible cease-fire and the beginning of real dialogue. Unfortunately, none of that has come to pass and we have seen the continuation of the devastating bombing campaign designed to bomb the guts out of the life of Northern Ireland. The campaign has spread to Britain and murdering has continued. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Provisional IRA is in any way serious about entering the political process at present. If it seriously wants to talk it should lay aside its bombs and guns and engage in the peaceful political process. If it does so it will have a place but that is the only way that will happen.
The problem for a constitutional politician is to discover who speaks for Sinn Féin. It continually alternates between hard and soft postures. There is always the danger of being duped or of talks with constitutional parties being part of an ongoing strategy. The simple way for Sinn Féin to enter the political process is to persuade the Provisional IRA to lay down its arms and change from its murderous methods. Sinn Féin will then find people ready and willing to talk to them in order to attain peace in Northern Ireland.
In recent times it has become fashionable to pour scorn on all Northern political parties and the failure of politicians. That theme runs through the Opsahl report to a certain extent, although not in a sneering sense. It is seen as a citizen's charter against the politicians but the interest of those two groups should not be mutually exclusive. Certain politicians and political parties in the North have a great deal to answer for and it is easy to be critical of them. Nonetheless recent years have seen all political parties in the North move some distance from their traditional stances. This is true even of the DUP, which was prepared to put forward ideas far removed from those it would have given credence to some years ago.
Experience has shown how fragile some of these moves forward have been, how quickly and easily parties have backtracked. Experience has also shown difficulties can be great. When politicians do move forward, the same people who tell opinion pollsters of their desire for peace, accommodation and moderation are nowhere to be seen to support politicians and parties who have taken a stand to help further the debate.
There is little point in people from the South lecturing Northern politicians. They live in dangerous circumstances and their lives are frequently threatened. They sustain abuse from their own and other communities that few politicians down here would accept. They live and work in a barren political climate. Politicians in the Republic should make every effort to highlight the primacy of the party political process.
Southern politicians should listen to our Northern colleagues from all parties. We should talk to and encourage them. During the long months of the summer recess those of us who profess interest in resolving the problems in Northern Ireland should travel there, talk to fellow politicians and invite them here. We should at least ensure arguments are not accepted by default and there should be evidence of goodwill. We should use our contacts.
I wished to speak about the two sovereign Governments but I understand I do not have enough time. I will close with remarks on the bombings in the Republic of Ireland 20 years ago, horrific crimes against the people of Dublin and Monaghan for which no one has been brought to justice. We have all heard the recent reports. Everyone would like a full inquiry into these incidents to establish if members of British security forces were involved. Such involvement would surely be without the knowledge of superior officers but the truth of the involvement should be uncovered.
There is an easy way to set up an inquiry. A tribunal in the Republic would have no jurisdiction over documents from Northern Ireland or Britain and an inquiry in Northern Ireland would have no such authority here. This is an ideal opportunity for the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body to set up select committees in Westminster and Leinster House to inquire into the Dublin and Monaghan car bombing atrocities and make a joint report. There would be no problems of jurisdiction and this would be an example of real co-operation among parliamentarians of both countries.
I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence and I again commend the authors of the Opsahl report. We could speak on it for many hours. They have done a great service to the people of the North and the whole island.
I also welcome the opportunity to comment on the report and I welcome the Minister to the House to take part in this important debate. Those who contributed to the report did so courageously. More research was done than in previous reports. I have copies of reports prepared by many eminent people, reports such as Together an Island that Works, written by a number of clergymen in 1987, but this is the most comprehensive report I have yet seen. It contains much information from people who know the day-to-day problems in the North.
Northern Ireland is a good subject to talk about but it is difficult to produce any results. With respect to my colleagues in both Houses, many eminent people have theories about the North and have spoken eloquently about it in terms which cannot be applied in practice. That is the tragedy. I am closer to the North than most people because I have been involved for a long period in cross-Border structures. I have met people of all shades of political opinion and I hope I have learned a little.
I welcome the Tánaiste's statement. I have his speeches of 25 March, 30 June and today. Despite the reaction of Sir Patrick Mayhew to the speech on 30 June, I welcome the speech of the Tánaiste. There could be much debate and pontification about new approaches until the end of time but 23 years have now passed and many lives have been lost. The sincerity of the Irish and British Governments must be made clear and they must be active and prominent. The Tánaiste's statement on 30 June was made out of frustration at achieving nothing in promoting talks.
I also support President Robinson on her visit to the North for having no restrictions placed on who she might meet or whose hand she might shake. As someone who campaigned for another candidate in the Presidential election I am entitled to say I support her visit and her decision to meet whoever she wanted to meet on that occasion.
We have an opportunity to clearly state that we believed in the talks that were initiated by both Governments. It was clear to everybody involved in those talks that there were no preconditions and no agreement until there was complete agreement. We now find ourselves in a position of stalemate. The hardline unionists are laying down conditions that unless we indicate the removal of Articles 2 and 3 from the Constitution they cannot participate in any negotiations for the future of Northern Ireland.
The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach would be foolish to indicate that they would remove Articles 2 and 3. It would be totally dishonest of any negotiator from the South to tell the people from the North that we would consider removing Articles 2 and 3. The people would not support such a proposal in a referendum. It is the lowest type of politics for anybody to impose such a condition because it means they do not want to participate in talks. Therefore, some other solution must be found. Talks will not take place until an indication is given that Articles 2 and 3 will be removed from the Constitution but it must be said that no one could deliver on such a promise.
There is no way forward in the North until there is respect for justice. Recently I visited Swatragh, County Derry, and I met honest and fair-minded people who have suffered because of the troubles. They wanted to know how justice could exist in that part of Ireland when a number of High Court judges were marching on 12 July. I do not deny the right to march on 12 July. In fact, I applaud those who marched in Rossnowlagh, County Donegal, and I was pleased they could march with freedom and that they did not need protection. This indicates our attitude towards those who march on 12 July. However, it is wrong for a High Court judge to be part of that march and, at the same time, expect the ordinary people to respect the justice administered by that system.
The credibility of the justice system is fundamental to its acceptance by the minority population of the North. Until such times as justice is accepted in the North, there will be no progress. No solution will be acceptable unless a proper justice system is established to which people can contribute. This must be said to everyone involved in negotiations. Everyone knows there are cases, from Gibraltar to Strabane, which we must condemn. In certain instances the justice system is by-passed. This is not acceptable to the reasonable and fair-minded minority population of the North.
I do not support the IRA. They have contributed to the struggle in the North, they have made life a misery for many people and nowhere is this more true than in my own county. There are seven major military bases making my county the most peripheral part of Europe. One cannot go into County Donegal without on the way passing soldiers and passing through sophisticated electronic systems and barbed wire. Such a situation cannot be found anywhere else in the world. This cannot continue to be imposed on a people who are trying to promote industry and create jobs.
We have a special problem in County Donegal and we have a special interest in helping to encourage a sensible approach to the Northern problem. I say to the Tánaiste and to those involved in negotiations that a fair justice system in the North is the fundamental foundation for negotiations. It is not outside the bounds of possibility to establish a just system which can be recognised. If we do this, we will have achieved part of the solution.
I can instance many cases where justice was not carried out. There is a large area in County Tyrone which could be described as a no-go area. For three months a breadman had his bread removed from his van and thrown on the road. Nobody apologised. Then he was shot from behind the hedge and nobody was caught. It was the security forces who dumped the bread on the road and after three months he was shot in his bread van. How can one expect a minority population to support a justice system which allows this to happen? That is only one of the many examples I could give.
I welcome the contribution made by many people in the Opsahl report. One passage states:
It is evident — from the views submitted to the Opsahl Commission — that a parliamentary system of government based on the Westminster model is not and — experience has shown — was not a suitable model for the governing of a fundamentally divided society.
I acknowledge the courage involved in making that statement.
I also welcome the statement that the "Unionist demands for the removal of Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's Constitution were, according to Mr. Doherty, ‘unadulterated blackmail"'. These are courageous statements, they had to be made. The Opsahl report is worth a debate in this House and I welcome the opportunity to comment on it.
The relationship between Britain and Ireland has never been better. However, throughout the years there have not been enough people in Britain who were well informed on the North. At present, the British Government is experiencing serious difficulties and it will not attempt under any circumstances to be forward thinking on the North. It will accept the current situation.
In the past we in the South were told that the North could not or would not join us because of the North's economic prosperity. The South is now as prosperous, if not more so, than the North. I am proud that our medical services, our social welfare and our levels of pay are as good and in some cases better than in the North. I was pleasantly amused to see recently in a case that I was dealing with where an old age pensioner rented a house in Donegal at the cheap rent of 50p a week. She called on a Friday to pay the landlord the 50p and to collect her pension in County Donegal and she lived in the North. I can say she was not collecting a pension in the North at the same time. The old age pension was greater in the North but now unemployment benefit for a single person is £57 in the South and £32 in the North.
Across the social structure our benefits are now far in advance of those in the North of Ireland so that can no longer be an argument for the hardliners who will not move an inch. Those people are getting more isolated and it is right to focus seriously on that arrogant tribal mentality. The day is coming when the EC will see that this cannot continue.
Every time there is an explosion, injury or death in the North there is a call for more security. I fail to understand what more security means because on a bus journey between Belfast and Strabane two children counted 88 armed British soldiers and 11 armed police. More input to security is sought from the British in the North. At the same time we, a small island with few resources, are spending £200 million on Border security; yet, we are blamed for being complacent, and for providing a safe haven for people who want to cross the Border to commit atrocities.
We are subjected to the worst of comments after something happens in the North. We are told we are not contributing and that we are not serious about helping with security. That is contrary to the facts; the Garda Síochána make a major contribution. The number of searches carried out and the number of people imprisoned in the South — many of whom came from the North — show that the authorities in the South are serious in their commitment to security. I reject the comments about a lack of will in the South.
The problem must be tackled on the ground. Many systems have been tried. I disagree with the Diplock Courts and the "supergrass" trials. Until such time as there is an acceptable justice system in the North no progress will be made. All we can do is hope that reasonable people will read the Opsahl report and I hope it is made available to all who are concerned about the future of the North. I hope that as many public representatives as possible in Europe and in America get a copy of the report and that they spend time looking at it because therein lies a recommendation which if accepted would contribute to the forthcoming talks on the North.
Let there be no doubt, whether it is this generation or the next there will have to be talks that bring about a solution acceptable to all on this island. This report indicates that there is a large number of people who are prepared to sit down together and talk. I ask the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and those involved in discussions with the British Government to lay it on the line and say that there is no lack of intent on the part of the Irish people to a commitment to resolving the problems of the North. However, there is no magic solution. The people of the North cannot be coerced; neither can an aspiration and a tradition of the people of the South be eliminated.
I understand, Senator Henry, that you wish to share time with Senator Norris.
That is correct. I wish to give Senator Norris half of my time.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I echo Senator McGowan's hope that the Opsahl report will be read by all reasonable people but my hope is that it would be read by all unreasonable people also because they are the people who really need to read it and take note of its contents. I am delighted to see in the House today Mr. Andy Pollak who edited the report; he and everyone involved in that work is to be congratulated. I most definitely commend the report to unreasonable people but I also commend this report to the Seanad which is, I hope, a body of reasonable people.
I want to talk about politics with a small "p" in Northern Ireland and how we might help that. While all the groups in Northern Ireland mentioned in the report are talked about as being marginalised, there is one major group across the province which was politically marginalised. That group, comprising 50 per cent of the population, was women. The dearth of women in the political process was seen as a major loss by many of those who made submissions to the Opsahl Commission. In contrast, the efforts of women in community groups and in voluntary groups were enormous and their impact impressive on an intra-community and an inter-community basis. However, in politics they are invisible.
In today's London Independent newspaper there is a letter from Professor Ruth Lister who was a member of the commission and she makes this point. She talks about tackling discrimination and inequalities on a religious basis but she also says:
Class and gender inequalities must also be tackled. Many witnesses to the commission emphasised the importance of combating poverty and deprivation in both Catholic and Protestant working class communities.
She also referred to the "inspiring work, much of it spearheaded by women" which is going on in working class areas and the achievements made in education and training. It is most unfortunate that there is so little contribution by women to the political process in Northern Ireland. Women have a sharp focus on practical day-to-day situations and may be more flexible in considering new ways to create the future. Their skills and their perspective have not been utilised at a party political level in Northern Ireland.
However low we may consider the representation of women in politics in the Republic, with 20 women in the Dáil, eight in the Seanad and one MEP, there is no woman politician from the North in Westminster or in Strasbourg. Many of the submissions point to this as being a serious problem. Recommendation No. 3.5 by the commission urges support and funding to help women into political life in Northern Ireland. The report also states that the Northern Ireland Office should set targets for the number of women on public bodies and that the political parties should give higher priority to the social issues that are of particular concern to many women.
I stress this because I believe women have a great recognition of the immediate and often see it as more important that the long-term. The immediate in Northern Ireland is very important. There is continuous concentration on the long term but the immediate term requires consideration also.
Several women presented individual reports. I was impressed by one woman who said that while she understood that there were no women involved in the talks in Northern Ireland, there should be a group of them listening who, at the intervals, would give advice to those participating.
How can we in the Republic of Ireland help with this? Several submissions to the Opsahl Commission referred to the Council for the Status of Women and its value. Our Government is way ahead in this area and the Council for the Status of Women already has contacts with Northern women's groups, both on a formal and an informal basis. The council and the Northern Ireland Women's European Platform co-hosted a conference in Dublin in 1992 on partnership and participation which was also attended by our sister organisations in England, Scotland and Wales.
At present the Council for the Status of Women and the Northern Ireland Women's European Platform are discussing a joint stategy in relation to the European elections in 1994 as there are important initiatives for women for the whole island at issue in this election. Women Members of the Oireachtas have indicated that they will give both organisations support, help and advice.
In the long-term the building up of relationships between women in both parts of the island, with the intention of accelerating progress on women's rights through co-operation could be important. Their economic problems are as serious as ours. Chapter 8 of the Opsahl report, entitled "The Economy and Society I: Some Hidden Agendas" contains a section with the heading: "Women: the other divide". The content of this section could easily mirror the situation here — frankly, at times I believe it is marginally worse.
It is an exciting concept to have a flexible approach across the board regarding problems such as these and Opsahl has advocated that the energy and work of women should be harnessed throughout the island of Ireland to address these problems. We are in a position to support this because I believe that we probably have better structures and we can make positive efforts that will help women in the whole island.
One has to admire the tremendous courage of many community activists in Northern Ireland. For example, when watching the 12 July celebrations on television last night, who could have thought, given the trouble there has been around Clogher, that they could have a prize winning brass band? Who could have thought, looking at the names, that you could work out their religious affiliation? We in the Republic of Ireland are in a more flexible environment and the Opsahl report constantly calls for flexibility. It is, therefore, important for us show that we are not in a state of rigor mortis and that we will endeavour to make progress in every area.
I have stressed the position of women as I have noticed that thus far, no one else has mentioned it even though there is constant reference to it in the Opsahl report. However, among the areas where the Republic of Ireland was given credit in the report was in the establishment of a Government Department of Equality and Law Reform. In this respect perhaps we could urge an extension of the Fair Employment Office in the North to become a type of Ministry for Equality.
The Opsahl Commission and Citizen's Inquiry did not address the issue of communications on this island. It is incredible that people in the North are unable to receive RTE so they have little notion of what we are like. I understand this issue was raised at a recent Anglo-Irish meeting. At present RTE transmits into some parts of the North but permission must be obtained from the European Broadcasting Union to transmit sufficiently strong signals to ensure adequate reception of the station there. I believe our Government should approach the European Broadcasting Union to endeavour to enable RTE to broadcast to Northern Ireland, not in an attempt to take over the airwaves but to try and ensure a better unerstanding of the two cultures. I think the British Home Office would probably support such an application. At present, north County Down, County Antrim and Belfast are unable to receive RTE, while there is appalling reception of BBC Radio Ulster in the Republic of Ireland. As the Mourne mountains are likely to remain where they are, it is time to consider a way of by-passing them.
Some months ago the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, addressed the Irish Association meeting in the Mansion House and he spoke of the danger of looking upon the unionists as "...lapsed members of the United Irishmen". I believe it is important that we do not consider the unionists in this way. They must be thought of as Irish unionists and not "lapsed members of the United Irishmen", people who somehow will come to their senses and realise we should all be together. I hope the Tánaiste will make that speech again in Northern Ireland.
Senator Manning referred to the interview given by the Tánaiste to The Guardian newspaper on 8 July 1993. I am sure they were not meant to infuriate unionists but to stress the importance of movement on the political scene in the North. I am reminded of the time the Tánaiste said that there would be a Labour Party candidate for the Presidency even if he had to run himself. The next day all the newspapers said: “Dick Spring to run for President.” In fact, the Tánaiste had said that, if necessary, he would be a candidate for the Presidency in order to ensure an election. In the context of The Guardian interview I believe the Tánaiste indicated that there would have to be movement or something would have to be done by both Governments.
The divisions in Northern Ireland are intra- and inter-community. Some of these divisions, as outlined in the Opsahl report, appear to be incredible. Roman Catholic and Protestant deaf children in Northern Ireland are taught a different sign language. When it comes to divisions of this kind the situation is very serious. I am sure Senator Norris will deal with the causes of these divisions.
I am grateful to my colleague Senator Henry for once again sharing some of her time with me. We have a good amicable relationship in this matter.
I welcome the initiative of Professor Torkel Opsahl and his colleagues, and especially Mr. Andy Pollack who edited the report. I had included that in my speech before I was made aware of the fact that Mr. Pollack is in the Visitors Gallery with some of the colleagues who worked with him.
The title of the report is significant: "A Citizen's Inquiry". However, even more significant is the massive citizens response. If one looks at the map of the various towns and villages included in the report it becomes clear that a conscious effort was made to reach all sections of the community, both geographically and culturally.
Like the scattering of fish food on a pond, the announcement of the inquiry produced a sudden unexpected flurry of activity as individuals and organisations, many of them previously only partly visible, rose energetically to the surface. It is interesting through all this mass of material to look for a significant pattern. The pattern is there. Just as the motivation of fish in rising to the surface of the pond is the desire for nourishment, so it is clear from all the diverse elements in the spectrum of opinion represented here the motivation is a virtually universal desire for peace. However, inevitably, many of those taking part seek to place conditions upon the achievement of peace and some of these, at least at first glance, are quite irreconcilable.
This is the nub of the problem. In order to achieve a workable solution, it is necessary to meet the contradictory emotional, social, political and cultural needs of two entrenched tribal groupings simultaneously. Broadly speaking, one tribal group is Protestant with a loyalty to the Royal Family, the Union Jack, "God Save the Queen" and the concept of Britishness. This is precisely the background from which I come in the Republic of Ireland, even though on my mother's side there was an old Gaelic Irish family. Therefore, I recognise all the painful adjustments that need to be made; that painful period of adjustment was a good learning situation for myself.
The other tribal group is predominantly Roman Catholic with loyalty to the President, the Tricolour, "The Soldiers' Song" and a 32-County Republic. One simple outline framework of a method whereby both these needs which are as much atavistic and emotional as anything else could be met would be to create in the first instance some areas of common government. This could be achieved perhaps on a federal basis, uniting the whole island in areas where there are clearly shared common interests distinct from those of Britain, such as agriculture, tourism, justice and energy. This would permit the Catholic nationalist minority to feel that they were participating in a 32-County situation in which they could give loyalty to their own chosen symbols. To balance this, the island of Ireland might rejoin the British Commonwealth of nations, a move which would validate the Britishness of those who wish to retain that connection and allow them to participate in their chosen symbolic order without violating the concept of Irishness.
I am aware, having already proposed such an arrangement on several occasions, that this may be described as naive. Nevertheless, I am convinced that without some such structure that is capable of satisfying simultaneously two apparently irreconcilable emotional requirements, it will be virtually impossible to proceed towards peace. I can remember saying this, almost in a deliberately provocative manner to my then colleague Senator Ó Cuív, de Valera's grandson, to see what he would say and he said the idea had a lot of sense. I asked him what his grandfather would say, expecting that he would be spinning in his grave at the prospect and he replied his grandfather had actually suggested that to Fianna Fáil at one stage. This is a possibility that might be explored, even though in outline as I presented it, it may be naive. One of the most significant sentences in the Opsahl report confirms me in this view, where it is stated "Simple majorities do not work in a divided society."
This kind of notion is further put in context in the Opsahl reort by the contribution of Dr. Ronny Swain from University College, Cork, in explaining the so-called GRIT Strategy, Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction. This was devised in 1962 as a means of reducing tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. This GRIT Strategy was employed by President Kennedy 16 times and on each occasion President Khrushchev reciprocated within 24 hours. Dr. Swain explains the mechanism as follows:
Suppose that you and I are negotiating about some issue fundamental to our interests. Instead of demanding that you change your position as a precondition to progress, I announce my intention to make a small concession; I then do so in such a way that the action is publicly verifiable. Taking the action involves a small risk for me, but does not entail a major erosion of my position.
I then invite you to reciprocate, but do not demand that you do so. If you engage in behaviour which escalates tension, I retaliate but only sufficiently to restore the status quo before continuing with my conciliatory strategy. As I persevere with my initiatives, it becomes more and more likely that you will make similar concessions. With each exchange of concessions, trust grows and tension is reduced.
The next contribution in the report, by Mr. Michael Farrell who has a distinguished history of participation in nonviolent civil rights movements, underpins this approach where he says:
I think a cessation of violence is most likely to come about through some kind of dialogue with those involved [in paramilitary groups] or their political allies. However, an end to the campaigns of violence or even a lessening in their intensity would certainly help the process of discussion about the ultimate future of the area. Perhaps the most practical scenario would be a graduated but steady deescalation of the violence, and the security measures which mirror and/or provoke it, resulting in a building up of confidence on all sides.
So the GRIT Strategy and the view of Mr. Farrell are very close indeed.
I regard it as inevitable that Sinn Féin would be involved at some stage in the discussions leading to a peaceful resolution. I welcome the fact that John Hume of the SDLP has taken the courageous step of talking and continuing to talk to Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin, although I think that he was most unwise to issue a joint communique of the kind released after an early stage of the talks. Moreover, it seems clear from recent opinion polls that there is overwhelming support for the action of Mary Robinson in briefly encountering the leader of Sinn Féin, Mr. Adams. It would have been most extraordinary and led to a further abnormalisation of the situation had she declined to do so. It is apparently being ignored that there was at least as much political risk for Mr. Adams in acknowledging President Robinson as the other way around. As far as the shaking hands aspect of the incident is concerned, this was not only a human, courteous and Christian thing to do but it also had the virtue of keeping at least one of Mr. Adams' hands occupied. In the light of the Sinn Féin slogan about the ballot box and the armalite, I sincerely hope and believe that it may have been the hand that held the armalite that was momentarily disarmed.
If one looks to recent political history in this State, one cannot but note the fact that it is the section of the republican movement that perpetrated one of the worst terrorist outrages in the Aldershot bombing that has made the transition successfully from IRA activity of a negative, counterproductive and inhumane kind to an active and valuable participation in the democratic process. I speak here of the party that has now become the Democratic Left.
It is clear to me that however distasteful their actions, a time must come when one must deal with the principals involved in the Northern troubles. They should be encouraged to participate ever more in the democratic process and, for this reason, I have for many years opposed section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. One must, after all, be consistent. If one seeks to entice dissident elements into democratic channels one cannot simultaneously deny them access to freedom of political expression however much one may disagree with the politics they seek to express. Those who have been elected by the will of the people at local or national level have got to be dealt with if one is not to be dangerously á la carte about the meaning of democracy.
Few governments are hesitant about dealing with those whose behaviour they may privately consider criminal if and when it suits their interests. One notes also that the British Government, so delicate of meeting with Mr. Adams, is quite happy to arm the Indonesian tyrant and assist in the genocide of the people of East Timor and to train the personnel of the Khmer Rouge who are also engaged in genocide against their own people, two million of whom died in the killing fields. It is, therefore, clearly not on a matter of principle that the British Government refuse to deal with those it regards as murderers. Closer to home, a recent investigation suggesting a link between British Intelligence and the carnage of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 1974 must raise serious questions about the involvement of sections of the British military in behaviour that is completely and utterly unacceptable.
On the other hand, there is no doubt whatever that the Provisional IRA, supported by Sinn Féin, have been engaged for years past in nothing other than a sectarian civil war. They have systematically eliminated young Protestant farmers along the Border, often the sons of widowed mothers, in isolated farm houses. They have also systematically murdered those Catholics prepared to join in the RUC so that they can hypocritically declare the RUC to be a sectarian police force.
Senator Norris, your time is up.
Perhaps I could just finish this paragraph?
Acting Chairman
Perhaps the sentence.
What I will do is suggest that the House reconsider a suggestion I made to the House on a previous occasion when we discussed this matter. I suggested an amendment to Articles 2 and 3 which would place after Articles 2 and 3 the following formulation of words: "In any attempt to realise this aspiration towards unity the use of violence shall be prohibited." That would legally redefine the territorial claim into an aspiration and remove the threat from which many of our Northern colleagues appear to suffer.
I am more than annoyed that the debate is curtailed in this regard and that, as the Labour Party spokesperson in the debate, I am limited to a few minutes.
Acting Chairman
This was by agreement of the House; you must understand that.
I am aware of that.
We got one speaker out of 17.
I have grown up listening to the horror stories emanating from Northern Ireland. It has gone on for so long that I wonder if the Irish people are depressed, weary and indifferent about Northern Ireland at this stage. Then something happens and we start to look again from a different angle and a different perspective. That is what the Opsahl report achieves; it breaks through the monotony and the deafening silence that has been forced on events in Northern Ireland.
This report is different and this was referred to earlier. The difference is evident from its title, "A Citizens' Inquiry". The report is the result of a unique experiment in that it actually occurred to the powers that be to ask the people who live in Northern Ireland what they thought about their situation. It publishes the ideas of people in all walks of life and of different persuasions. In it we see the views of paramilitaries, women from the Falls Road and the Shankill, children, community activists and many others. It is all too easy to pigeonhole people whether as unionist or nationalist, Protestant or Catholic, and see it as black and white.
This report is an enlightening experience for those who have time to read it. Anybody who believes that we have run out of ideas on Northern Ireland should immediately take up this report where ideas are endless. For instance, Fr. Denis Faul rightly identifies the lack of local democracy and calls for the setting up of a number of county councils with a major voice in social services, environmental services, tourism, education, health, industrial development and other areas. A major issue identified in the report is the evident lack of accountability by the ruling powers in Northern Ireland. Many people interviewed in this inquiry felt deprived of the basic political right to choose the members of their own legislative forum. It is obvious that one of the effects of direct rule is the distance placed between those who make executive decisions and those who are affected by those decisions.
The political system in Northern Ireland is undemocratic. Those appointed by the Westminster administration to run the affairs of Northern Ireland are not answerable in any way to the people who live there. Obviously, this leads to dissatisfaction. In many countries, dissatisfaction with government is not unusual but in Northern Ireland it is more than dangerous as it leaves a vacuum into which the representatives of Sinn Féin, the UDA and others have jumped. These groups have harnessed discontent in a politically successful way. This is because Sinn Féin and others have not yielded to moral, political or church pressure to follow accepted patterns of behaviour. The lack of establishment accountability has given rise to Sinn Féin's street credibility in giving advice to an alienated constituency. This is clearly identified in the report. There are many options regarding what we should have in its place, such as different forms of PR elections and councils for Northern Ireland, but I will not go into those in any detail because I do not have the time.
The Opsahl report achieved a lot just by expressing the ideas and suggestions of the people who live there, but it will achieve more by coaching, embarrassing and encouraging the powers that be to look at themselves again, their role in Northern Ireland and their ability to tackle the complicated web that is the North. That is why I am encouraged by this report. Matters relating to the region are often discussed, and decisions made, in the absence of those who live there. This report is worthy of the highest commendation because it asked the ordinary people of Northern Ireland what they thought of their situation. That is a start and I hope it marks a commencement of new thinking in dealing with Northern Ireland. We must remember that those living there cannot democratically remove from power those who make the decisions which govern their lives. It is no wonder that non-constitutional parties thrive in a system where the decision-making power never has to face the electorate. That must be rectified if we are to reach a political solution.
On another level, the problems of Northern Ireland are exacerbated by the housing and educational apartheid that exists there. These factors deepen fears, create mistrust and widen the divide between communities which, when viewed from another angle, have so much in common. The Opsahl Commission suggests that the housing executive should examine the feasibility of setting up a number of pilot integrated housing schemes, with subsidised rents and other support mechanisms to encourage people. I raised this matter with concillors representing both the SDLP and the OUP last weekend at a Labour Party youth conference in Carlingford, County Louth, and the suggestion received worthy support.