I welcome the Minister to the House. Senator Gallagher is in possession and has 17 minutes remaining.
Opsahl Report: Statements (Resumed).
In relation to this issue, a lot has happened during the recess. I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the family and friends of the chairman of the commission, Torkel Opsahl, who died during the summer. His work in all aspects of life has been and will be appreciated. This loss will be felt in relation to his work in compiling this important report.
I often wonder whether people switch off their televisions when they hear about the North. Do they close their ears to daily reports that a man has been killed in a gun attack on the Ormeau Road, or that the British Army Bomb Disposal Unit has disposed of a bomb? We hear these news reports all the time. I have grown up listening to the horror stories emanating from Northern Ireland and listening to politicians talking about it. It has been going on for so long that many people in the Republic must by now be depressed, weary and indifferent about Northern Ireland. Then something happens and we look at the problem from a different perspective. That is what the Opsahl report achieves. It breaks through the monotony; it breaks through the deafening silence that has been forced in the real Northern Ireland.
What is different about this report? Have we not seen report after report over the years? The way in which this report is different is shown in its title: A Citizens' Inquiry. It is the result of a unique experiment. It actually occurred to some of the powers that be to ask the people who live in Northern Ireland, who are Northern Ireland, what they thought of their situation. This report publishes the ideas of the people of Northern Ireland in all walks of life, of different persuasions, of all political hues. In it we read the views of paramilitaries, women from the Falls and Shankill, children, community activists, academics and trade unionists. Many of those views are surprising and enlightening.
We in the South and elsewhere tend to make assumptions, to pigeonhole people as being Unionist or Nationalist, Protestant or Catholic, and see the situation as black and white, with no in between. This report for those who have time to read it is truly an enlightening experience. The Presbyterian Church calls for a second chamber in a Northern Ireland devolved Parliament with some input from the Republic of Ireland while the Corrymeela Community Group suggests the Irish Government reassure Unionists by re-examining the language of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Anybody who believes that we have run out of ideas on Northern Ireland should immediately take up this report and study the endless ideas there.
In the report, for instance, Fr. Denis Faul rightly identifies the lack of local democracy and calls for a number of county councils to be set up with power in the areas of social and environmental services, tourism, health, industrial development, infrastructure, policing, etc. This is an interesting idea. A major issue identified in the report is the evident lack of accountability by the ruling power 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 take Executive decisions and those whom those decisions affect.
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. This leads to dissatisfaction. In many countries dissatisfaction with Government is not unusual but in Northern Ireland it is more than dangerous. It leaves a vacuum into which 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 pressures to follow acceptable patterns of behaviour. The lack of accountability of the establishment has given rise to Sinn Féin's street credibility in giving a voice to an alienated constituency. This is clearly identified from a study of the report.
Another opinion in the report comes from Mr. James Canning, who suggests a PR election should be held to elect a general council for Northern Ireland which would be given the job of agreeing policy on the bread and butter issues, areas such as agriculture, economic development, health and education. He points out something very important when he says that such a council would deal with the matters which the people in Northern Ireland have in common. Others suggested that in establishing a new system of local government an independent watchdog body should be set up to monitor the actions of local government for evidence of sectarian bias and introduce the rotation of chairs, which has always been a contentious issue in Northern Ireland. Even from the few suggestions I have mentioned so far we see many possibilities for providing a more democratic system of Government for the people who reside in that region. There is no shortage of ideas.
Many new proposals relating to culture, religion, identity and education are dealt with in Chapter 14 of the report. I found an interesting call from some Northern Protestants for a standardised history. Many people feel a sense of Irishness and have a desire to reacquaint themselves with Irish history, culture and language, which they believe have been expropriated from them as part of the nationalist ethos and used as a political weapon. This cannot be ignored because all people in the North share a common heritage in which many elements unite. Therefore that call for a common Irish history, putting everything in perspective, is a worthy one.
The report is full of ideas, some complex, some simple. As I said, the report achieves much in just expressing those ideas and suggestions. This report will achieve much more and it will do this by coaching, embarrassing and encouraging the powers that be to examine themselves, their role in Northern Ireland and their ability to tackle the complicated web which is Northern Ireland. We have all heard the phrase "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?" This report moves the mirror closer to the light to allow for close inspection and maybe spur one into action. That is why I am encouraged by this report.
All too often, matters relating to Northern Ireland are discussed in the absence of the people who live there; all too often, decisions are made by people who do not live there. This report is worthy of the highest commendation because it did something too often neglected. It asked the ordinary people of Northern Ireland what they thought of their situation, what they felt about their homeland and what they thought might help solve their obvious problems. That is a start and I hope it marks the commencement of a new way of thinking in dealing with Northern Ireland.
I do not have the time to go into the numerous recommendations made by the commission, but I wish to highlight an area to which I referred earlier, and that is the lack of democracy. This is important and must be dealt with because it is often brushed aside. Political parties and leaders in the North have their hands tied when it comes to action in that all major decisions are decided elsewhere and this leads to their diminished political responsibility. We must remember that the people of Northern Ireland 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 region's electorate. That matter must be rectified if we are to reach a political solution.
The problems of Northern Ireland are exacerbated by the housing and educational apartheid which exists there. I have mentioned this before in this House because it is something positive which can be implemented while talks go on. The fact that so many people live in separated areas and go to separate schools only serves to deepen the mistrust and widen the divide between communities which, when viewed from another angle, have so much in common.
It is pointed out in the report that half of the province's 1.5 million people live in areas more than 90 per cent Protestant or 95 per cent Catholic. Of Belfast's 51 wards, 35 are at least 90 per cent of one religion or the other. This apartheid feeds terrorism, encourages ignorance and fear and facilitates killing. A gunman can easily walk into an estate and shoot someone dead knowing that he is killing a Protestant or Catholic as the case may be because they live in that estate.
The Commission stressed 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 in order to encourage people. In fact, I read this matter over the summer with councillors representing the SDLP and the OUP at a youth conference in Carlingford, County Louth. This suggestion received worthy support from them and I find that encouraging.
The commission appears to recognise the necessity for talks with Sinn Féin and the UDA. Over the summer we have seen great progress towards the opening of minds and people sitting down to actually discuss what can be done. In this respect, the commission says that such talks with Sinn Féin are necessary in order to test that party's commitment to the constitutional process. When we talk about the Hume-Adams talks that needs to be considered also.
The report quotes Dr. Brice Dickson, Professor of Law at the University of Ulster, as stating that:
Only one initiative is likely to lead to a significant reduction in the level of anti-security force violence in Northern Ireland. This is the holding of talks between representatives of Sinn Féin [and the UDA] and the British Government, [probably civil servants in the first instance]. Unpalatable as it is, it may be that such talks will have to occur.
The question is how can this be done especially when such parties depend on their lack of establishment acceptability for their own credibility. It is a "Catch 22". They have no incentive to renounce violence and should be encouraged to the negotiating table by opening informal channels of communications. What I see as the enlightened procedure of the Hume-Adams talks started that process, and I firmly believe something good will come out of that.
The report articulates new thoughts which break out of the stagnation. These must be recognised and worked upon by all concerned. In coming to grips with the realities of Northern Ireland compromise and understanding are required. These are in short supply in a state where the fundamental concept of democracy is absent. The report gives the powers that be an opportunity to shift position, to look again, to talk. I sincerely hope something comes of it.
I would also like to pay tribute to the memory of the late Professor Torkel Opsahl. I was saddened to learn of his untimely death during the summer. He gave generously of his time in chairing the commission that produced this report. He was a peacemaker in the real sense of that word and I know that when peace comes to our country — and please God it will come in the very near future — then his good deeds will not be forgotten.
The achievement of the Opsahl report, A Citizens' Inquiry inspired by a group of Northern intellectuals calling themselves Initiative '92, is that it makes it possible for the voice of Northern Ireland people to be heard above the din of paramilitary violence and political argument. A Citizens' Inquiry is the outcome of a unique experiment asking the people of Northern Ireland for their ideas out of the violent deadlock which has gripped their region for the last 25 years. It is an attempt to create a shared space where dialogue and debate can begin to take place among citizens as well as politicians.
One thing is clear from the Initiative '92 exercise and that is that the people of Northern Ireland want dialogue at every level. One of the great achievements of the inquiry's authors was that, having made 25 recommendations themselves, the 3,000 people to whom they spoke came up with another 300 recommendations. By listening, the commission not only records the opinions of the commission but also records the opinions of many people who would otherwise have remained unheard.
The recommendations cover a wide range of subjects and extend beyond the inevitable arguments over the Constitution to take in justice, the economy, social issues, poverty and questions relating to religion, culture and identity. They provide a basis for action and for future discussion which is one of the most necessary objectives of the exercise. There is a desire for political structures to be set in place which are seen to be accountable so that the people begin to feel they can exercise some control over their own lives.
A major issue highlighted in the Opsahl report is that the people of Northern Ireland are deprived of the basic political right to choose the members of their own legislative forum. Those appointed by the Westminster Administration to run their affairs are not answerable in any way to the people of the region. This point was mentioned by Senator Gallagher earlier. This state of affairs is not only undemocratic but has led to diminished responsibility on the part of the Northern Ireland electorate and their political leaders. The people of Northern Ireland cannot remove from office those who make decisions that govern their lives and, likewise, those who make the political decisions never have to face the electorate in Northern Ireland. In these circumstances, is it really any wonder that non-constitutional parties thrive?
Other factors add to the complexity of the conflict. Demographic changes recorded in the 1991 census show that the Catholic population comes to 42 per cent, and is probably rising, while the Protestant population is at 54 per cent and most likely falling. "What is all the more disconcerting", Mark Brannock wrote in The Irish Times, “is the relative speed of the changes”.
Some 20 years ago, the Catholic population stood at 35 per cent. This population has increased by 7 per cent in the last two decades and so the religious divide narrows. The report also states that the religious divide is striking in geographical terms. Almost every local authority west of the river Bann has a Catholic majority. The counties of Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone have Catholic majorities. This means there are now two minorities in Northern Ireland — one east of the Bann and the other west of it.
There is also the problem of physical segregation which is noticeable in the urban areas, especially in Belfast and Derry. Over the past 20 years the Protestant population in Derry has moved across the Foyle to the Waterside so that there are now in fact two Derrys — Catholic Derry on the west bank and Protestant Londonderry on the Waterside. In the Waterside there is a feeling that the other side has won; Protestants have excluded themselves by choice.
On reading the chapter in the report on Culture, Religion, Identity and Education, I was saddened by the fact that after 25 years there is still mistrust and misunderstanding between the two religious communities. Religion may not be the prime cause of the conflict but it certainly is a potent component of it. The report states that this is probably more so for Protestants than for Catholics. It was evident in more than one submission that the real hate figures for Protestants are likely to be priests or the Pope, while for Catholics they are almost certain to be loyalist politicians, the RUC or the UDR.
The key recomendation of the report is on the legal recognition of Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland. There is a strong case for the incorporation of a general provision in a revised Northern Ireland constitutional Act to guarantee that there is no direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion but that all members of both communities and traditions are entitled to equality of treatment or esteem.
This idea is running through many of the proposals made by the people of Northern Ireland. The Opsahl recommendations give it focus and do not under-estimate the quality of the change of attitude it requires on the part of the United Kingdom and of the unionist community. It does not change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, it does not affect the Union, but it does recognise a shift in the perceived character of Northern Ireland from being what it patently is not, a wholly unionist state, to what is increasingly clear that it is, a region shared by unionism and Irish nationalism.
The Opsahl Commission saw the legal recognition of Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland as fundamental to the creation of any Northern Ireland government, a creation which is regarded as essential to meet the strongly expressed wish of the Northern Ireland population across the board who want to have a political authority immediately responsible to them. It has been considered that the nationalist community will not accept any form of unionist government again. There can never be another Stormont. It follows that a regional government for Northern Ireland should be put in place based on the principle that each community has an equal right in making and excluding the laws or a veto on their execution, and equally shared administrative authority.
The significance of this proposal is two fold. First, it is premised on the necessity for any solution to the problem in the North of Ireland to be based on building trust and confidence between the two communities so that each comes to see each other as a community without which a worthwhile political future cannot be constructed. Secondly, it assumes a recognition that, however protected by its rights and liberties it might be in the North of Ireland, the nationalist community is bound to feel its minority status derived from partition as a continual source of insecurity. It is for this reason that only equal authority in government can remove that second class status. The unionist community would be able to feel more secure at the growth of the Catholic population in the North of Ireland in the knowledge that there can be no more moves towards a united Ireland.
Much comment has been made about the recommendations in the Opsahl report concerning contact with Sinn Féin. A careful reading of the report will show that it does not recommend that Sinn Féin be brought into the constitutional process. However, it does recommend that informal ways be found to test Sinn Féin's commitment to the constitutional process and that those seeking peace, either directly or indirectly, should open discussions with Sinn Féin with a view to persuading the IRA to move towards a de-escalation in the level of violence and eventually a ceasefire.
For that reason I welcome the informal discussions which are taking place between Mr. John Hume and Mr. Gerry Adams. I also admire the brave statement made this morning by the Reverend Martin Smyth. This could be the first step in bringing Sinn Féin to the negotiating table. Sinn Féin must be helped to the negotiating table by opening informal channels of communication, which is more constructive than pouring insults upon the heads of that party's members. I know many people, especially in the North of Ireland, who have suffered at the hands of one side or the other, have good reason for ostracising the representatives of non-constitutional politics. However, the alternative to talking is to condemn others to yet more suffering. In these circumstances public opinion, which has been conditioned to respond with ritualistic social outrage at the mention of Sinn Féin, must be allowed to embrace unorthodox ideas such as those expressed in the Opsahl report.
If the Opsahl report does nothing more than remind us that it is permissible to take up political positions it will have been worthwhile and will, in time, become a lasting memorial to the late Professor Torkel Opsahl, Chairman of the commission which produced the report which now bears his name.
In my maiden address last February I made one or two requests. The first was that the Seanad should discuss the Opsahl report and I thank the House for doing so. I must apologise to you, Sir, and to Members of this House because when it was agreed that the Opsahl report would be discussed I had already arranged to be on holiday in America and was unable to attend. I regret that it took two and a half months before I received a copy of the Statements made in the Seanad that day.
I owe you another apology because I am in the middle of a speaking tour in Scotland. I was surprised to learn last Thursday that the Seanad was taking Statements on the Opsahl report today. I hope I do not look as tired as I feel because I addressed 200 people in Motherwell last night, received a 6 o'clock call this morning, flew over on the first flight and will be addressing 400 people who have paid to hear me talk tonight in Airdrie. This means that I cannot be here for the conclusion of Statements on the Opsahl report today.
May I suggest to Senator Norris that if he wants publicity he should talk to me because I get far too much; perhaps I could help him to get more.
I speak as an Independent. I do not represent the Government side; I do not represent unionism nor do I represent Protestantism. I have no mandate to represent any of those groups or parties. Perhaps I am a little different in that, in a way, I claim dual nationality. I have to be Irish and I am proud to be Irish because I was born, reared and educated in the Republic of Ireland. I have now lived for 48 years in the North of Ireland. I can be no other than be Irish, but I am also British. I pay my taxes to the British tax collector. I owe my allegiance as such, because I reside in Northern Ireland, to the sovereign power and, therefore, I am proud also to be British. Perhaps that makes me the odd man out, I do not know, but I make no apology for being both.
I would not want to say anything today which might inflame passions; God knows many things have been said which have done just that. However, I want to make one or two reflections, for want of a better word, on the situation in Northern Ireland and especially in relation to the Opsahl report. There is a very complex and serious situation in Northern Ireland which is getting worse. I said publicly about ten days ago that perhaps we were not just creeping into civil war, but that we were already in a state of civil war. A fear does stalk the land and the killings and the bombings continue. There is no simple answer as far as I can see. I do not have any fancy or pretentious words which might lead to a solution nor do I have any code words, and we get plenty of them. I make a clear distinction between facts and opinions. I have to speak in one syllable words because I do not know any other.
I was one of those who made a submission to the Opsahl Commission — that time it was called Initiative '92. Like the other speakers I was very saddened that Professor Opsahl, whom I met and who struck me as a great man, died suddenly during the summer. I saw the Opsahl Commission as an opportunity provided to me and to thousands of others to think and say something from the point of view of the man and woman in the street about the sadness and the problem that is Northern Ireland. This was an opportunity to talk not about the past, we all know about the past, but to consider the present and to look towards the future.
When submitting my views to the Opsahl Commission I made it clear that they were my views at that time because the situation is volatile and can change almost on a daily basis. I tried to consider the way forward, not in a Utopian way but one which could be realistically achieved. I argued that the religious element in the equation in Northern Ireland as opposed to the Christian element is far stronger than many people would perhaps admit, but a political solution is needed. We are two communities and I do not need to remind the Members of this House that this is the case. We are two tribes, we have two loyalties, we have two traditions, both with differing aspirations and fears.
I said the world is tired of the Irish problem. For too long we have been shouting when we should have been talking and talking when we should have been listening, and now we are killing — 3,000 graves and more in 24 years and one more this morning. The great majority of people in Ireland, North and South, are longing, working and praying for peace.
I also said that, in my opinion, we would not achieve peace until terrorism from both sides stops. I am not talking, and was not, about a conditional ceasefire: I was talking about an abandonment of the armed struggle, and that was what I asked of those people from the Irish Republican Army when I met them. I met them not to negotiate or to mediate. I spoke for me and for Marie Wilson; I spoke of my loss; I spoke of those who had themselves suffered loss, and I asked them on the grounds of common humanity, to think again. I said there must be another and better way for them to achieve their aims. I met a brick wall.
I was greatly heartened this morning to hear what the Rev. Martin Smyth had said. If nothing else it will let many people see that the unionists in Northern Ireland are not as intransigent as many people would say. I was glad that the Taoiseach was very quick to give Martin Smyth credit for what he said. Things are moving in Northern Ireland, I have no doubt about that.
I also said in my submission that we owe peace to the next generation. My generation has let them down. I spent two days last weekend in Warrington at the launch of what is being called the Warrington Project, the people of Warrington are looking at ways in which they can help because of their common loss. There were fine speakers and delegates there — I was there — and many of them spoke about what young people can do and what my generation can do to help the young people towards a more peaceful Ireland.
I said in my submission that we need to ask honest questions of ourselves and of others, to offer the hand of friendship and trust — as the Taoiseach did to me when he nominated me to be a Member of this House; to listen to those answers and to accept the handshakes in good faith and trust. I said that we should agree to hold on to and work on what we have in common in Northern Ireland, not least and most importantly, our Maker, and to talk about, but not under threat, what we do not have in common and to respect the other man's or woman's point of view. Lastly, I said in my submission that we need to agree a constitutional settlement which would abide within the rule of law and that we should and must maintain what is called the high moral ground. Now, seven or eight months later I do not withdraw one word of that.
To be honest, I also said in my submission that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution must be removed or at least altered. I know there are men and women in this House who will not agree but I have to repeat that, to my mind, these Articles are a hindrance to peace. I could and would happily accept an aspiration but a statement of fact, as I read these Articles to contain, I cannot accept.
I want to ask a number of questions. There are hundreds of thousands of fundamentally decent and honourable people, especially young people in both communities in Northern Ireland who can and are working, living and playing together and who want to communicate but some of them, just below the surface, have their fears. Let us do or say nothing in this House today that will increase those fears; rather let us try to assuage them.
How many in the minority community in Northern Ireland would not now prefer a peaceful Ireland to a united Ireland? How can we in the Republic allay the genuine fears of the majority in Northern Ireland if they feel they are being pushed into a minority? How many folk in the Republic of Ireland genuinely want the people of Northern Ireland in their intray? How many in this House realise that many members of the majority community say to me daily that their sovereign power is at Westminster and they ask me why this Government should have any say in how they are governed? This Government they say talks a great deal about its concerns for the majority in Northern Ireland but has given nothing. I am simply repeating the questions I am being asked. These people are not bigots, they are moderates so one can imagine what the bigots and hard-liners are saying in the majority community. People may not like what I say but these are genuine concerns.
My colleagues will perhaps expect me to mention the Hume-Adams talks and the proposals which they concern. Of course I do not know what the proposals are but, thankfully, I am wise enough not to comment until I do, as John Hume and the Taoiseach have asked. However, I appeal to the Government not to be seen to be negotiating with terrorists who will want to agree a settlement with a gun in one hand and a bomb in the other, which would cause great apprehension to many people, North and South.
The solution to the problems in Northern Ireland can be achieved only by the democratically elected politicians within Northern Ireland who must sit around a table and talk until they come up with an agreement acceptable to both communities — not an agreement imposed by Northern Ireland Ministers from Westminster who leave after three weeks. I heard a story last week about a new Minister coming to Northern Ireland and when he arrived at Heathrow airport and produced his ticket he apologised because he did not have his passport. He was coming to work for us.
The alternative to peace is unthinkable and the prospects when we get it are immeasurable. We need a vision, we need a visionary and I cannot believe that there is not one around. Let us all try to achieve that peace. The Opsahl report has helped us on our way and has already proved worthwhile.
I feel inadequate addressing this topic after Senator Wilson. We have one thing in common — I think we are the only two people in either House who have made a presentation to the Opsahl Commission. I made a written and an oral submission on behalf of my organisation, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, which is based in the North and South. To hark back to the point made by Senator Gallagher, my submission covered the area of education and educating both communities together. It was a tough and rough session because while in the South my organisation represents people from the Catholic and Protestant communities which does not create a problem, in the North, unfortunately, the vast majority of our members tend to be from the Catholic community.
Dick Gaughan, the Scottish folk singer, said that peace will not come by words alone and I think that Professor Opsahl was the living embodiment of that. He was prepared to give his time, commitment and space to try to achieve something in Northern Ireland. He and his commission were extraordinarily impressive in the detail to which they went to address issues and difficulties experienced by people from all communities. The extraordinary aspect of the Opsahl Commission and report and the way it operated through Initiative ‘92 was that there were no preconditions to discussion. I agree with Senator Wilson about that idea of openness, interaction and communication. One aspect of his speech confused me, I will come to it later.
I could tell Senator Wilson's joke about the Minister arriving in Northern Ireland in ten different ways. There is nothing as frustrating for somebody like myself as dealing with politicians in Belfast who have no responsibility to citizens in Northern Ireland. They have a responsibility to a constituency in Peterborough, Newcastle or London, know nothing about the people in Northern Ireland and are, therefore, under no democratic or representational pressure to deal with the problems with which people live in the North all the time. Trying to deal with Northern Ireland Ministers makes a strong case for ensuring some form of democratic assembly. They are remote from the people whom they represent. I am not saying that they might not be individually sound people but they are too far removed from the reality of Northern Ireland.
I was happy to be part of the organisation of the huge demonstration in Belfast last year against the cruel and horrible Teebane Cross massacre. This morning there was an attempt to do exactly the same thing. Should one say that, luckily, only one person was killed, which seem an extraordinary comment in these times? It was the same idea of attacking people going to work. We all react differently to horrors in Northern Ireland but the two issues which hit home hardest are a person in the security of his or her own home being shot in front of his or her children and workers being attacked going to or coming from work. It reemphasises the difficulties in the North.
In response to the list of questions which Senator Wilson put to us, I do not think there is any need to answer them in an apologetic way. We have been walking on eggs for far too long in dealing with Northern problems. It is easy in Northern Ireland — and I find this myself any time I go to Belfast — to talk about television, sport and the weather but difficult to talk about religion, politics and peace. One of the reasons I welcomed Deputy Spring's statement earlier in the summer when he called a spade a spade — which caused an outcry and he did move his position somewhat afterwards — is that it is critically important people say what they believe. It is also critically important to know where people stand and that their objectives and proposed direction are clearly enunciated and described. There can be no room for double-think or double-talk.
The Hume-Adams talks, to which I would refer as a constitutional dialogue, have elicited an extraordinary response which seems to focus on John Hume and Gerry Adams. I do not see it that way. I discussed this with John Hume on a number of occasions and in the last round of talks, three or four years ago, I discussed it at some length with him when few politicians in the South gave any support to talks. The talks at that time did not meet with success and I was glad that although the talks were not successful, nevertheless they were both prepared to try again. This is not an apologia for Sinn Féin and their support of murderous, barbaric deeds but simply a recognition of the reality that they are in an influential position and cannot be ignored.
I have been listening carefully over the last two or three weeks to the various comments about the Northern scene. Nothing epitomises the difficulty more than the statements of Sir Patrick Mayhew. On the one hand, he says he is not prepared to enter into or support talks with Sinn Féin but, on the other, he recognises that Mr. John Hume will use his judgment in the best way possible to make progress with Sinn Féin. This is an extraordinary double-think which I fully appreciate and support.
As someone involved in negotiations on a day to day basis, I know it is important at some stages to cavil at the ninth part of a hair. Similarly, over the past weekend Sir Patrick Mayhew, who would not speak to Sinn Féin — and he is correct not to — said the only message he wanted to hear from Mr. Gerry Adams was one of peace or one which suggested that he would disarm or turn his back on terrorism. How will Sir Patrick Mayhew get that message? This is where the difficulty lies in relation to the talks taking place. I recognise that constitutional parties should not find space for those who are apologists for terrorism or who support or speak in the name of terrorism. Nevertheless, I am also pragmatic and recognise that the army council of the IRA and their loyalist parallels exist. A solution which does not in some way impact on them — and I choose that word carefully — is no solution.
Senator Wilson clearly said that thousands of people in the North are peace loving and law-abiding people, regardless of which way they vote or what their aspirations might be. The number of people who bomb and shoot is a tiny minority, nevertheless, they exist. I am worried that we will be left with the violent legacy of the paramilitaries on both sides, in spite of the progress we make in peace talks with the two main communities. The reason I say that is because it is axiomatic in negotiations for compromise to form part of a resolution. It is also axiomatic that terrorists do not understand the language of compromise or movement. Therefore, it becomes crucially important to include them in a peripheral way in whatever discussions take place.
Although I do not see a place for Sinn Féin in the constitutional assembly — where the constitutional parties assemble to discuss a solution to the general problems of Northern Ireland — we cannot find a long term peaceful resolution without making an impact on and controlling in some way the army councils of the various paramilitary organisations. I do not know how to achieve this, but I have great sympathy for people like Sir Patrick Mayhew and Mr. John Hume and I admire the statement today by Rev. Martin Smyth. Anyone who puts his head above the parapet in that way takes huge risks for which he must be complimented. It does not matter whether they are right or wrong, they are motivated by correct and laudable forces and we must respect their judgment in this case.
We must look at the various commitments which have been given and we must continue to state them. In relation to talks, unionists are entitled to aspire to maintain the union with Westminster and nationalists are entitled to aspire to a united Ireland. There are many opinions between those two views. If people put conditions on what can and cannot be discussed at peace or resolution talks, then they deserve to be exposed. For too long, too many politicians have been allowed to say: "I will only talk if" or: "I will only discuss if". Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement determines that any change will be by consent. Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution aspire to a united Ireland. The Unionists' position is also enshrined in legislation which ties them to Westminster. Those are the three realities. Anyone taking part in the talks cannot do so on the basis that he will only discuss certain matters. Everything must be on the table at all times.
I compliment the Taoiseach for restating at the weekend that he would not be adverse to putting a modification to Articles 2 and 3 to a referendum. This was a substantial move forward for a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach. It is a clear signal to people that if this is the way we want to move forward then so be it. I want to qualify that immediately by saying that the last time a motion was debated in this House about whether Articles 2 and 3 should be changed, I voted against it. If it appeared again tomorrow morning, I would still vote against it. I would be prepared in a particular context or circumstance to look for a change to Articles 2 and 3. However, I do not want it done to establish our credibility. We must enter negotiations, as the Taoiseach is now saying, and be prepared to change it if that is what is required. We should not do it to establish a street credibility at negotiations.
The approach in the North has been too stand-offish. What has happened over the last two or three months is healthy in that more people are saying what they feel, what they believe, what they are trying to achieve and stating their aspirations and long term objectives. If Mr. Ian Paisley must sit across the table from someone who has a strong nationalist viewpoint and accept that there are opposite points of view being addressed, then when those two opposite points have been stated they do not need to be stated again and people can try to find a resolution.
People have talked about the ANC and the PLO and have tried to compare them with the IRA and paramilitaries in the North. The ANC and the PLO were a stateless and voiceless people without franchise. At least everyone in the North has a vote. The same case can never be made in support of paramilitaries in the North as has been made in other places. However, the lesson we can learn from the PLO and which should be continuously stated is that the PLO rejected violence and moved forward. If there is a possibility that Sinn Féin are involved in the same process, I want to encourage them along that road. That is why I believe talk is good and that it needs to be encouraged.
I am delighted we are again discussing the report of the Opsahl Commission. Over the past number of weeks some people have suggested that the recommendations of the Opsahl Commission are not as important as they would have been when the report was first published, that they have been superseded by various talks since then and that this House would be better served by dealing with some other issues regarding the situation in Northern Ireland, rather than the Opsahl report. I do not agree with this. For the first time in the North an attempt was made to include the general public in a discussion on their future. This included people from all sides of the political and religious spectrums in the North and indeed those who are not part of them.
The discussions that took place over many months will be very relevant when governments eventually sit down and constitutional arrangements are made which will dictate what happens to the North. This is regardless of whether it will be a federal state, incorporated into some sort of united Ireland or stays as it is, a political entity but with better security for all the citizens of the North.
We congratulate Professor Opsahl, Lady Faulkner, Eamonn Gallagher, Professor Ruth Lister, Padraig O'Malley, Professor Marianne Elliott and Rev. Dr. Eric Gallagher and those, apart from the commission, who did outstanding work in assembling and presenting the report and summarising the recommendations for general consumption. Nobody suggests that the recommendations of the Opsahl Commission will form the basis of the North's future, politically, constitutionally or otherwise. Nevertheless, the 25 recommendations by the commission are of major importance as they come from the general public and not from sources which could be said to be contaminated by politics; they did not come from political institutions but from the people.
There is a body of opinion which suggests that the Hume-Adams talks should not have taken place and that they present a barrier to any future settlement in the North. I disagree with that premise. I am very disappointed that certain commentators, particularly in the Sunday Independent, seem to have taken it upon themselves to suggest that John Hume is a traitor, that he has no credibility, and is a man of the past.
John Hume will be recognised as a man of the present, a man of the past and a man of the future by people of all persuasions in the North and indeed on the world stage. He will be so recognised when many of these so-called political commentators in the Sunday Independent will have long gone back to where they came from. Some of them admitted that they have been elected to this House to represent the unionist people of the North. I think that Senator Ross said that on many occasions in this House.
On a point of order, I have never said anything of the sort in this House but I do not expect Senator Lanigan to be any more accurate in his statements about that than he is about Mr. Hume.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of fact.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am sure the Senator will have an opportunity to clarify the matter.
The situation is as I outlined. If people of stature talk from experience, they should be listened to and their recommendations, when we know them in full, taken into account when there are future talks at official level. There are those who say that terrorists should never be accommodated by talking to them or taking their views into account. That suggestion must be disregarded. Today's terrorists will be next year's governments and this has happened——
Up the IRA, yes.
——all over the world. People criticise the incident in Tiananmen Square but seem to conveniently forget what happened in Derry in the 1960s. People have talked about what happened in Africa, the Middle East, Russia and various other places. We listen today to so-called terrorists who then take over and become the legitimate government.
I have no time for murderers, from the IRA or other organisations. I stated in this House on many occasions that murder is murder and I will not withdraw those statements. I have been criticised and indeed at times there has been more than criticism from supporters of the IRA for my statements of fact about murder. Having said that, there must be a place for every section of the community in the North if we are to have peace and protect the lives of its people.
We cannot exclude the opinions of the most extravagant unionist or ignore the most extravagant nationalist. We have to take their positions into account to resolve our problems North and South and, by extension, in England arising from the bombs planted there.
There will be no early resolution of the problem of the North. The Opsahl Commission report, the Hume-Adams discussions or talks between Irish and British TDs and MPs will not achieve that. However, if there is a genuine attitude of reconciliation on both sides and the aspirations of both elements in the North are taken into account, there can be a resolution of the problem in the not too distant future.
I do not agree with those who say that the problems of the North can be solved by a simple majority vote. If 49 per cent of people disagree with a resolution in a referendum, there is no point in suggesting that there would be any hope of a peaceful resolution. If 49 per cent disagree the violence and problems between the two communities in the North will continue.
Senator O'Toole mentioned the PLO and I agree that there is huge difference between the attitude of the Israeli Government towards the PLO and the attitude of the British Government towards the nationalists in the North. As he said, the PLO were stateless people according to the Israelis whereas at least the people of the North have birth and marriage certificates and their passports do not say "stateless person"— indeed the PLO carried a letter of credence to allow them to travel from one country to another on a very limited basis.
It has been said that if Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution were eliminated, the British subjects, unionists in the North, would change their minds. Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which has not been repealed states:
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliaments of Southern and Northern Ireland, or the Parliament of Ireland, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Ireland and every part thereof.
We have Articles 2 and 3 in the Constitution which the unionists in the North want to get rid of but the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, gives supreme authority to the Parliament of the United Kingdom over all persons, matters and things in Ireland and every part thereof. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that we have a parliament of our own, under the Government of Ireland Act, they consider themselves to have supreme authority over us.
Much has also been made of the suggestion that the Catholic Church plays too big a role in Irish current affairs and there are many people who would agree with that. However, we must also take into account section 65 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which states:
It is hereby declared that existing enactments relative to unlawful oaths or unlawful assemblies in Ireland do not apply to the meetings or proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Ireland, or of any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge.
That means that the Grand Lodge of the Order of Freemasons can have unlawful meetings and if the Grand Lodge recognises another society it, also, is outside the legalities to which everybody else must adhere.
Section 65 also states:
Neither the Parliament of Southern Ireland, nor the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall have power to abrogate or affect prejudicially any privilege or exemption of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons in Ireland, or any lodge or society recognised by that Grand Lodge which is enjoyed either by law or custom at the time of passing of this Act, and any law made in contravention of this provision shall, so far as it is in contravention of this provision, be void.
The British Government can declare that the privileges of the Grand Lodge of Freemasons' can be withdrawn but under section 65 they cannot be withdrawn. There are anomalies which must be taken into account by both sides. If Articles 2 and 3 are, as is suggested, inhibiting factors, so also are sections 65 and 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. There are those in Britain who would say that the Anglo-Irish Agreement removes these sections of the Government of Ireland Act but that is not true because that Act has never been repealed.
Where do we go from here? Many of the recommendations in the Opsahl report have been suggested by many other people over many years. Now they are brought together cohesively in a series of recommendations and that is important. A number of people have suggested that this report is naive and is written by naive people. However, 90 per cent of problems — whether in politics, family or business — are not resolved by academics and the naive addressing of a problem will usually resolve that problem. If people sit and discuss the kernel of the matter, they can arrive an at answer which comes from the head and the heart and it can be naive. Some people would suggest that the naive paintings from Aranmore are better than the non naive paintings of Picasso. I would prefer to look at a naive painting from the west of Ireland than look at a Picasso any day. Naivety is not a problem and it is not important to me if there is a naive perception in this report.
The Opsahl Commission should be highly commended on their report. The condensed version should be sent to anybody who has an interest in politics or in the resolution of the problems in the North of Ireland. The Opsahl Commission is trying to stop people killing each other in the name of religion or politics and we must support anybody who works hard to achieve that goal. We had another indication today of the brutality of people in the North of Ireland. That brutality must be eliminated. There is no point in looking to the past to eliminate it, we must go forward and the recommendations of the Opsahl Commission are a step forward.
I regret the passing of Professor Opsahl. I was saddened that Senator Lanigan, who made some excellent points, beat the old drum of Republicanism in the South by passing remarks about a fellow Senator. It is not anybody's fault or loss that they are born into a different religion. If that is the spirit of goodwill being exercised here, I regret it very much. Senator Lanigan should withdraw some of his remarks.
I will not withdraw any remark I made.
The tragedy of Northern Ireland existed long before I was born but the present violence has lasted for 25 years. In that time more than 3,000 people have been killed and 20,000 injured and maimed. How many thousand people have been injured mentally? How many young people witnessed the execution of their parents in their homes? That is another aspect of the tragedy of Northern Ireland to which we have become hardened. One of the saddest things to be heard is when senior Irish politicians refer to the North of Ireland as "up there". Up where, I ask? Is it up in the sky? Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland; it is not "up" anywhere. I believe that those politicians in the South who refer to "up there" wish the problems of Northern Ireland to remain up there and want to distance themselves from them.
A parent visited me recently whose daughter had been attending a school in Derry for the past 12 months. His daughter has now transferred to UCD. While that student was in the North the local county council paid maintenance in respect of that pupil but the fees did not have to be paid. Now that the student is attending UCD, where she is taking a first year course, her fees must be paid by her parents. Such situations, where a student from the South can be educated free in the North, have not been highlighted often enough. What is so terribly wrong with the North of Ireland when it comes to education? Recently it was arranged that 500 patients awaiting hip operations in this country would have those operations done in the North. That arrangement is another example of how people can co-operate and live together on the one island.
There has been too much hype recently about the talks between Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. John Hume. In my book Mr. John Hume has been and is a brave Irishman. He was born in the North of Ireland and of a different religion to the majority but he always represented the voice of peace and living with one's fellow man. What has really happened is that at last the message has got through to Sinn Féin that the murder, the violence and the damage cannot go on indefinitely. They may have got soundings from the IRA who may also have had a change of heart or a change of direction.
While all of this is happening it is only part of a much larger issue and if, in the morning, the IRA stopped their campaign of violence against fellow Irish people there are many other issues that would have to be addressed. There are many other organisations who deal in violence and have shown that they can indulge in as vicious and dangerous a campaign as the IRA ever launched. There is no doubt that the spokespersons for the Irish Government are right when they ask the media and other commentators to wait and not to be in a hurry to comment but to give peace a chance. Peace has always been given a chance on this island by those who believe in peace, by those who have tolerance, by those who can see beyond the past and by those who want to go forward. Some of the remarks I heard here this afternoon make me wonder.
One of the attitudes in the South which has done a lot of harm with regard to the perception the Unionist population in the North has been the double-speak of some of our leaders which says "I am against violence and murder but..." It has been said that we should take the gun out of Irish politics, however, it is only when that "but" is taken out of politics that people will be able to move on.
Another issue about which I feel strongly is people talking about the two communities in the North. As I said here some months ago, in the last 25 years an opportunity existed for a third community in the North, that is, the people who want peace and who want a future on this island for themselves and their families. This island has much to offer in historical and cultural terms, for tourism, industry and advancement. It is sad and heart-breaking to see and hear the ongoing campaign of violence. It is our duty as politicians in the South to refrain at all times from making any remarks that can be interpreted in the wrong way. At present, with the media so alert, the wrong signal can mean the loss of life or another bomb or attack. The Unionist population in the North of Ireland are realists and soundings in recent times have shown that they are prepared to live with their fellow human beings on this island although they come from a different political and religious background.
Regrettably since the Seanad began debating the Opsahl report last July, Professor Opsahl has died. Like so many great pioneers he has not lived to see to fruition the vast amount of work he put into moving forward a problem that existed in what was, for him, a foreign country. All of us in Ireland, North and South, are grateful to him for the selflessness he displayed in becoming involved and the best way we can show our gratitude is by taking this report seriously and using it as a basis for progress.
I would like to say a word of praise for the Opsahl process, quite apart from the content of the report. It is a tremendous step forward in the Northern Ireland context that this commission could come into being and then be taken seriously. In effect, it has created another forum for discussion, another channel for development apart altogether from the way of violence on the one hand and the existing political framework on the other.
Many felt at the outset that after more than 20 years of the latest troubles and all the failed initiatives, the Opsahl Commission would be more of the same and that people would not bother with it. The response to the commission has been encouraging. It has shown that the people of Northern Ireland are still intensely interested in discussing their future. They see many different ways forward and they are anxious to have new opportunities for discussion opened up.
What is even more encouraging is that those behind Initiative '92 see the Opsahl Commission and its report as only part of a process, the first step. They intend to continue this process and I have no doubt it will have an important role to play in the evolving future of Northern Ireland. It may put pressure on those involved in the political process to realise that they do not have a monopoly on all fora. The people want to be involved and they have something to offer in this discussion.
Let us turn from the process to the content of the report. No one reading the report can be in any doubt that the exercise was justified. Reading it should give pause to anyone who thinks Northern Ireland is at a dead end or that there is no way forward other than outcomes impossible in practical terms for one side or the other.
Since we first debated this report in July, an agreement was reached between Mr. Arafat and Mr. Rabin in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel. They were able to come to solutions to problems which looked intractable. I am not suggesting the Opsahl report identifies easy solutions — as there were none in Israel. To expect that would be foolish. However, there are possible ways forward and the report highlights dramatically that in order to move forward everyone in the equation, including the people in the South, will have to shed some cherished aspirations. This is the key point of the exercise.
We all have solutions for Northern Ireland that somehow are merely recipes for capitulation by other parties. We in the South are inclined to say if only people would agree to the prospect of a united Ireland we could make many concessions to accommodate various traditions and sensitivities. We are willing to be generous on fringe issues as long as we obtain the core of what we want. In that scenario, someone wins on the main issue and another party loses. That will never form the basis for a way forward. Our challenge is to find a way to enable everyone to win while realising every person has to lose on some issues. The real test of fairness is whether a solution causes every person to relinquish some of his aspirations. There can be no winning without losing. There will be no resolution of this problem unless winning and losing are equally shared. Lasting peace in Northern Ireland will never be found by realising the aspirations of one side only. It will be found by looking in other directions.
No one may want these solutions now but perhaps in the future everyone will be able to live with them. The Opsahl report has put before us a range of new directions, not just the recommendations of the commission but many other ideas put to it. None of these ideas can be turned into a magic wand but setting them out has convinced me, and I hope many others, that the situation is fluid rather than frozen and our options are many.
For many years we have kept our heads down when it came to this problem; maybe we are too close to this problem. Occasionally one needs to stand back and see the problem as a whole and look at all its aspects instead of the few which have proved to be intractable over the last five years. One step we can take is to come to terms with what we are prepared to lose in order to bring about lasting peace in Ireland. The way forward is to contemplate creating a future we recognise will be painful for us but that will be fair to all parties and therefore acceptable.
Senator Wilson said we have been talking when we should have been listening. As the proverb says — I think it is an Irish one — God gave us two ears and one mouth so we would listen twice as much as we talk. The Opsahl Commission may have given us the opportunity to do that in regard to Northern Ireland.
As usual, it has been a privilege to listen to Senator Quinn and to hear him challenging each of us to examine his or her opinion with a view to seeing whether we contribute to a better understanding as distinct from confirming entrenched attitudes.
There have been a number of significant developments since we last addressed this issue in July and the publication of this report on 9 June, not least was the tragic death of Professor Opsahl who made a major contribution to bringing about a better understanding and a hope and expectation of a basis for peace. This is in the great tradition of the Norwegian people. In this as in the recent Middle East discussions they have proved themselves consistently to be honest brokers for peace.
The Norwegian role in the Middle East talks led to a successful conclusion in the shape of the understanding, for the moment, between the PLO and Israel. It is significant that those confidential negotiations were conducted on the basis of trust and understanding, taking account of the difficulties that always arise when former enemies come to address each other across a table for peace. They could not have reached the conclusion they did had they been subjected to the full glare of the media and the misrepresentation and distortion that have been a feature of the response of the media here to what have become known as the Hume-Adams talks.
It is always a sensitive time when anyone tries to make contact with those who might be associated or were associated with people engaged in violence. Mr. John Hume left himself open to attack by those who wished to attack. He was open to criticism and condemnation by people who had done nothing to earn the right he has to be listened to and respected. I have witnessed how he has earned this right in his home. No one has been subjected to such intimidation as he. I was in his house when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs and representatives of those to whom he is now speaking kicked down his door and banged on his window.
It is hard to tolerate Senator Ross and Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, who have not done much to bring about understanding, who use their columns in the Sunday Independent to advance their personal views, to reinforce prejudice and distortion and to attribute to John Hume, the SDLP and those engaged in the talks motives they are aware of. It is important to stress that the views of Senator Ross and Dr. Cruise-O'Brien are only the views of individuals who have access to newsprint.
When talks take place under the glare of publicity, commentators put questions which cannot be answered immediately. They try to point out the irreconcilable positions between those who are talking and of course there are positions not easily reconciled. They can ask how they reconcile their position now with that of Sinn Féin two to three months ago or with the comments made in Los Angeles by another representative of Sinn Féin. If that been done in the Middle East talks, their conclusions would never have been reached. I know the media have a different agenda — selling their headlines in tomorrow morning's paper — but I ask them to behave responsibly and to recognise that their priority in setting up confrontation and selling the message of one individual for the sake of a headline is a shameful one by comparison with that of those seeking a basis for peace and in doing so, leaving themselves open to immediate and vulnerable attack.
If the Hume-Adams talks were moving into territories not recommended by objective groups like the Opsahl Commission, one might say there were grounds for their rejection, but they do not go nearly as far as some of the recommendations made by the Opsahl Commission in terms of the direct contact with those who are constantly engaged in violence. One of its recommendations is that the Government — either directly or through intermediaries — open discussions with Sinn Féin with a view to persuading the IRA first to move towards a de-escalation in the level of violence and eventually to a cease-fire.
I am not saying I agree with that recommendation, but when someone like John Hume, who is not representing the Government, undertakes a role, a precondition of which was that the IRA would cease violence, surely the media could behave in a reasonable and objective fashion and acknowledge that the talks are at least in line with the recommendations of the Opsahl Commission and probably did not involve the Government in the way that it recommended.
Another point I wish to make since this House last met and the report was published is about the developments in Westminster. It is not new for the priorities of a British Government to focus almost exclusively at any one time on the immediate political and parliamentary advantage of that Government. How often has the well-being of the North and the welfare of its people been put aside in the face of the first and immediate priority of the Government of the day? We have seen it again recently in the attitude and response of the British Government towards the "understanding"— a lovely euphemism — as a means of securing their advantage and majority. Its attitude in pursuit of that understanding is unfortunately, part of a consistent tradition of the British Government. We have seen similar understandings many times before in securing even a Labour Government, when they needed the votes or to be protected from the embarrassment of the Ulster Workers' Council strike. How often have they sacrificed the well-being or long term interests of the North in the interest of playing the old card if it is there to be played? This will have to be addressed as a harsh reality.
We do no service by pretending that we have not seen this regrettable response from individuals in the British Government, not in the interests of anyone in the North, but in the interests of protecting their own seats. Incidentally, I dealt with them over the years and I have had reason to believe the bona fides of many individual members of those Governments, but when the establishment interest takes precedence, then one can forget about the understanding of individual Ministers.
Regrettably, the priority of the British Government was not even in the interest of the Unionist representatives, with whom they made the arrangement. It smacked of contempt on its part towards the Unionists, that it was prepared to use them, now as before, as fodder to feed their own security priority. If it really respects the role of representatives, it would not use them on each occasion it suited, but would find a better way, which has not been evident in recent times. On the day after we published our National Development Plan, with a £20 billion allocation over a multi-annual programme, where is there evidence of a British Government proposing any such programme in the interests of all sides of those in the North? Where is the evidence of a long term economic plan, which could coincide with the plan presented here, in the interests of the economic development the whole country? Incidentally, that too was underlined and recommended by the Opsahl report but we still wait for any response from the British Government. The plan states that a strategic regional plan embracing both social and economic goals should be pursued vigorously and without delay. It endorses the many submissions in favour of greater cross-Border economic cooperation, and proposes that the creation of an appropriate cross-border economic institution be an immediate priority of the Irish Government. Where is the evidence of that in the response of the British Government? Unemployment is, unfortunately, in many areas like Strabane or the Border areas, more rampant than in the South? Where is the positive commitment to, and concern for, all of the people in the North?
Friendly countries such as Australia, Canada, the American administration and our EC partners, are all ready to support a move towards development of the long term and secure economic well-being of those in the North and South. One of the messages from the Opsahl report is that the Government most immediately responsible for it has not heeded this message.
While those may be some of the negatives things which do not give great grounds for hope, there have been positive things in the midst of all the suffering, tragedy and violence. Significantly they do not come from the British Government but from the people of Northern Ireland, even in the face of a terrible tragedy like this morning when people were gunned down on the way to work. They come from the condemnation of those we regard as being on the other side, that we do not understand. It was reassuring to hear people like Rev. Martin Smyth give his view on the talks. We should recognise the generosity of people like him in going as far as he has.
It was encouraging this morning to hear Peter Robinson condemn the attitude and actions of the loyalist paramilitaries. He may not always express himself as we would wish but at least there are signs that the fine people, who inhabit the North and who are of a different tradition, can at last give expression to their potential. It is time the British Government seriously addressed that as the first priority as distinct from the immediate priority of keeping themselves in their comfortable seats in government which, perhaps, is a priority of the government in all countries.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this novel and important report. It is novel in so far as it is different from previous reports or studies on Northern Ireland. It was conducted by a very independent group of people and it was most unfortunate that Professor Opsahl died soon after doing such tremendous good work in putting together this report. It was also different in that the ordinary people and members of the community, who are not normally heard or have a forum in which to express their views, had an opportunity to air them to the commission. That was extremely important because when all their views were combined and collated, they came up with different views from those of a group of political parties or a political setting. That gives it novelty and difference.
For each of us, North and South of the Border, ordinary members of the public or public representatives in a local or national capacity, there is a very specific lesson. We must stand back and question how we can accept many of the report's recommendations. We must admit that there are some jolting recommendations for some of us who perhaps have very specific or entrenched views in relation to the issue.
For instance, the commission believes that "marginalising Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland by means of the broadcasting ban, excluding it from local council committees and removing funding from community groups in the areas where it is strongest only plays into the hands of those who prefer to use violence." It also recommends that the Republic should consider the situation in relation to our current broadcasting ban. The South must address those matters.
Another section in the report raises questions for us in relation to the Catholic Church. The commission recommends that a study should be undertaken to examine what the Catholic church has done. It would be quite difficult for some people, particularly in the South, to accept even the suggestion of an examination of that detail into the church. It goes on to refer to the Protestant churches in Northern Ireland and calls on them to revise their formulations which give offence to Catholics. It could be very hard for both communities involved in the two religions to accept and understand such a specific recommendation. However, we should not accept or reject anything out of hand. We need to have cross-party, cross-community discussions and try to establish where there is a common chord or common sense of purpose. Unless there is that type of communication, unless people communicate with each other at all levels of society, we will not have peace.
Since this report was published, John Hume entered into informal discussions with the Sinn Féin Leader, Gerry Adams. That is something he chose to do and the Opsahl report recommended that discussions should take place with Sinn Féin. It also went on to say that before they sit down to serious negotiations, Sinn Féin would have to renounce violence. I strongly support that recommendation. John Hume is a very courageous politician, both within the island and on the European and international levels. The fact that he has taken this task onto himself must be viewed seriously by all. I wish him well and if what he is currently doing eventually brings about a situation where there can be an extensive ceasefire and cessation of violence by the IRA in Northern Ireland, then he will have done a very good job.
It is important that we in the South also realise that we have a responsibility to be understanding and tolerant. Those in public life must be extremely careful in their public pronouncements on any aspect of the situation in Northern Ireland. It is very easy to make rash statements on the issue without having to live in the community and without realising the difficulties, stresses and the huge problems with which the people in Northern Ireland are confronted daily.
The report goes on to make quite a number of recommendations in the section dealing with law, justice and security. It says that there is a need for an improvement in law and order with a view to ensuring justice. It goes on to discuss and make recommendations in relation to the reduction of violence. It admits that the single most difficult task in Northern Ireland is to reduce the level of the current violence. They make a very clear distinction, which should be clearly supported, between talks on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland and peace talks that would bring the conflict to an end and which could involve the paramilitaries. There is a very clear distinction on those two issues, that matter should be examined closely and discussed within the various political parties at every possible level where discussions can be initiated.
It is very specific on its recommendation in relation to policing and the involvement of the Nationalist community in the police force. It is also specific in regard to that community having a representative on the police bodies at executive level and having an executive role within policing. They go on to say clearly that one cannot have power and authority without automatic responsibility. This House strongly supports that recommendation. The report also states that there is a need to set up an independent commission for police complaints in the Ombudsman's office. As there is huge distrust in part of the community in relation to some police activities, the British Government should look at this recommendation seriously.
The problem of Northern Ireland is centuries old, it is founded in history. Current difficulties commenced in 1969 on the fundamental principle of human rights. The human rights movement began with people going on to the streets in order to get basic human rights, their aim for the past 25 years. The Opsahl report recommends a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights. We should support the right of the individual to human rights not just in Northern Ireland but in Europe and throughout the world. Many people do not have basic human rights because of bad and corrupt governments. That should be considered to give a sense of security and trust to those who believe they do not have basic human rights.
The report refers to discrimination, the economy and society. It makes a definite recommendation in relation to the role of women and politics in Northern Ireland. This recommendation should not be overlooked or minimised. Women, particularly where there is strife and division, have the capacity to come together to form a common bond, something which many men would be unable to do.
It is important that recommendations in relation to political parties involving women in local councils and increasing the number of women Members of Parliament and MEPs are seriously considered by the political parties in Northern Ireland. The report mentions the importance of education. It refers not only to formal schooling but to education in relation to training people as politicians and explaining how, in developed and pluralist democracies, things operate. Germany and Sweden are used as examples. It is important that women are involved in the educational process and brought into the system because they have a greater capacity to bring about peace. Approximately 98 per cent of the violence in Northern Ireland is conducted by men. Some 50 per cent of the population are women and they should be supported and encouraged by Government to become involved, to speak out and to become part of the political system so that they can do something constructive.
A recommendation was made in regard to integrated housing. We are aware of difficulties which have arisen in cities in Northern Ireland between Catholic and Protestant communities because of divided housing. It will take courage to proceed with that recommendation and financial backing will be needed to provide a support system in relation to subsidised rents, etc. or any other form of community support which would encourage people to live together. If Catholic and Protestant families live side by side, undoubtedly a spirit of goodwill, co-operation and neighbourliness will develop. It is important that this attitude is fostered.
The educational system is important. Indeed, we in the South must address the issue of interdenominational schools and the official attitude to them in regard to support, financial aid, etc. There is a clear divide between Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland. That is unhealthy because, in many cases, children are conditioned to think that they are better than other sections of the community. Where people communicate and mix, playing football or music or sitting in the same classroom, friendships are forged and lifelong bonds are created. It is important that the educational system and the recommendation on integrated education is seriously looked at.
The Government, given its role on this issue, can do a lot in relation to the recommendations of Opsahl report. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, should study this report and decide which recommendations need to be given priority. When meeting the British Government he should avail of the opportunity to urge it to implement as many of these recommendations as possible. Members of the commission have done a good job in putting together this report in a short time. It is different in that many of the ideas emanated from ordinary people. None of the submissions contained in the report believed that a solution to the Northern problem would be found in violence. We have a responsibility to ensure that the problem is solved and that no opportunity is missed in finding a solution.
Initiative '92 billed the Opsahl Commission as A Citizens' Inquiry. Sadly, but predictably, it never amounted to anything of the sort despite charitable and semi-State funding. According to Liam Clarke in the Sunday Times of 13 June 1993, the main political recommendations “were potty and unworkable”. This does not surprise me given that the initiative was led by a dismal group of academics and journalists, including Lady Faulkner, who had little to say on Northern Ireland for some time. A representative sample of opinion was not achieved and the inclusion of Mr. Andy Pollak ensured that most of the unionist parties would opt out of the initiative. In explaining the absence of unionist groups, Mr. Pollak referred to paranoia and lack of trust in themselves. The truth of the matter is that Mr. Pollak is co-author of a book which unambiguously identified Mr. Paisley as the principal obstacle in the way of peace in Northern Ireland. As it turned out most official unionists boycotted Opsahl with the exception of a few unrepresented individuals. Unionist parties are not stupid enough to submit themselves to the scrutiny of a commission guided by someone who regards a unionist who got 230,000 votes as an obstacle to peace.
The commissioners who sat tribunal-like over submissions selected by Mr. Pollak consisted of four well heeled academics, a clergyman and Lady Faulkner. No wonder so few ordinary or working class individuals came forward. Some 550 submissions were received but many were duplications, particularly on the nationalist side.
The main recommendation is for a system of regional concurrent government. This would mean not just a devolved parliament based on consociate pro-nationality but the guarantee of an equal say for both sides in decision making, irrespective of the votes won by the respective parties in an election. It is a formula which encourages the worst aspects of socio-isolationism. In short, the Opsahl recommendation would legitimise, reinforce and prolong communal sectarianism through institutional entrenchment. Clarke also says that it leaves no room for parties who do not define themselves along unionist-nationalist lines and that there is no room for an alliance of moderates across the divide unless they can carry the extremists with them. Clarke says that there seems to be no real point in elections and that political debate is reduced to perpetual brokery between two frozen tribal blocks.
Among the other recommendations of the report is that the British Government should talk to Sinn Féin regardless of whether it ends support for violence. I looked at some of the other recommendations, one of which was on integrated education. It says that while not pretending that integrated education by itself would solve the problems of a divided society like Northern Ireland, the commission is convinced that integrated schooling at all levels from nursery to sixth form is a valuable aid to the kind of reconciliation which will necessarily have to accompany any political or other accommodation. It suggests to the Irish hierarchy that it should follow the example of the British hierarchy and investigate the possibility of setting up shared schools, as part of the process of ecumenism. The amazing thing about this suggestion was that the Catholic church did not make any recommendation on integrated education. They wereasked to come forward with submissions, but they did not. It is a very sad reflection on their attitude towards this report.
The British Government issued no formal statement on the report, but a Northern Ireland Office spokesman is quoted in The Irish Times of 10 June as stating that the British Government naturally welcomed the commission's attempt to promote constructive thought and discussion. The spokesman was quoted as indicating that the British Government still believes that the best opportunity of achieving a substantial, workable and durable political accommodation lies with the talks process. That is what they thought of the talks.
The Opsahl framework is a slave to the dismal "two communities" thesis which refuses to conceive or encourage a situation in which Catholics or Protestants would be substantially other than nationalist or unionist in their politics. All the emphasis is on Protestant Irishry, without reference to the British aspects of Catholicism. Indeed, the rest of the UK may as well not exist, and further, the main UK parties were not briefed by Initiative '92, asked for any submission. It is as if Northern Ireland is an autonomous region. Robin Wilson's submissions got a four page airing compared with one page for the Alliance party.
Andy Pollak launched the initiative with the claim that politicians had failed and that it was time for the people to come forward. Robin Wilson also trumpeted Opsahl as an exercise in people power. This notion is based on the assumption that political parties do not have organic roots and should be conveniently bypassed by the people. Pollak, Wilson and company may sneer at local politicians who, after all, are the product of a province which has been excluded from the broader politics of the State but at least they are accountable to the people in a way that journalists are not.
Various commentators have recommended an unfreezing of the communal blocks to create space for more than two communities. They argued for a Labour-Conservative political divide in Northern Ireland. While lip service is paid to this widely popular proposal, the Opsahl Commission seems little concerned that people here are denied the right to join or vote for parties of Government and are being prevented from being more than communal "Prods" and "Taigs" in their politics. Having identified this democratic deficit the commission concludes that whatever the arguments for or against the British parties organising in Northern Ireland, it is convinced that the current democratic deficit requires a greater choice to be available to the Northern Ireland electorate. In other words, while the commission expects Northern Ireland to remain within the UK for the foreseeable future, it does not explicitly recommend the right to join and vote for non-sectarian parties of Government.
Listening to some of the previous speakers, I was amazed at the lack of understanding of the Northern Ireland situation shown by some of them. Members talked about the formation of a United Ireland and similarities with the Middle East, but how many of them have gone to Northern Ireland to try to understand or get to know the people up there? There seems to be a line drawn from Dublin to Galway — some people would not go up to Northern Ireland under any circumstances. I ask those people to visit the area and speak to the people there, to get to know and understand both communities. Then we can sit down and discuss the ways forward for Northern Ireland which this report does not do.
This is the first opportunity I have had of speaking in the House since the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, was appointed to his position in the Taoiseach's Department. I wish him success and happiness in his important position
The Opsahl report is an ongoing process. There are different recommendations in it, and the thoughts behind it, the efforts put into it and the different people who contributed to it are part of an evolving situation. It is an important report. People can refer to it, they can analyse and discuss it, not just now but in the future. Against that background there have been further developments in the South and I will dwell on them briefly.
I wish to refer to the John Hume-Gerry Adams talks because they offer some hope when there is so little around. It is impossible for anyone to be unduly optimistic about the North of after 25 years of violence and mayhem. Anything that offers a ray of hope against this background deserves encouragement. No matter what solutions are reached at inter-parliamentary or Government level, something must be done to persuade the men of violence to stop. They must be persuaded of the futility of what they are doing. Not only has their campaign not achieved anything, it has hindered the process of reconciliation between the people of different backgrounds. Their campaign has caused serious damage and has driven the two communities further apart.
Fatigue must now be setting in even among the men of violence because it has set in amongst ordinary individuals in the North. They are worn out from the battle of the past 25 years. Even the most hardened individuals must recognise the futility of violence. Every violent crime and death affects not only the individual who is injured but the extended family and friends and widens the division between the communities. Taking all this into account, one can only say that any efforts which are being made towards reconciliation, peace and unity should be supported.
John Hume has shown his courage in the past. What he is doing now is at considerable risk to his political position and to his person. He would not be doing this if he was not hopeful of a solution. His efforts deserve a chance. To attack his efforts or his personal integrity is to do a disservice to a man who has done a lot over the past 25 years. It is important that people recognise that John Hume has at all times spoken of unity by consent and the recognition that the unionist tradition has to be accommodated in whatever solutions are arrived at. There have been months of hard work and hard talking and there is a small ray of light which we should try to enlarge.
I want to make it clear that the only way Sinn Féin can come to the conference table is when there is clear and sustained evidence that the Provisional IRA have ceased their campaign of violence. This has to be unequivocal. The ray of light at the end of the tunnel can be enlarged. People throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, but particularly in the North, have gone through a lot and have suffered a great deal and let us hope that this particular initiative will be successful and will bring 25 years of violence to an end.
I, too, would like to pay tribute to the man who wrote this report. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam. Let us hope that is work will contribute to bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland.
The North is difficult to understand in some ways but if one was reared beside it, as I was, and did a lot of business with people there, one would find that the great majority of people there want peace.
Earlier in the debate someone said it was a pity there was not unity between North and South and more discussions. I know people who would not go into Northern Ireland for any money, and I know people in Northern Ireland who would not dream of coming south of the Border. Yet when one meets these people, one finds they are very nice.
The media is not helping the situation in the North, they could be more helpful. I will provide an example. When members of Sligo County Council met councillors from Fermanagh for an exchange of views and to draw our two counties closer together there was a small DUP protest. I am one of those who likes to talk to people and, while most of our deputation passed through the protest quickly, I remained to talk to the protestors. I explained that I did not know why they were there and said I did a lot of business in the North. We did not seem to be getting on very well, and I said to one clergyman: "Some things divide us, such as how we adore God, but there is only one God, we have to agree on that." He replied "Yes", and I said, "We will shake on that". The following week the local paper carried a big photograph — head and shoulders only — of me shaking hands with the reverend gentleman and the caption read: "Councillor Farrell gives a left-handed handshake to the Rev. Foster". It was a negative report, but I did not mind that. Those who knew what had happened saw the joke, but there were hundreds of people in the North who believed I insulted that man. This is one negative personal experience and, unfortunately, the media goes in for that kind of thing, which is a pity.
The people in Northern Ireland are excellent business people. I have done business there for years and have found them to be very keen and able. One could be sure that whatever was agreed would be delivered.
I was particularly interested the views of students in the Opsahl report, and by the fact that law and justice were their was priorities while subjects like youth culture, cultural identity, jobs and emigration were at the bottom of the list. Some very interesting points were made in the report. One girl at the Belfast assembly commented:
I do not think adults realize how quickly we grow up because we are subjected to a more open environment than they were and we have to grow up quicker than they did.
There is a lot in that. If there is to be peace in the North it must come though the youth. We must make more contact with the youth and have more youth groups coming together. We in the South are doing a lot of that. Many groups from various parts of Belfast and traditions come South and other groups go North. There is a great cameraderie among them and we must encourage this more.
Another girl said in the report that:
We need alternatives for young people in Northern Ireland, and it is just not enough for adults, teachers and the clergy to say ‘Do this or that, and do not touch that!', but we need people who will guide us more.
There is youth crying out for guidance which they are not getting. In many political situations various parties can agree something by talking locally. We are, unfortunately, bound by the Whip and when it comes to making decisions we have to do things another way. In the North the situation is more vicious and many problems are built into this viciousness. Politics are divided between two parties, Protestant and Catholic. We must get people to see that politics should be different to religion. In the North they seem to be connected. That does not apply to England or anywhere else in the British Isles. Why is it so in the North of Ireland?
It is very interesting to see how little England knows about the North. Senator Wilson mentioned a Junior Minister who came from England and apologised for not having his passport. It shows how little they know about Northern Ireland; it is completely alien to them. While such a situation exists, how can there be anything but turmoil and trouble? The biggest problem that keeps people apart is fear, and there is nothing worse than fear of the unknown. That problem has existed for generations. I think it was Thomas Davis who wrote:
What matter that at different shrines we pray on to one God,
What matter that at different times our fathers won the sod,
And heart and hand now we are bound by stronger links than steel,
And neither can be safe or sound within each other's wield.
Obviously he was trying to break the mould at that time because nothing else could have inspired him to write those lines. It is a difficult thing to bring people together but the youth in particular can be motivated to see more clearly and get out of the old cul-de-sacs into which tradition has driven many groups in Northern Ireland.
The subject of cultural identity brought a stream of responses from students to encourage the Protestant tradition to identify with Irish culture. One typical comment was:
Our culture is there to be enjoyed — it is rich, good and strong and is there to be enjoyed by everybody. It is not for one side to say ‘I am a Protestant, so that is not for me'.... It is everybody's culture!
I believe this report has brought people together to say what needs to be done. I believe the people of the North should realise that the culture of the North is for Protestant and Catholic, for unionist and nationalist, that it is not simply one sided. In years gone by I watched the 12th of July celebrations on television. I was in the North, in Portadown, when there was a parade taking place. I remember saying to someone it would be good if there was a similar parade in the South and if those in the North could participate in the St. Patrick's day parade. However, that was long before the troubles, and the fulfilment of such a wish is even more unlikely today. However until that day arrives we should try to accept the tradition of the 12th of July and people in the North should try accept our tradition of St. Patrick's day. Then and only then may we start to come together.
I have dwelt on the secondary school children cited in the report and I quote from Chapter 15 — The Views of the School Students:
History, in particular, was felt to be an essential element of the culture to which to have access. As one student pointed out:
We are the politicians of the future and we should be allowed to learn where we come from, because if we do not know where we come from, we will not know where we are going.
This illustrates the lack of education in the schools in the North of Ireland as far as culture is concerned. It is a broad based subject that should not cause problems but obviously it does and it is clear that those students cited in the report are not, learning about Ireland in their schools. It would also appear that the schools are biased in favour of a particular ethos. Young people of different persuasions must be brought together and shown what they have in common. If we examine what we have in common I believe it would be easier to resolve the things we do not have in common. When people protest that specific projects cannot be undertaken without money, I often say that money is only one ingredient. I ask if everything else has been done because money can always be found. The same applies to this situation; if we agree on what we have in common, that would go a long way towards healing problems.
Approximately three years ago I said in this House that there would be no peace until the IRA and the UDA engaged in talks. Some people were very critical of that statement but I still say it is better to be a friend than an enemy. We should talk with the people who are causing the trouble; there is no point in talking to the 90 per cent of the population in the North of Ireland who do not cause trouble. They are as much against violence as we are but, unfortunately, in many cases they are dragged into trouble often against their will. We must try to achieve a greater understanding, especially among our young people. In this respect I appeal to more schools and to people in the South to build bridges across the Border. That is only way youth will save the situation.
I support Mr. John Hume, although many are critical of him for speaking to the men of the gun, the bomb and the bullet. However, there are men of bombs and bullets on both sides. I congratulate Mr. John Taylor who has spoken today in favour of what Mr. John Hume is doing. Mr. Taylor should undertake the same process with the UDA. It is important that we talk to the people of violence. We should get them to talk to each other — I understand that they do business among themselves. I believe that there is a greater relationship between the two paramilitary organisations than is perhaps realised. It might be beneficial if some politicians would talk to them directly. It is a pity that such discussions are made public.
If the media are serious about peace in the North of Ireland they should leave those working in the area and who know what is going on alone to get on with the job without interruption. For example, I believe that when members of the Church of Ireland went to Feakle the press destroyed all their good work. Much of these talks are secret and very important. They should not be made public, rather the media should have patience. In this respect I appeal for more consideration from people in the South.
There should be more co-operation between North and South. I urge people to read Chapter 15 of the Opsahl report entitled: The Views of the School Students. It indicates what young people, both Protestant and Catholic, consider to be wrong and what they believe should be done. We should listen to and talk to the youth. We are the men of yesterday. They are the men and women of tomorrow.
As there are no other speakers offering I call on the Minister to conclude this debate.
This Seanad debate on the Opsahl report has been marked by the warm welcome extended on all sides to the work of the late Professor Opsahl and his colleagues. I wish to join in the many condolences expressed arising from Professor Opsahl's tragic death and to add my own tribute to the outstanding contributions which Torkel Opsahl made to the search for peace and reconciliation on this island.
When he opened the debate in this House on 13 July 1993, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs welcomed the stress which the report places on dialogue as an indispensable tool in the search for political consensus. He also welcomed many recommendations in the report, including the importance of the need for parity of esteem between the traditions as well as specific ideas, such as the proposal for a Bill of Rights and support for the creation of a cross-Border economic institution.
I welcome the emphasis placed by a number of speakers in this debate on the role which the Opsahl report has played in questioning traditional assumptions and positions. The particular value of the report in my view lies in its capacity to stimulate fresh thinking about the problem of the North of Ireland and to widen the public debate about possible solutions.
The range and extent of individual submissions represent, I believe, one of the reports greatest strengths. They show an overwhelming desire for peace across both traditions. They also reveal that a serious and mature process of reflection is underway in many quarters in the North of Ireland on possible new ways forward.
The debate today has registered general support for what I would see as the central premise underlying this report that any new framework must rest on a fair, honourable accommodation between the two traditions on this island. It is abundantly clear that people in both parts of Ireland and in Britain want to see progress made towards a lasting resolution of the conflict. They want to see an end to all violence and suffering.
The Irish Government is determined to do all in its power to achieve a recommencement of dialogue with the aim of achieving peace and reconciling the legitimate rights and aspirations of both traditions. We are continuing to work in every way possible to achieve a resumption of the process of dialogue with the parties in the North of Ireland and the British Government. Our objective is to agree a fair and comprehensive settlement which will address all key relationships and will be conducive to lasting peace and stability.
Many speakers today mentioned the discussions held by the Leader of the SDLP, Mr. John Hume with the Leader of Sinn Féin, Mr. Gerry Adams. The Government is at present evaluating the position conveyed to them by Mr. Hume and the House will understand if I do not seek to anticipate an outcome of the Government's consideration of this matter.
As the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste said in their statement on 7 October, the achievement of peace on this island will require much patient work and preparation. As to possible involvement by Sinn Féin in political dialogue, I wish to re-emphasise the position of the Government that an essential condition for such participation is a renunciation of violence. Our goal must be to create conditions which would enable all those committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic solutions to our problems to take part in the political process. We must ensure that all parties committed to a peaceful approach can work together to achieve a lasting political settlement of the problems of Northern Ireland on the basis of the widest possible political dialogue and participation and with the consent of all the people of Ireland, North and South.
May I also take this opportunity to endorse the welcome which has been extended in this House today to the remarks made by the Rev. Martin Smyth. I found these remarks positive, constructive and courageous. His remarks showed that he and his party are taking their political responsibilities seriously and they are an encouraging omen for the future. The Irish Government agrees with the distinction he made between a total cessation of violence and tactical cease fires. There has to be an end to all violence and an exclusively peaceful, democratic approach to working out our differences.
A number of speakers this afternoon have also highlighted the need for compromise on all sides as part of any settlement. I agree that each side must be ready to reassess its own position and to see what new areas of agreement can be found. We must be ready to discuss, even with those with whom we have traditionally disagreed, ways in which progress can be made. The Opsahl report has enriched the public debate on ways forward towards a lasting solution of the Northern Ireland problem. Almost all speakers in this debate have, directly or indirectly, emphasised this point and I fully share this assessment.
I congratulate the Seanad on holding this debate and I assure the House that the Government will give careful weight to the contributions made.
I thank the Minister for his reply.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sitting suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.