Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 1993

Vol. 138 No. 8

Northern Ireland: Statements.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I am glad to be addressing the Seanad and I welcome your decision to make provision for statements on the subject of Northern Ireland. The search for a peaceful and lasting settlement of the problem of Northern Ireland is without question one of the supreme challenges facing this country today. When, in our Programme for a Partnership Government, we remarked that "the future welfare of all the people of Ireland is overshadowed by the conflict in Northern Ireland", we meant precisely that.

All the people of Ireland, wherever they may happen to live on this island, are paying an insidious price for the prolongation of this dreadful conflict. Along with its direct human costs in terms of lives lost or ruined, there is the tragic waste of economic resources and capabilities, North and South. The bombs and bullets destroy not just human life and limbs; they also wreck our dreams and our hopes for the future.

Yesterday's news that an enormous haul of weaponry and explosives destined for the UVF had been seized by the British authorities was a chilling reminder of the threat posed by men of violence in both communities. There is no question but that these would have been used to inflict horrific death and injury on defenceless people. We are relieved at the seizure of this hideous consignment and grateful to those responsible for its interception.

Both the Irish and British Governments must work together to remove forever from this island and from the neighbouring island the sinister scourge of paramilitary violence. We must be ready to consider all options which offer a prospect of bringing the violence to an end on a basis consistent with our fundamental principles. In his Guildhall speech last week, the Prime Minister recognised that "there may now be a better opportunity for peace in Northern Ireland than for many years". He told his audience that the British Government are "now actively seeking a framework to deliver peace, stability and reconciliation". He warned that "all concerned will have to show courage, court unpopularity, break down old barriers and take risks". Speaking in the House of Commons three days later, the Prime Minister pointed out that "the right memorial to those who have been murdered is to make sure that no one else is murdered in future".

The Taoiseach and I strongly endorse these sentiments. We are encouraged by the indications that the search for a permanent end to violence and for a political settlement of the Northern Ireland conflict is now at the top of the British Government's list of priorities and will remain there for the foreseeable future. We believe that political leaders in Northern Ireland, whose communities have borne the brunt of this terrible violence, must show an equal sense of urgency and commitment.

Who can be blind to the desire for peace expressed by millions of ordinary people throughout these islands? They know instinctively that, to be meaningful, it must come on terms which do not infringe the basic principles of either Government or of either community in Northern Ireland but they believe, as the Government do, that this goal is attainable. Who can say that there is any more important goal towards which all political leaders in these islands should be striving?

There is, quite simply, no higher political or moral imperative. If there is in this generation an opportunity to secure lasting peace and stability for the generations to come, it must be seized by both Governments with all the resources of political imagination and courage which we possess. We must explore it rigorously and intensively and test its potential to the very limit. In that endeavour, we would hope to have the active support of all who believe in the political process and who wish to see the problems of Northern Ireland resolved by political means rather than by violence.

The two Governments have made clear that they are working together "in their own terms on the creation of a framework for peace, stability and reconciliation consistent with their international obligations and their wider responsibilities to both communities". That is the sole and proper responsibility of the two Governments. They should not be deflected from their duty in this regard because people choose for tactical reasons to misrepresent their position or to hang labels on the Governments' search for peace.

Peace established on the right terms will bring inestimable benefits for everyone. The efforts which the two Governments are making to explore the opening which may now exist are manifestly in the interests of all the people of these islands, regardless of political affiliation. No interest group should be allowed to impede in any way the possible attainment of lasting peace on terms which would respect fully the essential principles to which both Governments have repeatedly committed themselves.

Ordinary people in Britain and Ireland will find it very difficult to forgive any elected representatives who seek to undermine the process which is under way at present and which could potentially yield the prize of general agreement that divisions on this island, no matter how deep, can be addressed on an exclusively political and peaceful basis. Each passing day brings fresh evidence of the desperate desire for peace. In this part of Ireland, in the North and in Britain, people are signalling in different ways that they believe an opportunity for peace may be at hand and that they want it to be taken.

Last week, 160,000 people phoned in to two morning newspapers calling for peace. About two million people observed a minute's silence for peace last Thursday. People have had enough of the years of violence and wastage. They are crying out for an end to it and for a new beginning for themselves and for their children.

It is the responsibility of the two Governments to find ways of translating the people's expectations into reality. However difficult the challenge, we must work to create a framework which can facilitate lasting peace and satisfy the hopes of millions. This is a task which calls for political courage and statesmanship of a high order and which must transcend all short term or partisan considerations.

The Taoiseach has, from the very outset, underlined the Irish Government's view that the pursuit if a basis for peace will require courage from all concerned. Indeed, a readiness to take bold new steps in the search for peace and for political progress has been a consistent feature of the policies of this Government in relation to Northern Ireland. The responsibility to show courage and to take risks for peace does not rest with the Governments alone. It is of no less importance to the leaders of the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland that they should respond to the present moment in ways which seek to calm the understandable fears which may arise rather than to exploit them.

Fears often arise needlessly from inadequate explanation, and indeed outright distortion, of the underlying issues. The task of true leadership, I believe, is to exercise a constructive and calming influence on the community at large, to do all possible to allay unfounded anxieties and to create a climate in which positive political progress can be achieved. That there can be no basis for the anxieties reported this week is clear from the successive reassurances provided by both the British and Irish Governments on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland.

The Irish Government have underscored in speech after speech, in statement after statement, our absolute commitment to the principle that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority of the people there. I have myself pointed out furthermore that our definition of consent includes a possible withholding of consent. I have made clear that there is no place in our thinking for coercion of any description, direct or indirect.

Northern Ireland's own history is vivid evidence of the futility of attempting to operate political arrangements which fails the test of widespread support. The future of this island will be determined not by one tradition seeking to impose its will on the other but by full and fair agreement between the two traditions which share it. For as long as the problem of Northern Ireland has been with us, there have been fears of one kind or another in each community there. Fear is embedded within the very fabric of Northern Ireland and that is a tragic reality with which we must all live.

The task of constitutional political leaders, as I see it, is to do all in their power to minimise its consequences and to allay unfounded anxieties by pointing to relevant reassurances and safeguards. Giving wider currency to unjustified fears is a betrayal of leadership responsibilities. It also reveals a failure of political courage. All of us have a role to play if the goal of peace is to be achieved. All of us must be willing to take political risks and, at a minimum, to delay judgement until the present efforts have reached a conclusion. All of us have a duty to respond to the deep public yearning for peace and to sustain, rather than to try to extinguish, the very real hopes that it may now be attainable.

Why should the people of Northern Ireland be condemned to the relentless continuation of the violence which has already destroyed so many lives, livelihoods and opportunities? Why should the people of Britain have to live under the ever lengthening shadow of that violence? Why should taxpayers in this jurisdiction have to bear the continuing horrendous cost of violence in Northern Ireland and its consequences in terms of lost economic opportunities?

Now is the time for bold and imaginative thinking in the search for a possible formula for peace. The two Governments must find a framework which will facilitate that objective without compromising our bedrock principles.

This is also a time for recognising that only a profound and radical balancing of the interests of the two traditions offers any hope of achieving a political solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. The tired old approaches which conceived a solution in exclusively internal terms have not — and cannot — work. The mistakes of the past should not be repeated. There will never be stability in a framework which does not address the need for agreement between Unionism and the Nationalist tradition in Ireland as a whole. An approach to the problem, which is exclusively or predominantly internal, is doomed to failure and a corresponding doubt must attach to the prospects of any political talks which proceed from that approach.

The goal of peace, stability and reconciliation to which the Prime Minister dedicated himself in his Guildhall speech will not be achieved without a deep and lasting accommodation which goes to the heart of all the relationships entangled in this problem.

I talked earlier of fears. I accept that the Unionist community have real fears about their position on the island. From the beginning of my involvement with the problem of Northern Ireland, I have set out to address those fears in various ways and to do everything in my power to allay them. The Taoiseach has done precisely the same. He has worked tirelessly to reassure Unionists of all descriptions of his personal goodwill towards them, his desire for dialogue with them and the readiness of the Government he leads to respond to their concerns in the context of an overall political settlement.

Prime Minister Major rightly emphasised the importance of the understanding which the Government has displayed for the rights and concerns of Unionists and of our willingness to reach out to them and to make constitutional change a part of an overall settlement.

I believe passionately in political dialogue as the means of resolving even the most entrenched conflicts. The Government's interest in meeting Unionist leaders for face-to-face dialogue has been signalled since the day we took office. I regret that the offer has not, so far, been taken up. I would like to think that, in direct contact with the Unionist leaders, we might succeed in persuading them of our goodwill towards them and our willingness to work with them and the British Government for a fully balanced agreement which would incorporate full protection and expression for both traditions in Ireland.

The need for all of us to resume together the search for a new beginning for all our relationships — the new beginning to which we committed ourselves on 26 March 1991 — is more urgent than ever before. The Taoiseach and I regard efforts to achieve a comprehensive political accommodation through dialogue and the search for an acceptable peace formula as complementary and in many ways interrelated. Progress must be achieved on all fronts and no potential area for agreement should be overlooked.

At the same time, we attach particular urgency to the pursuit of a framework for peace. Moreover, there is no doubt that the achievement of peace would utterly transform the political atmosphere and enhance to a very significant degree the prospects of achieving a successful outcome to renewed dialogue.

The Taoiseach and I are anxious to see a process of collective political talks resuming as soon as possible which will address the three central relationships and will aim at a fair, honourable and lasting settlement of the Northern Ireland problem. We very much hope that those parties in Northern Ireland who at present decline to participate in such talks will reconsider their position and join the two Governments and the other constitutional parties at the negotiating table in the very near future. Dialogue alone offers a way forward. There is no reason to fear dialogue — any more than there is to fear peace.

I believe strongly that, without a mobilisation of all the political forces on this island in the pursuit of an accommodation which all can support, the future for all of us and for our children will remain uncertain and threatening. Ultimate peace and security for all the people of Ireland can come only from a deep and comprehensive agreement between the two traditions on how to share the island which is our common home.

Mr. Manning

I compliment the Tánaiste on the tone and content of his speech. He was wise to avoid setting deadlines which cannot be met, to avoid raising false expectations and especially to emphasise the importance of the primary role of political dialogue and quiet diplomacy at present.

It is very important, on a subject as complex and as much analysed as Northern Ireland, to set out at the beginning how much agreement there is on what we want. By "we" I mean all of the people of this country who are represented in this House. We want a just peace which enables the people of Northern Ireland to have the quiet miracle of an ordinary life lived in peace and normality. We all want harmony on the island and between the islands. That is a simple objective and no dogma, ideology, inherited prejudice or attachment to a fixed solution should stand in the way of attaining such an objective.

It is important to keep this simple truth in our minds amidst the welter of swirling words which threaten to engulf us and blow the peace process out of the water. The past few days have been neither good nor helpful for this fragile peace process. The leaked document has already been discussed; there is no reason to further discuss it or the damage it has caused other than to say that whoever is guilty — if convicted of the offence — should be dealt with in the severest way possible.

Yesterday we had the chilling and frightening statement from Peter Robinson in reaction to the arms find — and we in this House and elsewhere pay tribute to the authorities who made the find possible — which was almost a justification of the motives of those behind the attempt to import arms. Yesterday we also saw the equivocation of Dr. Paisley on the same matter. Last week we saw at first hand in Windsor Park the depth of the bigotry and hatred in what may be only a small segment of the population but which still stands in the way of a move forward. We saw in the statement from the IRA yesterday its equivocation in talking peace but preparing for war. James Molyneux, in a statement this week, spoke about the growing despair of the middle classes in Northern Ireland and implied that these people are in danger of moving towards extremism.

The latter statement was the most telling. The middle classes, by and large, have not got involved, have not supported the political process and, in particular, have not supported those politicians who have taken risks. It is largely due to the failure of the middle classes in Northern Ireland to get involved that we have reached the present impasse. There is an absence of a civic culture in Northern Ireland. The leaders of the business classes and the professions, who have abdicated responsibility over the years, must now wake up to their responsibility to give a lead in Northern Ireland in supporting the politicians at whom they so regularly sneer. In this regard, I exempt the church leaders. The real patriots in Northern Ireland today are Cathal Daly. Robin Eames, Fr. Denis Faul, Rev. Eric Dunlop and others like them. These people have led, taken the real risks and shown courage in the past difficult years.

There is not much point in lecturing the politicians of Northern Ireland or Britain as to what they must or should do if we do not take every step to show our good faith by deed as well as by word. I was very impressed last Sunday morning by the Taoiseach's appearance on the Frost programme. It was a confident and generous performance. However, one point puzzled and worried me, the Taoiseach's belief that a referendum on Articles 2 or 3 would probably be defeated. That point has been latched upon by the Unionist leaders.

The Taoiseach may be right but I believe he is wrong. He under-estimates the desire for peace among people here and their willingness, if asked, to make that change. Why did he not say that if Articles 2 and 3 were seen as an obstacle to peace, as we have been told over and over again by moderate Unionists, and emphasised in the McGimpsey case in the Supreme Court, that, as an earnest of good faith, he would lead a crusade to change public opinion on this topic? That would have been real and courageous leadership. Let us be honest, if all five parties in both Houses supported such a proposition I have no doubt it would be carried overwhelmingly. The three-Opposition leaders are ready and willing to support it. What about the Tánaiste on this matter? It would be proof of good faith if the word went out that not as a bargaining proposition but as a real earnest of our desire for peace and to remove fears which may well be needless, we are prepared to actively move to change Articles 2 and 3, not to wait until everything is on the table. A deed like that would speak louder than many words.

The Tánaiste mentioned the question of direct talks with the Unionist leaders and his willingness to speak to them on that matter. Much good could come through direct talks. We are fortunate in our political life that the bona fides of all our leaders on Northern Ireland can be accepted. None of the leaders of any of the political parties carries any burden of history, none has a hidden agenda. The good faith of all party leaders is beyond question. We have nothing to fear by being open or generous, as the Taoiseach was last Sunday, on that programme.

As the Tánaiste mentioned, our good faith is not accepted. There is one reason in particular for that — it is one of the great lost opportunities of the past couple of years. I refer to the visit of the Unionist politicians to Dublin just over a year ago. Those who came, did so at high risk and it was the first such visit. They knew the risks they were taking and it was a brave move on their part. Unfortunately they were treated appallingly in Dublin by the then Ministers, the then Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs. They very much resent that and read a great deal into it. They see themselves as having been set up, as having been snared and then treated badly. They have read great symbolism into that visit. Why it happened I do not know, but it did and it cannot be denied. We must examine our own conscience on this matter and we should at least ensure that it never happens again. Any misunderstandings arising from that visit should be cleared straight away. It has left a lingering suspicion about our good faith among many reasonable Unionists.

The Tánaiste was, rightly, careful not to give any false optimism, not to set any deadlines which could not be met and not to make demands which are unreal or which cannot be met by the other side. He is right to talk about peace being the major objective. There is, and we all see it, a yearning for peace and normality in Northern Ireland. There is a war weariness, a fatigue, a revulsion against the horrible acts which have scarred that part of the country for the last 25 years. The first real steps towards the restoration of normality would be the creation in Northern Ireland of institutions within which the constitutional parties could work.

We would do well to go back to the Strand One talks of last year and look again at what was on the table. I believe the parties were closer to agreement than is generally realised and that among the politicians of all parties in Northern Ireland there is already a great deal of common ground on this question. Political problems, as we all know, are the same all over the world. They are the needs of ordinary people, the remedying of ordinary, mundane grievances. The politicians of Northern Ireland want to get back to the drear and ordinariness of the problems we all face on a day to day basis. I believe that if the institutions were in place which would allow them to get back to that sort of work, as the Tánaiste pointed out, peace and normality would lead to breaking down many of the barriers, more speedily perhaps than most of us realise.

We should encourage the politicians in Northern Ireland. Rather than talking about long-term goals of Irish unity or grandise long-term schemes which frighten people, we should put the emphasis on the restoration of political institutions in Northern Ireland which can only exist if they command the agreement of a majority of the constitutional parties. If they were there, I believe the sense of relief and the scope it would give politicians would very quickly lead to further progress.

There are many other points which I do not have time to cover but there are the major realities which we still have to face in Northern Ireland, such as the huge amounts of arms and explosives still available, the evil and badness which is also a part of life in Northern Ireland as exemplified in the Greysteel killings or the Shankill bomb, and the enormous vested interest which exists among some people in keeping the troubles going. The mind sets of people on both sides of the divide are locked into their own history and hatreds. These are realities which anybody charged with the responsibility must face up to and overcome.

There is at present a window of opportunity and, thankfully, there are more positive aspects than there have been for a very long time. In particular, we all welcome the interest and the positive attitude shown by the British Prime Minister, John Major. Northern Ireland for far too long was put on the backburner of Westminster politics or treated by the last Prime Minister in a highly ideological way. John Major has a quiet pragmatism which I believe will help and which is met by similar qualities in our present Taoiseach and Tánaiste. This is not a time for artificial deadlines or unrealisable expectations. More than ever it is a time for quiet and careful diplomacy, for quiet talk, for assurance and real generosity, not just in words but in deeds. More than ever, we can only speak for ourselves, we must ask what sacrifices we must make to attain the end we all want, what example we must give. We must be prepared to make those sacrifices and to give that example.

Mr. McGowan

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the problems in the North. First I wish to express our solidarity and support for the Government in its approach to this problem. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have been consistent, fair, open and honest. Most reasonable thinking people in the North, the Republic and England realise that the approach of the Government has been steady, consistent and responsible. Most of us on the island recognise that we must have peace first. Any reasonable person looking at the demonstrations which came from the people last Saturday could see that the message was clear on the streets in the large towns in the North on that day.

We should stand four square behind our Government and the steadfast approach. The Tánaiste has done a major service to this country in his approach to the British Government and John Major. I was privileged to be in the Guildhall last Friday when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was confronted by a paper leaked from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I thought he was very fair when he said he would not speculate on a paper about which he knew nothing. He said it had not been presented to the British Government, he was open, honest and fair. My assessment of the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, at first hand is that he too is approaching the problem of the North of Ireland in a realistic manner. My assessment of Mr. John Major at first hand is that he is also approaching the problem of Northern Ireland in a realistic manner despite the lobbies, statements and scaremongering by some whose aim is to condition the British Prime Minister's final approach.

There is some lobbying and an amount of fear but there is more bigotry and tribalism than fear, and it must be recognised that there is more attention paid to what can be gained in the shake down at the last moment. I watched some of the peace parades and demonstrations and saw some people who were there to cash in on the event, even some correspondents — if I can call them that — from this city latching on to those demonstrations in order to be to the fore. The people of the North want to resolve the problems for themselves.

I would like to refer to Senator Manning's statement about the Taoiseach's lack of clarity on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme. The Taoiseach was open and honest. He could not have made any other statement; he said clearly that he would have fears and reservations about carrying a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution prior to an overall settlement in the North. That point is made by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and those who are reasonable, honest and open in their approach and that has been made crystal clear. Even the hard line Unionist DUP have said they understand the point. I have heard Mr. Ian Paisley say he understands that the Taoiseach could not give an assurance on Articles 2 and 3 and that he would not expect him to do so. In those circumstances it is difficult to understand how somebody in this House could have expected the Taoiseach to go further.

We must have a clear consensus, we must support the Tánaiste in his dealings in this area, and I welcome him to the House today. For those who are very frightened, whether on this side of the Border or the other, I would like to give an example of what I would regard as a minor success in co-operation between four local authorities including my own. Derry City Council, Donegal County Council, Limavady Rural District Council and Strabane Council joined together 17 years ago. We have had our share of disappointments over those 17 years, some of them with the Department of Foreign Affairs. I will not politicise it by giving the details but a senior official from the Department felt it necessary to go to Strabane to apologise for a lack of politeness to those four councils.

We have every political persuasion on the four councils and we can be seen a group who crossed the barriers, who worked together and faced the test. We have convinced each other that we have neither gun nor flag. We did not set out to embarrass each other. We did not make press statements after every meeting. There was no one-upmanship because we were engaged in a delicate process. I will not claim that we achieved a great deal but we have attained a clear understanding between the four local authorities, three from the North. That is worth putting on the record. The Government should support areas where agreement can be found, as we achieved in the north-west.

There has been a slight improvement in the respect for the police in the North and I hope that will continue. I listen to people who say that they cannot have respect for the law while certain atrocities are committed by the Army and the police. Another reason given is that they cannot have respect for the administration of law in the North while senior judges march wearing the sash on 12 of July. That is a fair comment.

We cannot have total respect for the law in the North while 8,200 military type weapons are held privately. There appears to be a flaw in the law as regards the ammunition given with the licensing of those military type weapons because that ammunition is finding its way into the possession of people who find it easy to massacre and kill. I suggest that this matter should be considered at the Anglo-Irish Conference. Many years ago the Government called in all the military type weapons and ammunition; they are not available to the general public here. That has made a great contribution towards restricting the activities of the paramilitaries in the South. No less an effort should be made in the North and I ask the Tánaiste to raise that matter at the Anglo-Irish Conference and, hopefully, he will get some satisfaction. It would be a major task and might be bitterly opposed but, to my mind, that would be an expression of fear. Fear is not confined to one side only. The fears people have are genuine. There are people in the North who sleep with a loaded shotgun beside their bed — those who are lucky enough to have a licensed shotgun and they are few and sensitively selected.

The situation in the North is vulnerable and we should give our support to the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach in their efforts to achieve peace on this island. There are many reasonable people on this island and only a small group are still holding on to tribal politics. It costs the British Government £9 million a day to sustain the structures in the North; it costs our Government £1 million a day and £1 million a day would do a lot for rural Ireland. Money is being wasted on policing, countering paramilitaries and building military bases. The hardest, roughest, ungoverned parts of the world cannot compare with the security situation in the North and I encourage the Tánaiste to highlight the unacceptability of these major military bases, some built underground, some built with sophisticated detection equipment so that, with probe aerials, they can listen to conversations in cars. This is unacceptable in a European context.

The Government must not be daunted by those who incite propoganda fears about a settlement. We want a settlement of the problem in the Northern Ireland context but that does not take from those of us who aspire to a united Ireland. We want to unite the peoples not to coerce them. We support the statements made by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and I compliment them. The Taoiseach has been open and honest and unaffected by the legacy of the civil war. The same applies to the Tánaiste. There are people who would like to cash in and highlight the difference and have simplistic answers, but there is no simple answer. I hope that Mr. John Major has courage. We recognise the many serious political difficulties which he faces. We stand four square behind our Government and hope that they will not be deflected from their determination to achieve peace on the island. Peace must come first.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Maloney)

I call on Senator O'Toole who proposes to share his time with Senator Norris. Is that agreed? Agreed. The Senator has eight minutes.

Mr. O'Toole

I thank the Tánaiste for his consistent availability to this House to discuss the North of Ireland. It is much appreciated, as are his own efforts on this issue. The statement the Tánaiste made at the beginning of the summer, which was resisted by many in political life, was badly needed. One of the problems in dealing with and discussing the North of Ireland is that people have been walking on eggshells for the last 20 years, are afraid to say what they believe, are not calling a spade a spade and are not being honest with each other in the interests of being sensitive to the other party's point of view.

Regarding a point made by two previous speakers, I also watched and listened to Mr. Peter Robinson and I had two conflicting thoughts on what he said. I felt physically sick at this apologia for violence. When every elected politician on these islands was delighted that the instruments of terror, the guns, the bombs, the mortars, the grenades and the Semtex were confiscated and thus life saved, here was an explanation and an apologia. I thought that at least we have learned something, at least we have gone forward because I did hear the same words down here ten and 12 years ago when I listened to elected politicians trying to explain and support terrorism. I am glad at least that we have matured and developed to an extent and that is something I learned last night watching that interview.

Senator McGowan raised the point about apparel and I agree with the thrust of his remarks. However, I believe that the saddest part of the issue is that a High Court judges cannot wear the sash. This is part of the whole problem we have. Why not sing the sash and wear the sash, wear the shamrock and wet the shamrock, wear the lily and wear the poppy? These are symbols of difference. I listened to Mr. Ken Maginnis, in a debate I once had with him, say that he would like to celebrate 12 July and also St Patrick's Day. The objective must be a recognition, a tolerance, a respect and a space for different cultures. It is not to say that they are not there, it is recognising that they exist. That is why I welcomed the Tánaiste's remarks in the early summer. We need to acknowledge that there are differences.

Regarding Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, I fully support the position of the Government on this issue. I had the opportunity to speak in this House on the issue and I voted against the abolition of these Articles. If there was a vote today I would still vote against. There are reasons for this position which may have something to do with my day job. I know something about negotiations and the last thing this Government should do is concede in negotiations before there is a package agreed. That is not in anybody's interests and it is especially not in the interests of the Unionist majority in the North of Ireland.

Negotiations are too often swayed by hotheads and by violent people on all sides. At this stage to give a commitment to change or abolish Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution would simply create a problem for the Unionist negotiators, whether they recognise it or not, in that the hard-liners within their supporters would argue that having got the other side to go thus far, an effort should be made to see how much further they will go. The Government has said it is prepared to change or remove Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in the context of an overall package. It has stated that position and it is prepared to put it to the people. That is my position also. I would support changing these Articles in the context of other negotiations.

An illustration of how far we have come in 25 years from watching killings, maimings and injuries in the North of Ireland every night of the week on television is that there was more shock around this community about the hatred which people palpably felt or experienced or saw coming from the soccer match in Windsor Park last week than there is about a killing. Nobody was killed in Windsor Park. The hatred that we saw in Windsor Park is on the ground in the North of Ireland every day of the week. It is in every workplace every day. People there live with it on both sides of the community, yet people here have become so anaesthetised to violence, to death and to injury that they are more shocked by expressions of hatred than they are about the loss of life. That is a worry for us.

Senator Manning made a valid point about leaders of professions and different groups in the North of Ireland. I am a leader of a professional group in the North of Ireland. I represent 5,000 teachers who, day in day out, work in schools in the North. I have tried to do something about this and have failed miserably. It is difficult to articulate without appearing to be negative or without appearing to be totally pessimistic about the difficulties. I tie it in with a point made by Senator McGowan about the peace rally last week. I can tell the House about the resistance to the peace rallies because they came from the wrong place, the executive council of the ICTU. Many people in workplaces said they did not want to have hand, act or part in something that was coming perhaps from Dublin. That is a reality on the ground. It did not come through on the day and it was a superb day for peace.

I have a great worry about the North of Ireland. I work well with my colleagues in other unions in the North of Ireland. As it happens my union is, in the main, representative of Catholic teachers in Catholic schools. That is nobody's fault. It is a non-sectarian union but that is the way it has happened and the way its structures have developed. The members of the union are dealing with children who are born in Catholic hospitals, who live in Catholic housing estates, who go to Catholic schools, who are involved in Catholic games and Catholic clubs, who go to Catholic hospitals, who are probably taken to burial from Catholic churches and who very often go to rest in Catholic graveyards. If they go to prison in the meantime they will be in the Catholic space in the prison. The same applies to their Protestant neighbours. That is the essence of difference that is in the North of Ireland, from womb to tomb. Right the way through there is this total difference.

What is the impact of this on the ordinary child? I was speaking to a teacher in Belfast last week who explained to me about a seven-year-old child in a class in his school who is being jeered by other children because he had no father. His father had been killed by a terrorist act a month earlier. This is not a Jamie Bulger case. This was a case of children not understanding. It was not a sectarian matter. I am making the point that my members in the North of Ireland are dealing with children who have witnessed violence, who have been injured, who have been orphaned, who have been scarred, who are traumatised and who are in mental turmoil. I do not know how to deal with them and my members do not know how to deal with them. They do not even know that it is happening because these children will keep up a front.

The papers this morning dealing with the two children in Liverpool involved in the horrific murder of Jamie Bulger blame the murder on videos. The dangers of videos will be discussed ad nauseam on every radio talkshow over the next three weeks. These children are watching it happen on the streets and they are living with the suffering of it, and living in houses where their parents are putting metal strips inside the door so that nobody can come through. They will not sit beside the windows and they will not turn on the lights without having the curtains pulled. They are living in a blackout situation and these children are trying to live normal lives. There are no normal lives in those situations.

My fear is that inter-Government talks might eventually find a conclusion and ignore the fact that there has to be also institutional contact and a political party contact outside of Government. I have always regretted the representation on the Anglo-Irish tier, which I will return to on another occasion. There also has to be contact between ordinary people in ordinary housing estates and ordinary workplaces and there has to be contact with terrorists. That is the reality. The people pulling the triggers and setting the timers have to be told to stop. Somebody has to tell them. It is a dirty job but somebody has to do it. I recognise that Goverments cannot do it, but Governments have to accept that it is going to happen. I believe both Goverments are doing that very well at present.

Mr. Norris

I welcome the Tánaiste to the House. I wish to put on record my feeling of gratitude that he does make time available. I also congratulate him on the clear, determined and tenacious way he has handled these delicate and complicated negotiations in difficult times. He and the Government have the support of this House.

I read the Tánaiste's address to the House with great interest. There are a number of points I wish to address. I welcome the Tánaiste's statement that "the Government's interest in meeting Unionist leaders for face-to-face dialogue has been signalled since the day we took office". On several occasions Unionist representatives have said these signals were all in public and they would like to received a letter. Could the Tánaiste clarrify whether direct approaches have been made to Unionist leaders? The impression has been given that the offers of meetings are merely a public relations exercise. I am sure that is incorrect but I am providing the Tánaiste with an opportunity to clarify this.

In dealing with the question of unification depending on the consent of the majority in the North, I welcome the Tánaiste's saying "our definition of consent includes a possible withholding of consent". Some elements in this country were only prepared to give Unionists the right to say "yes" to a united Ireland. Allowing for the withholding of consent is a considerable advance and ought to be seen as such by Unionist politicians. Unfortunately many of them are intransigent and lack the political courage of which the Tánaiste also speaks. On the subject of "failure of political courage", this is a time when we on this side of the Border should show real imagination, because of the incremental nature of the negotiations and the need constantly to revatalise the process.

I do not agree with my colleague, Senator O'Toole, on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. I do not believe they should be abolished at present. They do not constitute a realistic proposition but rather an aspiration. They are necessary in order to reassure the beleaguered Nationalist minority in the North of Ireland.

However, in the light of a series of legal cases which make clear that political motivation can be used as justification in legal cases outside the Twenty-six Counties and that Articles 2 and 3 comprise a constitutional imperative, they form an explosive mixture. The issue is now more urgent than some years ago when we could delude ourselves into believing the Articles were an aspiration and nothing more. The Supreme Court has told us they are considerably more.

The political reality is that it would be virtually impossible to sell a deletion of Articles 2 and 3, whether or not one thinks that a good idea. Perhaps the Labour/Fianna Fáil coalition could sell a different proposition, which I have suggested for a number of years, namely a referendum to revise Articles 2 or 3 by inserting the words: "In any attempt to realise this aspiration, the use of violence shall be prohibited". That would have two effects; first, to redefine the territorial claim as an aspiration rather than a specific legal or constitutional claim and second, to remove the justification for violence. I would like to hear anyone argue against the philosophy underlying that proposition. If no one is able to do so, why are we not prepared to make that move at this time, given that we are talking about failure of political courage on the part of other people?

My colleague, Senator O'Toole, is a wonderful negotiator in the trade union sphere but this is a desperately important issue. It is not a wage round and we must take risks in this matter we might not otherwise take. We must draw the Unionists in as much as we can.

I do not share the fears about Unionist pressure on Mr. Major. What pressure can they bring to bear on him? If I interpret the Tánaiste's body language correctly, he gave——

Mr. O'Toole

A cry of oblivion.

Mr. Norris

His expression was interesting.

Mr. Spring

My body language can be struck off the record.

Mr. Norris

Perhaps I am naive but if the Unionists pulled the rug form under Mr. Major, what would they get?

Mr. Spring

Labour.

Mr. Norris

Wonderful. What could be better? I wish they would do it tomorrow. Let us have a Labour Government in Britain, for we know their policy on Northern Ireland and I wonder if the Official Unionist party would be satisfied with that.

Mr. Magner

That is not the hidden agenda.

Mr. Manning

Now we know.

Mr. Norris

I also wish to deal with another point Senator O'Toole raised. It shows what a provocative mind he has. The events at Windsor Park should be taken seriously because although no-one was killed we saw the humus or the low level energy of real tribal hatred. That is precisely the atmosphere or environment which permits violence. Having seen and listened to that we can understand how and why people are murdered. The display was absolutely irrational. One cannot separate the question of territory from the question of the minds and hearts of people. The two Governments could decide tomorrow there would be a united Ireland but there would still be people with residual feelings and philosophies. They must be brought along.

I am not certain a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 would be lost and if it was phrased the way I suggest I am convinced it would be won. I am less certain the Hume-Adams suggestion of a referendum on a united Ireland held on an all-Ireland basis would be won, once the economic consequences were realised. It is good that these are finally being spelt out because the Irish Government did not inquire deeply into this issue until recently. The price tag is large — a minimum of £3 billion per year — and we should tell the British we will not take the problem of their hands unless and until they provide the money. This issue must be examined because this process is inevitable. On the radio recently, someone introduced the notion of proportionality. This would involve a proportional division of responsibility, not an even split but one based either on the gross national product of the countries or on a per capita basis, if and when a resolution happens.

I will close on two issues. First, section 31 must go because Sinn Féin must be encouraged to become further involved in this process. I am no friend of that party but the section must be scrapped. Second, I share the concerns about Mr. Peter Robinson's statement. His language is horrifying. He says the arms shipment is evidence of a preparation for war and states:

There is a real feeling that there is surrender in the air and people are preparing themselves for war. The size and magnitude of this cargo was not to restock the depleted resources of a terrorist organisation — this was to arm an army.

That speech is an outrage.

Mr. O'Toole

It is an incitement.

Mr. Norris

That is a welcome for the importation of arms. To describe these people as an army is a legitimation. How can this man say this, when he poses as a Christian minister? I come from the Protestant, or should I say, reformed Catholic tradition in the South.

Mr. O'Toole

Every time you include us.

Mr. Norris

For this reason I travel regularly to the North of Ireland to instruct my fellow dissidents of the delights of living here. It horrifies me to read such a statement.

Ms. O'Sullivan

In common with other Members I welcome the Tánaiste to the House. I am glad he has been willing to come here on a regular basis. He has consistently and carefully moved forward the search for peace in the last few months. I also welcome the contributions of my fellow Senators because this House has always cautiously and honestly debated Northern Ireland. I believe we have contributed to the search for peace.

The difference between Northern Ireland in this winter as against other winters in the past 25 years is not that the communities are not polarised — sadly they are, perhaps even more so. It is not that families are not grieving over the murder of loved ones. It is not that people are not having to live for the rest of their lives with horrific physical and mental injuries. The difference is that the desire for peace, the hope and the aspiration that it could happen, has taken root among a large number of people in Northern Ireland. That is the difference between this winter and other winters. The Tánaiste referred to the fact that many in Northern Ireland have recently indicated they have a strong desire for peace. I would include in that many of the people that Senator Manning referred to, the middle classes and leaders of professions. That desire has now overtaken many other concerns. It is the duty of all of us as politicians, both North and South and in Westminster, to take careful steps in what we say and do to bring that peace nearer to fruition. Senator O'Toole referred to people walking on eggshells and being careful about what they said. Perhaps they should speak out more clearly about what they feel. As politicians, we have to think carefully about the effects of what we say and be mindful of the effects of any statement on both sides of the community.

The British and Irish Governments have shown a determination to look for common ground and structures, within which all the people of Northern Ireland can share in the piece of earth that they call home. The process can only develop where there is trust and this has been the approach of our Government. There must be guarantees that each community will be respected and will not be coerced against its will. The recent speech of the Tánaiste, outlining six principles which will inform all dialogue, sets this framework.

There are, of course, genuine fears. The Hume-Adams talks are perceived by many Unionists as a threat because they represent the Nationalist agenda and because Sinn Féin has not renounced support for violence as yet. These fears are genuine and well-founded. The leaking of the Department of Foreign Affairs discussion document to the Irish Press has has exacerbated these fears. This morning, many Members spoke about the fears generated as a result of the recent arms find and the subsequent response of Peter Robinson. Senator Manning referred to the chill that Mr. Robinson's statements induced in him. I am sure it induced a greater chill of fear among many of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, in this case the Nationalist population.

The only possible way forward is through reconciliation. The only agreement that can sustain itself over time is an agreement between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. That agreement must be freely entered into. It must be based on a respect for difference. An agreement which is imposed on the communities and which seeks to crush the differences between them is a recipe for continued violence. It must be based on the recognition that the rights and allegiances of both communities are equally valid. That is deep and profound and means that we in the Republic of Ireland must be prepared to recognise, preserve and protect the rights of Unionists. In effect, we must be prepared to honour the guarantee they now have that their status can only be changed with their consent. That may mean changing our Constitution and it is time that we prepared ourselves for that, certainly as part of an overall agreement. I support what Senator Norris said about having the courage to look towards changing our Constitution, in the context of an overall agreement.

What the two Governments are trying to say to the communities is this: "We agree that it is up to you. Nothing will happen without your consent and that applies to both communities. Our tasks is to enable you to talk to each other and to agree with each other, if possible, against a background free of violence." There is no hidden agenda in the discussions between the Governments. The Irish Government has repeatedly said that it is not trying to determine the future of Northern Ireland. That is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland. However, we cannot forget that there are two sides to the equation — two communities in Northern Ireland. If we are to transcend the Anglo-Irish Agreement, from which the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland derive some sense of security, we must do it in a way that enhances the security of the Nationalist as well as the Unionist community.

An internal settlement is not the answer. For both communities, it is vital to make an agreement that will sustain itself over the long term. It is vital to address all relationships on our island and the relationships between this island and the United Kingdom in this context. The peace process will not do that of itself. What it will do — if it works — is create a background or climate in which fear and hatred might recede into the background and in which reason and dialogue can replace them. The communities in Northern Ireland are war weary; certainly the politicians are. There are some indications that the terrorists are as well. Maybe we can capitalise on that to persuade the terrorists to lay down their arms. This opportunity must be grasped. The Labour Party in Government will not agree to the coercion of either community in Northern Ireland and it is prepared to make this fundamental promise. All we want is an end to hatred and the beginnings of working together.

I watched a television programme late last night about the PLO and Israel. I realise that this is a different situation from that in Northern Ireland but there are a number of parallels and many lessons to be learned from it. Towards the end of the programme, the sons of two men who had been killed in the violence between the Arabs and Israelis were shown. One was a Jewish man called Cohen, whose father, an ex-member of Mossad, had died. The other man was named Salamieh, whose father had been in the PLO, participated in violence and had been violently killed. The young Mr. Salamieh said of the PLO," They have realised that there is no solution except peace." The young Mr. Cohen, who was approximately the same age, was asked by the interviewer what he would say to Mr. Salamieh. He said, "I can not offer him anything except maybe my understanding." That is what we have to offer each other, both here and in the North. Peace is the prize and that is why we say that the future must have in it the hope of reconciliation, trust and dialogue.

Dr. Henry

I wish to praise the efforts and courage of both the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach and the priority that they have at last given to the serious situation in Northern Ireland. Last week I had the privilege of hearing a speech by Dr. John Alderdice, the leader of the Alliance Party, in which he talked about the relationships between the Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Being a psychologist and a psychoanalyst he put them in the perspective of a patient. He called the lecture "Ulster on the couch". He compared the situation with a young patient coming to him with a psychological problem, whose parents are saying "Our family has no problem, apart from this child." He looks at the parents and wonders if the problem is in the relationship between them.

There is still a fair amount of unfinished business between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Any of us who has been involved in international events with Britain would have been cognisant that they have the constant feeling that we are a slightly recalcitrant group who broke away from them when their empire was starting to crumble and now that last vestige of their empire is once again causing trouble with us. It must be hard for a country, which had a great empire at one stage, to have the territory under its control reduced to such an amount. Unfortunately, we occasionally seem to feel that we have not been an independent country for 70 years and a Republic for nearly 50 years.

I was impressed by Dr. Alderdice's analogy and since I cannot do or say anything that would have any effect in Great Britain, it is important to look at relevant matters in this country. We took no interest in what was happening to either the Nationalist or Unionist communities in Northern Ireland for a long time. Indeed, it has taken over 20 years of terrible trouble there for a serious effort to stop the violence.

I agree with the Tánaiste that there is no greater political or moral imperative. Senator Norris was also correct when he said that a Government of these two parties could show imagination and political courage about the situation in Northern Ireland. However, as I have said, a lot needs to be done on this side of the Border.

I travel to Northern Ireland on a regular basis as I have relations on both sides of the divide. Some of them have experienced great personal tragedy and have had to leave Northern Ireland as a result of the situation there. Senator Wilson is not the only Senator who has had tragic problems as a result of the violence in the North.

People from both communities know little about us. The Nationalists have a romantic idea about what we will or will not do for them. At the same time, the Unionists' fears have increased dramatically during the years. I do not blame them for being fearful. I would also be fearful if I saw an opinion poll, like the one published in The Guardian a few weeks ago, which expressed the feelings of the public in Great Britain about maintaining the Union with Northern Ireland. It is important to emphasise that the Republic does not intend to take over Northern Ireland.

As far as the Unionist population in the North is concerned, the religious minority in the Republic has become smaller and they have no say in the State. When the State was established the situation was amicable and equal. Those who wanted to leave the State did so, but a substantial majority of the religious minority stayed. The first President of Ireland, Dr. Douglas Hyde, who was appointed by Mr. de Valera, was a Protestant. I admit that for some decades legislation in this country strongly mirrored Roman Catholic teaching. However, dramatic changes have taken place in recent times.

I belong to a large minority group which is represented on both sides of the House, in the other House and in the Government. These people want a pluralist Ireland where everyone's views are respected and everyone is treated equally under the law. Members of my family have never felt corralled into any area or believed they were unacceptable people in this State. I must repeat this because it is important.

We must also consider the fears of some members of the religious minority in the South which were strongly shown during the debate about the Adelaide Hospital. Many people were anxious to maintain the Protestant ethos of that hospital. I have never appealed for anything in this State on a sectarian basis, but rather in the interests of all people. We must take cognisance of this small minority. When we were talking about the Adelaide Hospital, Senator Wilson said that northerners were watching how we acted in this matter. They regarded it as a litmus test. He was right and the Government was correct in the stance it took, although I hate appealing for anything on a sectarian basis.

We must make strong efforts in relation to the Unionists and I accept that the Tánaiste is doing his best in this regard. Do the Unionists understand what Articles 2 and 3 mean? How often do we read them? I understand our emotional attachment to Article 2 in particular, but it is difficult to take Article 3 seriously when we have been unable to apply our laws for 70 years. Whatever about our emotional attachment to Article 2, how seriously have we considered Article 3?

Mr. O'Kennedy

We never attempted to apply our laws. It is a de facto situation.

Acting Chairman

Senator Henry, without interruption.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not mean to be obstructive. I want to be constructive and the Chair will see it in that light.

Mr. Belton

The Senator's party has been unable to get its message across since 1937.

Dr. Henry

While we may not think about these Articles, they are constantly in the minds of Unionists. Therefore, their revision is important. Senator O'Kennedy spoke about these Articles and the commission he was part of 25 years ago to look at the Constitution. This is a long time to look at the Constitution. Perhaps we should look at the entire Constitution and see what revisions can be made. Other parts of it also need to be changed.

I am unconvinced that a referendum on the revision of these Articles would be lost. If it was put to the people by this Government it would have a good chance of being passed. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, is always quoted in this context. I cannot remember one time when I thought about that Act. I was grateful to Senator Lanigan who gave me some insight into the Masons and the fact that they cannot be arrested. How does one know who is a Mason since they belong to a secret society?

Our efforts are extremely important and I urge the Tánaiste to continue his work. I understand the fears of both groups in the North but a lot of their fears are groundless. We have no intention of doing anything without their consent.

Mr. Wilson

I join with those who welcomed the Tánaiste to the House. I listened with great interest and approval to what he said and I thank him for what he has done to help us on the road to peace in Northern Ireland. At times he must feel frustrated, but I encourage him to continue his efforts.

I prepared three statements for this debate this morning. I opted for the third statement which could be loosely described as an appeal for the end of terrorism, although it contains many things which the Tánaiste has mentioned.

We have done terrible things to each other in the name of our respective loyalties. A great gulf of mistrust has developed through the centuries, yet we share the same earth and many people strive to reach across in understanding, hope and love to those whom history has separated. It is in that spirit that I appeal again to all paramilitaries to give peace a chance.

The world and Europe are changing and Britain and the Republic have changed. Over 25 years Northern Ireland has also changed beyond all recognition. The management of change for a constructive outcome is vital. People need to find a new self confidence and society must promote the dignity of each member. We must share what we have with each other today and, believing in a future, conserve for tomorrow. By looking forward to the future, we are challenged to build on firm foundations, but we will never do this as long as paramilitary violence for political purposes continues.

Such violence as a means of promoting political change or of preventing it has been with us for far too long. The past 25 years represent only the most recent phase in a recurring cycle of violence stretching back through generations. Through those decades and centuries, violence has always sought justification for its inhumanity by selectively labelling its targets and then using the label to violate the person to whom the label has been so neatly attached.

Such violence has bred the counter violence so that the truth about one another continues to be obscured all the time and it will remain obscured until paramilitaries lay down their arms. Then we may learn how futile were the labels, for in truth there is so much good in the worst and so much bad in the best of us that it will behoves any of us to raise arms in anger against our neighbour.

Violence causes resentment, bitterness, anger and revenge. It also causes remorse and psychological torture in those who perpetrate it — the awful knock, knock, of conscience. This side of repentance and penitence makes it impossible to live again with oneself. All men and women are different. Each is unique, yet all are part of the same humanity under God. In hurting others it follows that we are also hurting ourselves deeply. To say that violence is necessary in the promotion of a noble cause is absurd. We have only to consider the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. That said, it is wrong for the rest of us to adopt "holier than thou" attitudes by condemning on the one hand and on the other washing our hands of the violence which we condemn as if we had no responsibility for it.

Many people who condemn violence will have experienced different feelings of sympathy and censure depending on who was the violator and who was violated, who was killed and who was responsible for the killing — and I know a little about what I am saying. I met a man in Leinster House this morning from the other side of the House whose brother was killed five years ago.

In demonstrating that our condemnation has not always been even handed, we also expose ourselves to the fact that many, perhaps all of us, contain unresolved elements of our bitter conflict deep within ourselves. It is therefore beholden on us to demonstrate a genuine intention to build a new society which will embrace all and exclude none, a society in which words such as alienation, marginalisation, deprivation and demoralisation will gradually cease to have their current significance. It is with such an objective in mind that I appeal to all terrorists to desist from further violence so that we may all create something better together.

Northern Ireland is not just divided on sectarian lines. It is further divided between those with jobs and those without, and worse, between those who have no hope of employment or of doing useful things with their lives and those who still retain such hope. Social alienation in both communities runs deep, yet it will never be addressed adequately as long as the social climate remains so unhopeful through violence. On the other hand, a cessation of violence would allow expression of the radical new energies which have been generated during these 25 years.

Peace must become a driving force for radical social change to allow the liberation of so much locked up talent with the redistribution of power to enable people to act effectively wherever they live and work. With the vision of a new society and with the will to bring it about, social and sectarian wounds would gradually, ever so gradually begin to deal. Violence is too easily predicted in the black and white vision of victory and defeat, of reaction or of revenge, in order to pursue or prevent the sole objective of role reversal. This is our challenge. The time is right to meet it. We have suffered enough.

Grief and bereavement are everywhere and there is overriding despair in the hearts of far too many. So many people have been killed, wounded, maimed and deeply hurt in one way or another; 40,000 injured in Northern Ireland would be the equivalent of 1.5 million people in Britain. People have been broken by despair heaped on anguish. There is deep sadness and collective communal sorrow for so much hurt done ostensibly on behalf of or against the interests of one side or the other. Paramilitaries seem to have ignored that we hold much in common even if we have different ways of relating to it. We need a common language, the language of peace, to give us a chance to grow together and to enable us to cherish the wealth of an inheritance of ancient traditions operating in a country second to none.

Acting Chairman

Senator Belton wishes to share his time with Senator Sherlock. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Belton

I welcome the Minister to the House. I pay tribute to him for his efforts to bring peace to this island. It is not an easy task for any Minister or Government.

Regarding the leaked document by the Department, regardless of what was in it, a leak of that magnitude about any issue is a particular worry for any Minister or Government. I know the Minister will deal with that issue in the manner we would expect.

This is the second time I have had the opportunity to speak after Senator Wilson in a Northern Ireland debate. In my contributions heretofore I emphasised how important it is, and will be, to have a third force on this island. By that I mean the ordinary people North and South, regardless of their political parties, religious beliefs and knowledge of and interest in our history, going forward to create a new society on this island. That is one of the ways this problem will be solved.

It is interesting to note in the last two to three weeks the number of people who came out onto the streets in Northern Ireland, and who telephoned when they had the opportunity, to express their desire, hopes, anxieties and demands for politicians North and South, and in Westminster, to end this nightmare and cycle of violence. I will not spend too much time emphasising this. As Senator Wilson said so far 40,000 individuals have been either killed or injured. That is a huge tragedy in any society. I do not know the population of Northern Ireland; perhaps it is 1.5 million.

The British Exchequer contributes £3 billion per year to Northern Ireland. This accounts for 70 per cent of total spending in that part of the British Isles and 40 per cent in other areas, that is the extent of the British Exchequer commitment to Northern Ireland at present. This State could not contribute in the same way. One must clearly say that the reality of a united Ireland is not on. However, people of goodwill on this part of the island must express their in every possible way, for example, by attending public meetings, to live as neighbours. Neighbourliness will solve this problem.

History has been unkind to this island. Politicians from all parties have an agenda to answer to. When I speak about political parties I include those in the South. If the third force both North and South continue on the road they are on, they will move ahead of politicians, political parties and religious groups in the desire to live as neighbours in peace. They can lead the way because the men of violence, politicians, history and, to a certain extent, the religious divide have added to the tragedy of Northern Ireland. People on this island who want peace now have an opportunity to speak out and contribute to the solution to this tragedy.

Mr. Sherlock

First, I congratulate the British authorities on the interception of a huge quantity of arms and explosives in transit to Ireland. The interception of this cargo has saved lives.

The leaked document from the Department of Foreign Affairs is unhelpful because it only states the Nationalist position. Furthermore, the vague and confused statements of the Taoiseach run the risk of bringing the two Governments into unnecessary conflict which would undermine the cautious hope that some progress may be possible. The latest threat to walk away from Mr. John Major is a dangerous development. The British Prime Minister has gone as close as is politically possible to offer an olive branch to the provisionals. Yet, Mr. Adams responded with a statement designed to create further obstacles to efforts to find a political solution. It is encouraging to note in recent weeks that no lives have been lost in the North.

I refer to an article in today's edition of The Irish Times which asks what the IRA and Mr. Adams are saying about the Hume-Adams initiative. Why has it not been published? What does this mean? The IRA accuses the British of being negative and dismissive of the Hume-Adams initiative. The article stated that the right of the people to self-determination and the question of peace were inextricably linked, that the IRA was ready was ready to show the courage, leadership and flexibility needed to realise this opportunity, but that others were not. If national self determination is the basis of the Hume-Adams initiative, we must think again.

A devolved democratic government in Northern Ireland would represent a compromise between total absorption into the Republic and total integration with Britain. If it is established in a way which is acceptable to the community at large and backed up by a bill of rights, it could lay the foundations for political stability and economic regeneration. There should be investment in the North because poverty contributes, to a certain extent, to the violence and carnage there.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The theme in the Tánaiste's opening address and in speeches made in the House is that everyone wants to join the search for peace and to see an end to the suffering. We only experience suffering indirectly in terms of economic deprivation. We all want to find a basis on which to build a foundation. Seeking peace is desirable, but we must look at the means to achieve it. As Senator Manning said, it must be a just peace.

Peace is not just the absence of violence. It depends on the readiness of the community to adhere to and respect institutions, those in authority and those who influence their daily lives. That is the basis of peace. One must gain the respect and recognition of everyone in society, that is the quest for Northern Ireland and we must do everything possible in the spirit of generosity and common purpose to bring about such a situation, this takes courage. We will have to listen to things which should not be said and ignore things which are meant to hurt and offend. If we are to persuade, we must be forbearing. The suitor must always listen to the reaction of those who may not want to be embraced at a particular time. We must reach out. One man has done that, although he has not been mentioned much this morning.

As a Minister, I dealt with Mr. John Hume over the years. He has shown courage and a sense of responsibility and took the risk the Tánaiste spoke about. We must encourage others in the political sphere in Northern Ireland to reach out and to create conditions on the other side which will bring about peace. I pay tribute to those who survived as a political entity despite having served in government for only three months. I know and worked with these people. We should not ignore their courage and consistency. It was a mistake to say peace in a week but note the way some people picked that up, used and abused it.

I deplore, reject and repudiate everything the IRA stands for. Equally, there is no point in allowing the notion to get out that loyalist paramilitary violence is exclusively confined to reaction to IRA violence. I join Members in congratulating the security forces involved in yesterday's great arms find. However, I do not think the find was an attempt to react to IRA violence. We have to be honest and acknowledge that elements must be eradicated and rooted out on all sides.

I had the privilege recently of meeting representatives from Moyle District Council who came to my home area. Among those Unionists was a very open, charitable and Christian man, Pryce McConnie. He is a man of moderation and the people of his area understand and demonstrate that in the huge support they give him. He says there is and must be respect for both legitimate aspirations. Yes, we must respect each other and our aspirations. So, let us now tell the Unionists that we respect them and that they are a great part of our tradition. They are a vital and important part, not only of the tradition but also the future of this island. They must know it from us and we must prove it every day by everything we do. We need them not just for our narrow interests but for what we can do together in terms of a common purpose in economics, trade and internationally. They need us, we need each other. More significantly, we should tell them very clearly that we want to share with them through whatever structures can be agreed. Agreement and consent are fundamental, of course. Nothing that was ever said, in my experience in politics here, suggested otherwise.

Are we prepared to share with them? It is time to recognise that they have not enjoyed the same status as us. We are represented at every level in the Commission of the European Communities. Are we prepared to tell them that we want to share that and take them out of the narrow ground, the narrow cage, where they have been confined to confronting each other? We want them to get out in the wider world and have special consultation procedures with them at the Council of Ministers. Are they ready or willing to share our role and status which they do not have? They are not at the Council or in the Commission. We want to hear their voice at the United Nations. We are ready to listen and share if they want to share this broader dimension with us and realise their potential and dignity.

We should be prepared to be generous even in respect of representation in the European Parliament. We have 15 seats and the North has three. Are we prepared to say that this distortion is not of our making and to look at the disadvantage imposed? We want to share all the aspects of status and responsibility that we enjoy and to point out what is unnatural and wrong. For instance, it is unnatural and wrong that this island, rich in natural resources, cannot support our own people, North and South. Is someone going to tell me that, compared to the island across the way with ten times our population, we cannot support over five million people in well being and opportunity? Of course we can but why are we not doing it? It is because we have barriers to trade between North and South, which are unnatural and wrong.

The levels of trade between the Republic and Britain — I am talking about the rest of the United Kingdom — is much higher pro rata than it is between the Republic and the North. That is also unnatural and wrong. Whose fault is that? It is because we have allowed these barriers to be built on both sides against development North and South. This nation would have a huge potential if it were to operate as one force. The world outside recognises us as having a common presentation, whether in tourism, culture or natural agricultural products. All that belongs to both. Are we prepared to share or do we want to build barriers and confine ourselves behind them? We are competing with each other, through State incentives, for investment in the North and the South. Are we prepared to say that this is not in the interests of our people? Are we prepared to share? Are we not in the position to say that we are prepared to share? I have no doubt that in the event of talks with our Northern fellow Irishmen, the Government would demonstrate generosity in every sense. The opportunity is there for all.

We all have something to say and I am particularly interested in Senator Henry's point of view. It is important to say that there is a respect here for all denominations. From time to time we are uneasy and maybe it does not go far enough, but we must not let it appear that we impose prejudice against the Church of Ireland. We do not, and it is time that the Church of Ireland here was heard loud and clear saying that.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome the Tánaiste and the tone of this speech. I do not think any reasonable person could disagree with his sentiments. Nor would I question the determination of constitutional politicians here, in Britain or in Northern Ireland to find a way forward and a solution. I welcome the fact that the British Government has pushed this important matter up the political agenda and is seen to be addressing it with the determination it deserves. However, bilateral arrangements between the Irish and British Governments will not work or solve the problem. The process must encompass the constitutional politicians of Northern Ireland from both traditions who must be fully integrated in it.

A month ago in this House we condemned what happened on the Shankill Road and subsequently condemned what happened in Greysteel. We were right to make those condemnations. It seems that we have condemned other atrocities in the past on a terribly regular basis. I remember, for example, when the Australian lawyers were killed on the Continent by the IRA. I want to return to something that I said in the House a month ago, to repeat it and if necessary to keep on repeating it. It has been spoken of by Senator Wilson whose authority none of us could challenge. It has to do with the peace process and the fact that I cannot see how the cessation of violence can be a consequence of the peace process. The peace process begins with a cessation of violence, the men and women of violence on both sides must be told that if there is to be any way forward they must put away their bombs and bullets. That is where it begins and ends. Until we see evidence of that I would be very pessimistic about the progress we can make. How can we expect people to absorb ideas, which to many of them are alien, if we continue to kill, maim, damage and ruin their lives in Northern Ireland?

From this remove it is sometimes easy to detach ourselves from the significance of the violence and really not understand what it is to be affected by it, as Senator Wilson so profoundly understands. When he addresses this House it must bring him back to the events at the war memorial in Enniskillen, and it is a wonder to me, in those circumstances, that he can be so Christian and dispassionate in putting forward the points he does.

It also has to be said that for many people in Northern Ireland violence has become a business. This is one of the reasons it continues. A friend of mine in the North runs a large business which I visited several years ago. There was a security presence at the gate which he arranged on a rota basis. One week a group from one side manned the gate and the subsequent week a group from another side did so. This made his premises secure. We must appreciate the reality of the business violence generates and it may be one of the reasons it is perpetuated.

I share the view expressed by Senator O'Kennedy that it is right and proper to continually stress the need for peace but we are faced with the reality of how to construct something from this which will last and solve the problem. Generosity is important and unilateral generosity can have an effect. That is why I think it is important to look at Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. There must be reservations about whether a constitutional referendum would pass. However, that is not a good reason for not attempting to change those articles. I share the view that if all the constitutional politicians in the Republic were to support an amendment of the Constitution, it would be carried. That would send a strong signal and is worth doing.

We must accept that the leaked document of last week had a very serious effect. Fortunately, there are people of courage, such as Mr. Molyneaux. We refer to the courage of various politicians and I accept that to be a constitutional politician in Northern Ireland requires significant courage. He has shown a great deal of courage, particularly in the face of the leaking of this document. The question of who had access to it arises. Did Ministers have access to it? It is easy to ask people if they gave the document to someone else. They can legitimately say they did not but if they leave it on their desks and leave their doors open the effect is the same. The Tánaiste is concerned about the matter and is addressing it. We need to get to the bottom of it. Is it the intention of some people, by leaking documents of this nature, to throw a lifeline to Mr. Adams?

There must be evidence of solidarity between the Government parties on Northern Ireland which is manifest and consistent. It will, unquestionably, be supported by all parties on this side of the House.

We all carry baggage which goes back to the mists of history but we must shed it if there is to be progress. We all accept the desire for peace. The Tánaiste referred to the numbers of people who phoned the newspapers in Belfast. This will imparts a moral authority to constitutional politicians and, I hope, puts pressure on the people of violence. We must convert this desire into reality. This is the fundamental challenge facing us as practising politicians. If we do not respond to that challenge, we leave an opening for the men of violence. The prize is so enormous that it has to be worked for morning, noon and night by all constitutional politicians. If the Tánaiste incorporates any or all of us in that process, as I am sure he would wish to do, he will find a willing response from all sides of the House.

Christianity, as manifested by Senator Wilson, is important. How can we explain to a sceptical world that we are, allegedly, a Christian society while there is violence in our midst. For that reason I endorse Senator Manning's view that we must congratulate and support our Christian leaders in the way they have responded to this initiative. I also share his view that there are leaders in business and other areas of society who must take the same approach.

We must recognise the legitimacy of the Britishness of some people who live on this island just as there is legitimacy in the Irishness of others. We must resolve that fundamental conflict.

Mr. Crowley

I thank Senator Magner for allocating his time to me.

I welcome the Tánaiste and congratulate him on his courage and conviction — and that of the Government — in trying to find a solution. The call by Senator Manning and others for the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution is one regularly made by Unionists politicians. I do not know whether the Constitution is misunderstood or misinterpreted. For a document written in 1937 it is very far-sighted and shows great vision on the part of those who drafted it.

The judicial interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 was highlighted in the case of McGimpsey v. Ireland and Others. The Supreme Court judgment quoted from one of its previous decisions regarding the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill, 1975, which was reported in 1977 Irish Report 129 as follows:

One of the theories held in 1937 by a substantial number of citizens was that a nation, as distinct from a State, had rights; that the Irish people living in what is now called the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland together formed the Irish Nation; that a nation has a right to unity of territory in some form, be it as a unitary or federal state; and that the Government of Ireland Act 1920, though legally binding, was a violation of that national right to unity which was superior to positive law.

This national claim to unity exists not in the legal but in the political order and is one of the rights which are envisaged in Article 2; it is expressly saved by Article 3 which states the area to which the laws enacted by the parliament established by the Constitution apply.

Article 3 states that pending the reintegration of our country the laws of the Government of Ireland will be confined to the Twenty six counties. Article 3 must be read in the context of the whole Constitution. Articles 29.1 and 29.2, which are practically a direct copy of Article 12 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, of which Eamon de Valera was President, states Ireland commits itself to the peaceful resolution of difficulties with other countries.

Mr. Justice Donal Barrington, in a lecture on the North and the Constitution, stated that taking all these things into account, it might, therefore, be said that not only does our Constitution forbid the Oireachtas to attempt to legislate for Northern Ireland until such time as Ireland has been reunited, it also commits the State to seek a peaceful method of reunification. There is no mandate in the Constitution for even the Government to attempt to resolve the partition problem by violence. A fortiori, there is no mandate for the Provisional IRA, or any other organisation to attempt to do so.

I conclude by quoting John F. Kennedy who in 1962 said:

We stand today on the edge of a new frontier but the new frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises, it is a set of challenges. It sums up, not what I attend to offer the people, but what I intend to ask of them.

We must now all strive for peace but if peace is to last it must be based on justice and come as soon as possible.

Mr. Wright

With the agreement of the House, the Tánaiste would like to reply to some to the points made this morning.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Farrell)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

First, I thank Senators for their contributions. I have found this debate helpful and fruitful. I would like to voice my respect for the manner in which we have dealt with this subject. I could take my opening from Senator Crowley's closing remark, that it is a challenge which we now face. It will not be based on promises or false hopes, but let us rise to that challenge.

There are times when, as has been said by many people, one could conclude that the unsolved problem of Northern Ireland appears so intractable and insoluble that one might be tempted to say we should concentrate instead on issues which we can achieve. On the other hand, we must take inspiration from events which are happening all around the world. A number of years ago, I stood beside the Berlin Wall and I would have defied anybody to tell me that wall would be gone on my next trip to Berlin within six months. It was there as a sad testimony of violence, bitterness and division in Europe, and is now gone. Likewise, one could draw parallels in South Africa and the Middle East. They are far from ending their problems but they are on the road to solving them. That required courage, leadership and inspiration. It is important that both governments continue trying to find a solution and to work together.

Many references were made to the bitterness, hatred and divisions which are palpable and evident in Northern Ireland. It is a different society. We are privileged in the South in that we have normal politics. We may have our differences between parties and individuals, leaders and otherwise, but it is normal politics. There is the stability which was achieved by those who went before us. We have our rivalries and differences but we are fortunate. We must appreciate those who have gone before us because there were difficulties, bitterness and divisions at the foundation of this State. That was brought home to me recently when I stood in a graveyard on a hillside in south Kerry and saw headstones to officers of the then Free State Army and nearby others to the IRA. Those divisions were left in our society but we overcame them. As I said, much thanks is due to those who went before us because most of us are lucky enough not to be carrying that baggage today.

Northern Ireland is an unfortunate society in another way, in that one is branded, as Senator O'Toole said, by their religion or sport. I do not think we, in the South, can even contemplate a society where in a city such as Dublin, Cork or Limerick, playing Gaelic football, hurling, rugby, soccer or whatever would automatically indicate a person's politics. That is all gone because we have a normal society and have overcome the legacy of bitterness and hatred which was there at the foundation of our State.

Senator Norris asked about my contacts with the Unionists. I have made written attempts — which, thankfully, have not been leaked yet — to make contact. I have done so publicly and privately and I will continue to do so because I think it is imperative that politicians of all persuasions can sit across a table and try to deal with these difficult problems.

Senator O'Toole referred to symbolism and I would agree with him completely. There is much symbolism to which people attach different labels. We must cope with that symbolism and share it.

References were made to the Church leaders. They have managed to walk the last mile in recent years. They have overcome their differences and can work together, as evidenced by their visit to Aras an Uachtaráin on Monday. The Adelaide Hospital, the solution to which was achieved by this Government in a short period of time, is a strong example of the tolerance of the society in the South. That might not have happened 20 or 30 years ago. I receive many representations from Northern Ireland and from the South, and I was disappointed after this was done, because nobody came back to say it was an achievement or that it was in the interests of pluralism and healing divisions in our society.

There are varying opinions on Articles 2 and 3 which must be handled delicately. One of the constant reminders in relation to Northern Ireland is that we are trying to square a circle and keep balance, and these Articles mean different things to different sides. The Government has been very open, perhaps particularly the Taoiseach and myself, in relation to our preparedness to have constitutional change in the South. Constitutional change is inevitable in solving the problems of this island.

Some references have been made to the leaking of a document. I want to make it clear that, as far as I am concerned, I do not accept that this document was leaked by my office or my Department. I believe that great damage has been done to the national interest by the person who leaked that document and by the Irish Press in publishing it. Whether by intention or otherwise, a serious undermining of my position has been perpetrated by this vile deed. People are aware that a Garda investigation at the highest level is under way and I intended to leave no stone unturned until the persons involved in this episode are brought to answer before the courts.

Finally, as has been said by many speakers, we need tolerance, understanding and mutual respect. I believe that both Governments with the parties in Northern Ireland can work together. We do not need politicians failing to condemn the men of violence, as we saw last night in relation to the importation of arms. No constitutional politician should be an apologist for the men of violence who attempt to bring more arms of destruction into this country. Let all politicians show leadership and, as the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, John Major, have said in recent times, let us have the courage to walk that last mile to establish peace in this island.

Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.