Ten minutes for opening speeches and eight minutes thereafter. We are allowing an element of flexibility, as agreed. I welcome the Minister to the House.
Peace Process: Statements.
When I drive home to Killybegs at the weekend and back again, I pass through the Six Counties. There was always fear when making this journey. I would ask myself if I should stop at the Killyhevlin Hotel and have a meal or go into Enniskillen to shop or stop at Lisnaskea or Kesh. There was always the fear that I might be in the right place at the wrong time and that the Provisional IRA would launch a rocket attack or explode a bomb. It would not bother me if I was killed. I am not afraid of death.
We would miss the Senator.
I would hate to be maimed but, worse again, perhaps my wife would be maimed or hurt. These fears were not just with me but with the population of Northern Ireland for the last number of decades, particularly for the past 25 years. However, these fears are gone, thanks be to God and to the combined efforts of Gerry Adams, John Hume, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach, whose constant, simple but powerful refrain — who is afraid of peace? — seemed to strike a chord.
The fear from the Provisional IRA is gone and I know they will not kill me. However, what about the UVF, the UFF or the UDA? Can I risk going into a bar for a quiet drink or will somebody push open a door, shout "Trick or treat" and spray the bar with machine gun fire? Thank God, they too have decided to lay down their arms. The loyalist paramilitaries, who gave us the Shankill Butchers, Loughinisland and Greysteel, have stopped the killing, in common with the IRA. It is worth remembering their brave words: "Let us firmly resolve to respect our differing views of freedom, culture and aspiration and never again permit our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody massacre."
They also apologised for the harm they caused over the years, but can the families forget what happened? Can anybody forget? I do not think we can forget, nor should we or need to do so. This is what Remembrance Day is all about. Nobody should forget Enniskillen. However, we must forgive because there is no other way forward. Without true forgiveness, there cannot be a lasting peace. There is a prime example of this in the House, Senator Gordon Wilson, who will not forget but who publicly forgave.
As I drive on, I feel a little safer but there are still other armies in the Six Counties, such as the INLA. It is not a large force but it is very lethal. I hope it too will choose the path of peace. As I approach the Border I feel more secure until I am confronted at the checkpoint by a massive fort with a steel tower. My number plate is checked by computer; I am automatically photographed. I am asked where I am coming from and to where I am going and what is my business? Often my boot is searched. This is carried out by one of the last armies to remain in the field, the British Army. I am suddenly reminded of Bloody Sunday, 12 years old Majella O'Hare, 13 years old Brian Stewart, 16 years old John Boyle, Aidan McAnaspie, the concentration camps at McGilligan and Long Kesh and the torture chambers of Castlereagh. Sadly, I realise that I am still not completely safe as I drive through part of my own country.
I wait and I hope. Perhaps the Northern Ireland working committee of the British Cabinet, which is meeting this morning, will recommend to the British Government to begin talks about talks. Perhaps the British Government will agree to a complete demilitarisation of that part of the province over which it claims jurisdiction. Perhaps it will withdraw its army, which was sent there to keep peace between the warring factions of Irishmen. Now that the Irishmen have stopped warring and decided to pursue their separate agendas by democratic and peaceful means, surely this massive army is no longer required? Surely its cause is redundant?
Are these separate warring factions now friends? Far from it; they have a long way to go before a real rapprochement occurs. Irish nationalists who want a united Ireland or loyalists who want to remain with the UK are still poles apart in their aspirations. We are reminded of the words of the loyalist paramilitaries' declaration, to respect these different aspirations. It is only through dialogue that they will come to realise how much they have in common. It is only by concentrating on what binds us rather than divides us that we can ever live in peace. I hope all sides will eventually come to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, not just to talk and present their points of view but also to listen. It is only by listening to others that we realise they have concerns, worries and fears. All of us must give a little on this small island if it is to work and prosper. We must meet one another.
How many people in this part of Ireland have never seen the Giant's Causeway or been to Portstewart or Portavogie? Now that it is safer they should travel to the North and meet some loyalists who they will find do not have horns and I would ask the loyalists to come to the South, as they did in the past. We have more in common that binds us than divides us.
How was it that for years in Donegal where I grew up we could celebrate 12 July and 15 August with the Orangemen and the AOH? There was no violence, killing or fighting, just an acknowledgement that, although some of us have differing viewpoints, it does not prevent us enjoying ourselves together. Everyone went to the two parades and — although nobody believes this — it is on record that the same bands once played in both parades because one parade was short of numbers. I would love to see a number of Orange bands march here on St. Patrick's Day; I do not see why they could not be invited.
I belong to the Fianna Fáil Party, the republican party, whose primary aim is the establishment of a united Ireland through peaceful means. I make no apologies for that aspiration and I never want to change it but I concede that I will have to modify what I saw as a united Ireland. I once dreamed of a green, Gaelic, Catholic Ireland. I know now it will not be Catholic but I hope it will be Christian; I know it will not be Gaelic but at least it will be Irish; I am proud to say that my green flag will be tinged with a fair drop of crimson from the red hand of Ulster if we are to fly it over the whole country in the future.
We have a beginning — nothing has really changed except that we can talk without being killed. That may not sound a lot to people who did not live there but to be constantly under the fear of being killed or maimed was an horrific way to live. Now that fear is for the most part removed it gives us a wonderful opportunity. We will not solve our problems in a week, a month or a year but if we talk and listen we will find that we have more that binds us than divides us. Each side will have to give, yet it is not always easy to give up a dream. The dream is still realisable; it will just be different.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Shea, to the House; he is always welcome here. It is a pity that the Tánaiste did not open this debate as it is a help to those taking part to have an indication of the Government's up to date thinking on the matter. We must wait for that later in the debate. That is not a reflection on the Minister of State who is always welcome here nor on the contribution of Senator Lydon to which I listened with interest.
This is the first occasion we are not discussing Northern Ireland under the shadow of a terrible atrocity or against the backdrop of some dramatic happening, as was the case when last we met to mark the declaration of the IRA ceasefire. Today, a week after the event, we celebrate the loyalist ceasefire. At last the pieces are falling into place.
On the occasion of the IRA ceasefire I said that I did not thank or praise the IRA because it had decided to stop killing and bombing its fellow human beings after 25 years of carnage. I was glad that at last it had seen fit to give the democratic constitutional process a chance and had accepted that there could be no victory for any side through murder. I say the same about the loyalist ceasefire. We can never forget — nor should we — that some of the worst atrocities, some of the most heinously barbaric acts were committed by these people. Greysteel, Loughinisland, the Shankill butchers and the Dublin bombs — the list could go on and on. We hope there will be forgiveness, but the nationalist people will never be able to forget what these people have done.
It is now time to move on and, in saying that, I would like to applaud the Tánaiste for his part in bringing us to the present position. He has been somewhat overshadowed of late but it is only fair to say that the Tánaiste was there in 1985 for the beginning of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and has played a consistent, brave and enlightened part in bringing us to the present position. I would have preferred to say this in his presence but I record it now. Sometimes in the daily rough and tumble of politics significant achievements can be overlooked and not given the credit to which they are entitled. I have already recorded my admiration for what the Taoiseach has done in this regard.
It is important to remember that we are only at the beginning and we are on a route as yet unmapped and with no real international examples to guide us. We are at the beginning and have yet to face up to the enormous structural and institutional problems which, presumably, those drafting the framework document are now seeking to address. In the euphoria — understandable as it was and is — at the prospect of peace it is too easy to dismiss these questions as being already solved or easily solved, or to hope that the difficult problems will simply go away. These problems are not solved and will not go away.
On the declaration of their ceasefire the loyalists assured their people that the union was safe. Sinn Féin tells its people that the Border will go and the British will leave this island. They cannot both be right, or can they? That is the size of the problem facing those who are drafting the framework document at present. It is not just a question of balance — if it were we could find a ruler or a weighing scales and produce a balanced document which would appear to be fair. It is more a question of assuring each side that the gains more than outweigh the losses, that the risk is worth taking and to assure them that they can bring their own people with them.
It is a fragile and vulnerable process. There are people on both sides who do not want it to work, among them elected politicians such as Mr. Ian Paisley who, to his great shame, still appears to be bent on the path of opposition and destructiveness, unwilling to play a constructive role in what the majority of people on both sides want to take place. There are also the lurking godfathers and the hard-liners of the IRA waiting for their chance to tell their people they were wrong and that the old way is the only way. There are those who are hiding behind the euphoria and do not want this process to work, and it is better that we recognise that these people exist than be swept along in false hope and optimism.
We must not underestimate these people and for that reason some of the hype of recent times is regrettable. It was right to bring Mr. Gerry Adams into the peace process but we must not elevate him to a status he does not deserve and which is all too easily being conferred on him at present. To many people North and South he is not a freedom fighter; he does not speak for nationalist Ireland as he claimed on his recent trip to the US; he is not the leader of what is called "pan-nationalism", whatever that may mean. He should never be a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Peace — that would be obscene, yet it is seriously spoken about. He is the leader of a party which gets less than 10 per cent of the vote in Northern Ireland and less than 2 per cent of the vote in this part of the island. His importance is based on one fact — the backing his party receives from the IRA and the influence and control his party can exert on the IRA in keeping it within the peace process. Let us be careful before we confer sainthood status on Mr. Adams and his supporters. We have yet to see the colour and the durability of Sinn Féin's democratic credentials. The real tests are down the road. Similarly, let us not create expectations which cannot be met. I hope that unionist politicians in the North will say the same about loyalist paramilitaries as they come, for the first time, into the democratic process. Let us look at things realistically but let us not create expectations or create an aura which frightens people away from taking part in this process.
A point which can easily be forgotten in the present concentration of publicity on the extremes of each side is the importance of the centre to the process. If, in political terms, the centre cannot hold the process will not get off the ground and will not be successful. The extremes can give us peace but the extremes cannot make the political process work. That is the job which must be carried out by the solid slogging constitutional parties of the centre. There is an extraordinary obligation at present on the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to start talking to each other in a way that they have not done thus far.
The SDLP and the Official Unionist Party have far more in common with each other than either has with the extremists on their respective sides. These are constitutional parties who have stood up against paramilitaries through the years. They are parties that have ploughed the democratic furrow in extremely difficult circumstances. They are concerned on a day to day basis with the ordinary problems of ordinary people in Northern Ireland. They have far more in common in addressing the economic and social problems of the people of Northern Ireland — the problems that Ken Maginnis, Seamus Mallon and others deal with day in, day out in the House of Commons — than they have with the extremes and those who have destroyed the infrastructure of large parts of Northern Ireland.
We should encourage them to start talking seriously. The fact that they are not doing so is regrettable and could prove to be one of the great weaknesses in the ongoing political process. However, there have been hopeful signs. There has been a softening of tone and an openness we never saw before among people we regard as hard line unionists. People like John Taylor have not rushed to condemn the peace process. They have shown an openness of mind that is encouraging and welcome. Recently I saw a mixed group which included Dr. Joe Hendron, Reg Empey and others in Boston working together in the interests of Northern Ireland — as they have been doing on economic issues for quite a long time. There are hopeful signs that the ordinary politicians are working together. However, every effort must be made to emphasise the commonality of interest and the great issues that bind them rather than those that divide them.
That brings me to a question which I had hoped the Tánaiste would address here this morning. The question was raised in this House yesterday and it relates to the Alliance Party. Perhaps the Tánaiste will have news for us this morning that this matter has been resolved. It came as a great shock to people north and south of the Border that the Alliance Party was being allocated less representation than Sinn Féin at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Apart from the reality of the situation, in symbolic terms it was a major public relations disaster.
People look to symbols. The Alliance Party is often despised because it is rational, sane and decent. It is despised because it is not fanatical and because, of all the parties in the North, it has sought — long before it was profitable or popular to do so — to bridge the gap between the two communities. The Alliance Party is the only party committed to the union in Northern Ireland that is prepared to take part in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and it is being placed lower than a party which has for the last 25 years been part of the subversion of the democratic process in Northern Ireland. I hope this can be resolved. It is important that the Alliance Party is told that people here have enormous regard and respect for what it is doing and that we believe it should have at least parity in representation if not more. I would allocate the party more than any of the nationalist parties bearing in mind its symbolic importance representing unionism. It would be unworthy and a dreadful waste of time and effort if this problem was allowed to disfigure the opening of the forum.
I am sceptical about the value of the forum. I understand why the Government wants to bring Sinn Féin into the democratic process and why it wants to confer respectability on Sinn Féin. I have no problem whatsoever with that. However, I am concerned that almost everything about the forum appears to be ad hoc— it is being made up as we go along. There is no clarity about what it seeks to achieve. Mr. Denis Coughlan in a perceptive article in The Irish Times today highlights many of the problems facing the forum. It appears at this stage that the main value of the forum may well be to provide a forum for discussion while the Government sorts out the problems on which it has not yet reached agreement. If that is what the main value of the forum will be, it is flimsy. I would like to hear from the Minister what is the up to date thinking on the forum. To date it appears to be ad hoc and flimsy.
I had the honour of being a member of the New Ireland Forum during the 1980s. I have mixed views on the value of that institution. It took far too long, it was leaky and, at the end of its deliberations, the report of the forum was — and it gives me no pleasure to say so — shamelessly hijacked and distorted by the then leader of the Opposition, Mr. Haughey. The hardest of the three options available was presented as if it was the only option to emerge from the forum. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is also vulnerable to being used by parties for their own agendas against the greater good which the forum is there to serve. That is the nature of politics and the nature of life.
I have yet to be persuaded that the forum is the best way forward. A contradiction is looming. When the framework document is presented it will, presumably, give us the best and the agreed thinking of the two Governments on the institutions and the constitutional changes to be made. However, these are the very questions which the forum will also discuss. If the framework document presents what the Government considers to be the best way forward, does the forum have the right to disagree and to seek to change what has been agreed between the two Governments? I envisage enormous possibilities for friction in that regard. I can see the work of the framework document being undermined if it is subject to day in, day out scrutiny of the forum. That could cause great problems between the two Governments. It could lead to charges of bad faith being made against our Government if it is forced to backtrack because of the forum's reaction. I am not happy about that.
Perhaps the Minister has a clearer idea about its function than has emerged from his speeches so far. Perhaps he can assure us that the forum has been properly thought through, what it will do, what its relationship will be to the framework principles, what timescale is envisaged for it and what standing the forum will have in the process. I do not knock the idea of a Forum for Peace and Reconciliation — it is a good idea. However, if the unionist parties are absent and unlikely to attend, there is always the danger that it will simply become a rerun of the New Ireland Forum which was essentially a nationalist forum. There are also the other dangers of it running on too long and of conflict between what the forum wants to achieve and the stated intentions of the framework document. I ask the Minister to clarify these points.
I wish to be generous in acknowledging the enormous progress which has been made on what most of us regarded a year ago as an utterly intractable problem — I and my party have been generous in the past. The Government should note its position has been greatly strengthened by the bipartisan approach in both Houses. That spirit did not exist in 1985 but happily it is here today. As long as the Government continues to respect the principle of consensus and works within the Downing Street Declaration, it will continue to have the full and unwavering support of the Opposition in seeking to attain objectives we all desire.
A Chathaoirligh, thank you for the opportunity to say some words this morning. Although the notice was posted to me, for whatever reason I did not hear until yesterday that this discussion was taking place. This is the first time that has happened and I blame no one, but I have not had an opportunity to think about what I might want to say. I did not even have such an opportunity yesterday because with various commitments I could not find the time to put something on paper.
This is not an address or a speech but rather a collection of reflections as of 6 a.m. today. I again remind the House I am not a politician. I am a retired draper and I have yet to find a speech-writer. When the Taoiseach pays one of his visits to Ireland I must ask him if he can help me in that regard. I re-emphasise that I do not represent unionism, Protestantism or any other "-ism". I speak for me.
The news from Northern Ireland is good, if not very good, and it gets better by the day, by the week and by the month. Peace come dropping slowly and it must be that way. However, there is evidence of movement; there are changes in Northern Ireland. People, especially the young, are walking about with a freer and less fearful air. I mention the young because I see young fresh faces in the Public Gallery and think of the many thousands of young faces in Northern Ireland to whom we hope to present a fearless and peaceful future.
Some of the changes are in themselves small but are nevertheless significant. For example, I was on the other side of Belfast on Monday evening and had to come home through the city to find the M1. For the first time in 24 years I took the shortest route, which led down the Falls Road. I did it without fear but I would not have done it some weeks ago, nor did I do it for 25 years.
The army presence is less obtrusive and obvious. There are many fewer helicopters and army patrols. Largely because of the IRA ceasefire, an American hotel group has decided within the last three weeks to build a large hotel in the centre of Belfast. We have more tourists from the Republic than before — they are obvious in Enniskillen. An RUC member played golf in Donegal last week, which would not have happened previously.
Everyday without bombs or bullets convinces ever more people that we are at the start of the road to peace. However, many remain sceptical, and understandably so. Too many people have been hurt in the last 25 years. They cannot forget and many find it difficult to forgive. Attitudes of mind take time to change; softening of hearts does not come easily; respect for and trust of the other side does not happen overnight.
We need space in Northern Ireland; not pressure but time. With great respect, I say to the Taoiseach that there have been times in the last four weeks that I and many others in Northern Ireland thought he was proceeding ahead of the field; yet I appreciate he must maintain the momentum for peace. There have also been times when I felt my Prime Minister, Mr. Major, was getting behind the field; however I believe this weekend he will accept the IRA ceasefire and start the clock ticking. I understand Mr. Major's responsibility, because Britain is the sovereign power in Northern Ireland and if events go badly it is Westminster and Mr. Major who will have to pick up the pieces.
I remain optimistic. The two things which had to happen have happened. There was no way forward to peace unless the guns and bombs had been left to one side. I pay tribute to two men, Mr. John Hume and Reverend Roy Magee. I never thought I would live to see the day when Mr. David Irvine would say he was happy to talk to Mr. Gerry Adams. That has to be good news.
We are at the start of what will be a long and bumpy road to peace. Let us choose our words and actions wisely and let us pray to God to guide us to the paths of peace.
Senator, there is no need to hire anyone to write your speeches on the North. I call Senator O'Toole.
The points made by Senator Wilson will appeal to all of us. We should discuss where we go from here. We should put on record the developments which have taken place in the last two months, which are important for our future and for our history. We now need to know what is the next step, what this forum will do, what is its agenda, and how we will put the views of the forum into action.
It is critically important to create a sub-political forum, working under the forum. Politicians as politicians cannot take this process much further. They have taken it to this extraordinary point. I now believe we need to build bridges between communities. We need to address where differences are in Northern Ireland. We can approach reconciliation only by building bridges between people from both sides. In Northern Ireland there is a huge investment of hope in the future of our island. There is a huge element of expectancy that this will work out fine. It is a terrorising thought to visualise the despair of the people of the North if this process is not finally successful.
To address the future we must look briefly at the past. We must look at the position in the North in the late 1960s, which gave rise to the civil rights movement and the Troubles. There is a very grave danger that we could see a rerun of history if we do not look exactly at what is happening there. It has to be said in a non-sectarian way that in the Catholic ghetto areas of Northern Ireland unemployment is running at twice the average. In parts of the same areas the number of people receiving disability and invalidity pensions and who are off work due to illness is between 70 and 75 per cent of the average. We need to deal with these issues and see where we should intervene.
Where can we make the point of contact and who can do it? No politician from this House can go to west Belfast and begin the process. I am the only Member of the Oireachtas with an office in Belfast and having day-to-day dealings with the North. I keep hearing questions for which I do not have answers. To where do we go next? What happens to the views which will be expressed in the forum? If the forum comes to a consensus that we need more integrated education in the North, who will take the initiative with Cardinal Daly or the heads of other Churches to say we want integrated education in a way which protects the cultural values and ethos of the religions of those Churches? If somebody says it is a good idea that the security forces be allowed play GAA games, who will take this on the next step? Members of my union working in the North are involved in the education for mutual understanding scheme. Who pushes out the boat on this? It is presented as being an important aspect of the developmental work at children's level and so it is. Whereas children of a local Catholic primary school can meet with the children in the local Protestant primary school and have an enjoyable game of soccer, which is considered to be a globally neutral game, to try to do the same with GAA games, cricket or rugby one would suddenly find where the cultural differences and problems are. Who will address these issues?
Students who will conclude their leaving certificates this year are now looking for third-level places for next year. Queen's University and other universities in the North are closer to where I live in north Dublin than the majority of the colleges in the South. Why should students on this island have to fill two application forms? It would be a good idea to combine these so that next February leaving certificate students who want to study, say, psychology and can do so at UCD, UCC, Queens, Jordanstown or wherever they can see these choices listed together when they are making their decisions and choices. It is only through such interactive development that we will make progress.
I want to concentrate on practical things and keep away from the high principled ideas which I am worried will become the currency and coinage of the forum. I do not see people coming forward raising the practical issues which can be addressed. I will be in Belfast four times this week. The only two cities in Ireland which I cannot fly between are Dublin and Belfast. Why is this? A proposal has been put forward that there should be an eastern economic corridor between these cities. This makes a great deal of sense. Who will move towards implementing this? How do we move forward on these issues?
Education is the area I know best and I have looked at how it impacts on the peace process. My members in the North are dealing with the second or third generation of pupils who have known nothing but the Troubles. They have been born and reared in an atmosphere of tension, worry and terror. How do we respond to this in terms of counselling and back up support?
More importantly, how do we teach people on both sides of the Border, young children, older students and adults, how to tolerate difference? How do we say to people that the ethnicity of this island, with its strong Protestant, Catholic, unionist and nationalist values, its overall republican approach and people with different beliefs and cultural backgrounds, is good and that this island could become the jewel in the European crown for the diversity and beauty of its ethnicity and difference, which can be developed?
Who will start this process? It will not happen only in the forum, important as the forum is. I want to make absolutely clear that I fully support the forum. It is a necessary step which must be taken. My contribution is related to the next step, to what happens after that point. Somebody may say it would be a good idea to have conferences in the North so that people would at least travel there. The problem is that there is no interaction. It is very hard to describe to people in the South what it is like to be born in a Catholic hospital, raised in a Catholic housing estate, go to a Catholic school, go to a Catholic college and, if one is sick, go to a Catholic hospital. From the womb to the tomb there is a cultural context of difference.
I spoke to a woman from the Shankhill during the week and asked her what her view was on Catholicism. She was slow to speak about it because her intention was not to create problems and she had the same hopes for peace as people in the Falls or anywhere else. She told me that as kids Catholicism reminded her and others of cannibalism. I do not know what this woman's religion was. She said that in one of our sacraments we consume our own God and this was difficult for other people to understand. People do not understand each other. Why can Protestant kids not be invited to the first communion party in their local area? Who can set up something like this? If Jewish kids are celebrating their bar mitzvah, why should we not all be there to be part of it? The cultural celebrations of different groups should not be confined only to people of those cultural backgrounds.
It is very important that we get people working together on programmes of common value. If we were to introduce, for instance, European languages on this island — I use this as an example because it is outside the cultural experience of people on either side of the divide and the Border — we could have people, North and South, working on this project and on projects like peace education.
There are also immediate problems and I know Senator Maloney will agree completely with me. There is a huge dependency on security for employment on both sides of the Border. I know areas in the North where the majority of the workforce depends on security for jobs. In the South there are plenty of towns along the Border — we all know them — which would be devastated if we took the Army, the police and customs from them. There is the immediate problem of putting people in Border areas at their ease. An initiative should be put into operation to compensate these people for the difficulties and worries they are experiencing at the moment.
There is a peace process and a peace dividend. What we are discussing is part of the peace process. The dividend must be the gain.
For example — and I do not say this in a clever way — one should ask the people of Northern Ireland what practical difference peace has made to them at present, apart from security and a sense of safety. The practical differences are that many parts of Northern Ireland have recently been introduced to those aspects of developed life which we live with everyday, such as pubs closing on time, parking tickets on cars and speed traps on the main roads, because the security forces have time on their hands to do these things. This is a joke, but it is true. We need to find an outlet and a direction for the energy which until now has been directed towards the security area.
Organisations such as the INTO should tap into the experience of its membership in Northern Ireland and ensure it is taken on board by people on the entire island. Many all-Ireland organisations, such as the INTO, the IRFU, the GAA, the Churches, the ICTU and the trade union movement, have people on all sides. An opportunity must now be created for those organisations to put forward practical suggestions which can be shepherded through in order to make progress.
It is crucial to move on this issue as quickly as possible. Every time we hear on the radio about extra millions of pounds from Brussels, America, Australia or wherever to the Ireland Fund, the immediate knee jerk reaction is to establish more consultancies which will dream up ways to get their hands on this money. We must put arrangements in place to ensure that these carpet-baggers do not grab this money, which could be used to benefit our people in all areas of life, from the establishment of pre-school education and employment projects to alternatives to the security industry, etc.
I could speak at some length on this area, but I wish to use the opportunity to underline practical aspects of the peace process which should lead to a peace dividend. It is not an easy area and if I had my way everybody seeking a place on this forum should be required to put on a page his or her ideas about issues which might be dealt with in Northern Ireland. There is too much political jockeying for positions on the forum and there is too little about what ideas these people will put forward on the forum. I do not want to hear about differences, but about how we can move forward to the next step.
I come from the Border county of Donegal and I have lived through the troubles of the past 25 years. I remember growing up in Letterkenny and travelling across the Border to Derry to entertain ourselves, play football or to see a decent standard of football. There was a great relationship between the Donegal people and the people of Derry and Northern Ireland. We seemed to have an affinity towards each other and to understand each other. One thing which struck me, and I said it before in the Seanad, is the lack of understanding which people from the Dublin-Galway line seem to have of the people in Northern Ireland. They do not understand their attitudes or their way of life. One reason for this is that they do not visit them to find out about the situation.
I have watched the peace process and I welcome the ceasefire announced by the nationalist and loyalist paramilitaries. I have driven through Northern Ireland for 25 years. I travel 207 miles around Sligo and through the midlands when I am coming to the Seanad, whereas it is only 145 miles from Donegal if one travels through Northern Ireland. This is a great difference and it adds an hour and a half to the trip to Dublin.
I have visited Northern Ireland throughout the years and I have seen the attitude of the young soldiers on the Border who have been sent from England. Many of these are between 18 and 20 years of age and some of them go back to England in coffins. One must ask what we have achieved over 25 years of mayhem and deaths in Northern Ireland? We have achieved nothing in terms of the nationalist movement or in helping the nationalist people to move forward. People like myself, who had their ears to the ground over the past two or three years, would have known that something was going to happen as regards a ceasefire because the people in Northern Ireland were saying they had had enough. Fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters were saying nothing had been achieved for the nationalist people through 22 years of mayhem, torture and hunger strikes. We are no nearer today to a unified state in this country than we were 25 years ago. Mistakes were made in the 1950s and 1960s as regards Northern Ireland when one side dominated the other. Let us hope that from the 1990s onwards we will not make the same mistakes.
Senator O'Toole mentioned moneys and the fact that people believe a substantial amount will be provided and that it will be a panacea. I hope that money will be used to benefit the people rather than what it has been used for over the past number of years, to build hotels, swimming pools, etc., which have not benefited the people we are concerned about.
I congratulate the people involved in the peace process, including the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Mr. John Hume and even Mr. Gerry Adams. Mr. Adams took a lot on his plate by delivering the IRA, but I believe he will still have problems with some of its factions. This will create a major problem for him in the future. We should give them all the support we can to try to ensure these people are kept on side. People, such as Archbishop Eames and Rev. Roy Magee, should be thanked because they have put their heads on the block, although as someone who lives in Donegal, adjacent to Derry, I believe Mr. John Hume has put his head on the block also. He put his own life and the life of his family at stake as a result of the attitude he took and the talks he had with Mr. Gerry Adams. He took a great chance, but he was not praised by many people. He was attacked by the media and his life was put in danger. He has been justified as a result of what has happened.
A number of weeks ago a Labour Party group visited Derry city and met all the political groups. The first group we met was the Inner City Trust, which was led by Paddy "Bogside" Doherty. Approximately 30 per cent of inner city Derry was destroyed. These people got together to try to improve their way of life. Throughout the 1980s, as a result of talks with the British Government and the Americans and with the support of people such as Mr. John Hume, they completely transformed the inner city of Derry. There has been little trouble over the past ten years in Derry city, whereas bombs were still par for the course in areas such as Armagh and Belfast. However, these people built up their city and built a relationship between themselves and their loyalist neighbours. At present, it is a city to be proud of.
On the same day we met the Apprentice Boys, named after a group of people who manned the gates many years ago. Their attitude is that they will continue to man the gates against the nationalists and that they will not be taken over. We must overcome such attitudes. We also met the SDLP, which Mr. John Hume has driven to great heights in Northern Ireland. He must be commended for this. It is a forward thinking party. At 12 o'clock we met the Lord Mayor of Derry, who is a unionist, although there is a Catholic majority on Derry City Council. They must be commended for this. In the afternoon we met the UUP and Mr. Gregory Campbell from the DUP, and we met Sinn Féin in the evening.
These people wanted dialogue. However, they strongly made the point that there was too much Catholic involvement in the South in education, health and the Judiciary, in particular. They felt liberal views were beginning to be expressed in Ireland, but they still did not trust the Judiciary here. Shades of this were expressed during the recent debâcle regarding the appointment of the Attorney General. We should keep our eye on this because how we are perceived in Northern Ireland is important for the whole peace process.
I was in Belfast about a week ago. The people one will get the message from in Northern Ireland on how things are going are usually the taximen. I was talking to a unionist taximan and asked him how he felt about the situation. His reply was strongly worded. He said, as a unionist, he would feel that they were — I will not repeat his exact words — buggered. I asked him why and he said "Basically, Southern Ireland and Great Britain do not want us, so we are presently in limbo." We have to do something to ensure that those people are not left in limbo. This is why I ask people from all our political parties to go to Northern Ireland and talk to the people there. Dialogue must be maintained. The hand of friendship must be put across to the people there.
Recently, I had the unfortunate experience of having my car broken into while I was in Dublin, which was something I always feared during the time I was there. However, one can go to Belfast and leave one's car sitting at the side of the street for a whole weekend and no one will touch it for some reason. One does not feel as safe doing this in Dublin. That experience brought home to me the difference between the two areas.
While the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is to be welcomed, unfortunately the unionists will not be taking part and we have to ask ourselves why. The same situation occurred with the Opsahl report. We did not get the real unionist point of view. What was missing from that was that somebody like the Rev. Paisley, who commanded one of the highest number of votes in the European Parliament, did not even make a submission to it. It left the Opsahl report short in content and I feel the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation may well be the same.
From talking to people in Northern Ireland, they tell me that they trust certain parties in the South. The unionist parties will seemingly talk to Fine Gael and the Labour Party, but for some reason they have a problem with Fianna Fáil. I ask my friends in that party if they would try to do something about this because that message has come across. If members from Fianna Fáil went up to meet them or spoke to them if they came to Dublin, I have no doubt that it would help the peace and reconciliation for which we are working.
I welcome this opportunity today to express my views on this matter. This also gives me the opportunity to welcome the announcements by those engaged in violence on this island to stop. Many people were hoping for this and expecting it to happen during the past year. Perhaps after 25 years of violence, the reasons for it became dimmer and dimmer as time went on. A greater number of people in the various communities struck a chord with those responsible for much of the violence. They let their feelings be known to these individuals in no uncertain fashion as to where violence was taking them. In the end the violence was stopped by the communities themselves. The security forces seemed to have a lesser role in the equation. While it may not be said now, the stark reality of outright civil war was facing those not alone in the North of Ireland but on the island as a whole. Indeed, that was said here by Senator Wilson. This could have been the reason that made people realise that violence had brought them to that point, making it the best excuse and reason why it should be denounced and finished.
It was interesting to hear Senator Maloney's comments regarding Fianna Fáil. One of the most historic happenings that took place in recent times was the stand now adopted by Fianna Fáil, which I welcome. Every year at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, the war cry that went up was that Ireland was united. I do not blame the unionists for not liking Fianna Fáil when that was its stated policy. Now, people have realised that one cannot make statements purely for political or historic reasons. I can understand why Fianna Fáil stood for that and why it expressed it every year at its Ard Fheis, but the reality of living on good terms with one's neighbour, living on this island and the fact that Ireland is now part of the European Union shows that we have moved in a different direction. Both the world and Europe are changing. That is historic, because the largest party in this part of the island have now realised that and have gone along with it.
It has always been Fine Gael's stated policy to live on good terms with our neighbours and to develop better relations with them. That message has also hit home to the unionists who, for one reason or another, because they were in the minority on this island — they were in the majority in the North — also had their own hidden fears, especially when they heard statements from the South saying that one day all of this island would be united. Perhaps it will, but people must be united on the basis that they want both themselves and their children to live together and that violence is not, and will not, be part of the political agenda in the future.
Many people must be thanked for their efforts for peace over the past few years. The SDLP were the nationalist and non-violent party. It is not today or yesterday that John Hume and his family had to stand up to men of violence when he was terrorised in his house. He was always used to abuse, be it verbal or violent. Whenever democracy and the freedom of the individual is discussed, he will go down in history as standing high on that list. Our Government did their part, but one must bear in mind that other Governments helped as well. The Anglo-Irish Agreement brought about this situation. The nationalist community in the North saw that their role had improved, that they were getting more recognition and that a fairer system was being introduced. The Anglo-Irish Agreement played a major part in that. It isolated the men of violence.
I wish the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation well. I know perhaps a slight error was made as regards the number of Alliance Party members on the forum, but I know the Taoiseach and the Government will set that right. The Alliance Party has always stood against violence and seem to be made up of people who are prepared to live in peace on this island, not placing as much emphasis on the past but moving forward instead. This is why it has joined the forum. It is a progressive party. It was unfortunate that it did not get an additional seat on the forum, but maybe that will be settled to its satisfaction.
There is much more I could say, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, but there are other speakers who wish to contribute.
I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the peace process. Nobody should stand in the way of any kind of progress. The Government has taken a major step and everybody must be commended — the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, John Hume, the British Prime Minister and the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
I was shocked when I heard that unionists and other groups in Northern Ireland were always a bit reluctant to speak to the Fianna Fáil Party because, since the signing of the Treaty, that party has been interested in dialogue. If, in our hearts, we had the reunification of this country as part of our agenda, I do not see anything wrong with that because we are living on a small island compared to the rest of the world.
I lived abroad for a number of years and have done business with people of various races and creeds. I never asked them what religion they were or if they went to church on Sundays, received Holy Communion, were confirmed or went to their bar-mitzvahs. It did not really bother me because I had my life to get on with, and I got on with it. In a society like ours, if people want to start drawing that type of argument into the equation they are only looking for a way out.
I have never asked about the religion of my colleagues in this House or the Lower House because it does not bother me what they are. In my own political party there is a Jew, whom I would support in any way I could because he is a human being and has to be respected as all denominations have to be respected. When it comes to difficulties in any part of the world, where you have hunger and starvation, this country is always to the forefront in helping other races out of their dilemmas.
We have had, and have, a very serious situation on our island from many points of view, including economics, tourism and security. We are trying to overcome all those problems and the Government must be commended for the major step it has taken. The people in Northern Ireland must be commended also for coming part of the way to try and bring peace to this island. Nothing has been gained from all the problems over the years, particularly the killings and the trauma inflicted on families on all sides. I would hate to think that a red herring was being brought into the peace process about representation on the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. It reminds me of county councillors complaining that they did not get on a particular committee to represent this, that or the other thing.
The main point is that the peace process is being put in place and I know that fair play will be implemented on all sides. The major step has been taken but several other steps have yet to be taken to finalise the equation. It will not be done overnight and it is going to be very difficult. Political leaders in Northern Ireland have an active part to play and those who stand in the way of progress in the peace initiative will have a lot to answer for, not just to the people of this country but to the people of the world.
In the recent past we have listened to all the media hype about the Taoiseach flying to Australia and the Tánaiste visiting Tokyo or New York. However, they have both raised the level of this country beyond expectation. For a tiny island on a big globe, when you mention Ireland in any part of the world, the Irish are a recognised force. They are people to be listened to, who have accomplished economic achievements and have now put the peace initiative in place. Many people must be commended for that. It is totally unfair to criticise the itineraries of political party leaders, whoever is in Government, when they are abroad for the betterment of this country. If they were sitting at home in bunkers doing absolutely nothing they would be criticised for not promoting the country and attracting jobs here. I cannot understand why when they are out doing that, they are criticised. These are small points that we would not want to get tied up with inside our own little snug political arenas.
Definitely not.
People who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. The political parties would not want to start doing that either because there is plenty of glass in their houses. That is not the answer. The answer is dialogue, trust and getting on with the peace process which is the biggest step forward this country has taken since the foundation of the State. The peace process will affect industry and tourism in this country — when I mention "this country" I am talking about this island, north and south.
I have been involved in the tourism business for 25 or 30 years and meet many people who say: This is a lovely island but there is a war going on". You tell them the war is not going on here, that it might be 200 miles away from Kerry, but 200 miles to these people is nothing, it just a drive up the road. There was a war going on in this country but, thank God, it is finished. If the peace process had been achieved 40 or 50 years ago it would not have been Nelson on a statue in O'Connell Street; perhaps today we would have Albert Reynolds at one end, Dick Spring at the other and John Hume in the middle. We should be erecting monuments to these people for what they have achieved to date.
What about poor old Garret?
I resent anyone who tries to stand in the way of dialogue, saying on the one hand that they welcome it but sniping at it on the other. It is unfair because the most important thing is to look at our country, this island, the future for our children and the future economic situation. We must look forwards, not backwards. Eventually, resentment between people in the northern part of our island will fade because it was just an excuse. In English cities people do not even know the religion of the person living next door. They work together but they are not concerned about their religion. They are concerned about where the next shilling will come from to pay their rent.
Living in peace, tranquility and harmony is the answer for the future. I welcome the peace process and the people involved in it. I would ask those involved in the peace process to be flexible and to ensure the security and sanity of the people of this country.
I attended funerals of people killed as a result of Northern violence and wept. I saw parents burying their young in the prime of their lives and I saw young people burying parents that they would never get to know. The fact that this factor has been taken out of the equation must be commended. I am asking all those involved to get it together because, while the major step has been taken, there is a long way to go before the circle can be completed. I welcome the peace process.
All that needs to be said today is that we have come to this point and thank God for it. Perhaps everything else is irrelevant. When we last debated this matter, as we have done consistently over the past couple of years to the credit of the House, I was quite pessimistic. At the time I said that the only ground for optimism was to stop the killing, to put away the bombs and bullets and to talk peace. That would be the only road to peace. Thankfully, that opinion has been vindicated and we can now view the future with optimism and enthusiasm. The basic condition for peace and progress has been fulfilled. Therefore, we can be optimistic. I think that we were always hopeful, which is not the same thing. There was always hope, but now there are grounds for genuine optimism.
The opinion of this House, which has been expressed with restraint and dignity over succeeding debates, has been very substantially vindicated. It is a credit to the House that it has taken such a restrained and balanced view over successive debates.
There are still very difficult questions which are going to take a great deal of time, restraint and generosity to resolve. The first question which arises is: has Sinn Féin signed on for sorting out the problems on this island by peaceful and democratic means only? They are the only people who can answer that question; I cannot answer it on their behalf. The task confronting Sinn Féin now is to take up the challenge of a peace process and to see it through to its logical conclusion.
I welcome the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. I do not have tremendously great expectations for it, nor is it necessary to have great expectations. However, I believe fundamentally that it is far more important to talk than not to talk. That is something which we may have learned from South Africa and other parts of the world. I regret deeply that the Alliance Party was not offered more than two seats. It took a tremendous act of courage on its part to agree to participate in the forum and it is only by its participation that the forum can be meaningful. Otherwise, what is likely to occur is that we will have only one tradition talking to itself rather than one tradition listening to another, which is what we have to do and what I hope the forum will achieve.
I am not aware of how much progress has been made in resolving that difficulty. However, it seems absolutely paramount that the Alliance Party, which, in the face of everything which happened, stood for balance, moderation and reconciliation over such a long period, should be accorded a status which is at least equal to people who stood for nothing other than violence for 25 years.
It is important for the forum to explicitly state the principle of consent. The terms of reference for the forum states "it will be a fundamental guiding principle of the forum and of participation in it that all differences relating to the exercise of the right of self determination of the people of Ireland and to all other matters will be resolved exclusively by peaceful and democratic means". I do not have any quibble with that; I think that it is very worthy.
However, I would go further to say that it has to be done in accordance with the Downing Street Declaration. The terms of reference open by saying that the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation is being established by the Government in accordance with the intentions as expressed in the joint declaration. That is not quite the same thing as going the full mile and saying that it will be in accordance with the joint declaration. I think that has to be the basis on which the forum works. We must say that it can only be with the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland that there can be any possibility of a change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. It is not clear to me that Sinn Féin accepts that principle, which I regard as fundamental.
It is important that we talk and try to understand other people's points of view. That is the way to progress. However, if we are to do that effectively there has to be the widest possible participation. I appeal to people of the unionist tradition, outside of the Alliance Party, to participate and to show the generosity which is prevalent today. I can understand the deep suspicions which are there and I fully appreciate why they are there. However, I believe that there is time for generosity — as we have said before in this House — and that that generosity extends to all sides. It is not just a unilateral generosity. It stems from a mutual respect of the position of other parties. It is quite legitimate and right that we recognise the legitimacy of an aspiration but that we say absolutely that it is illegitimate to attempt to achieve that aspiration by violent means.
I agree with Senator O'Toole about the small things which we do as individuals and within society. I have been refereeing rugby football matches for about 25 years. Part of the responsibilities of doing that has taken me to rugby grounds throughout Northern Ireland. At times it was difficult to go. I went the morning after the Hillsborough agreement when Belfast was almost blockaded. However, I believe that it is through doing such things that enough people see that there are normal people on both sides of the Border and that we do not all have these agendas and baggage.
I come from the nationalist and Catholic tradition. It was important that people who came from different traditions, but could see each other's legitimacy through the sport which we all enjoyed, could have this dialogue in the bar after games. They are very small things but I think that they are important. It is important that people come to the theatre in Dublin, as they did last night. Those things are fundamentally important. It takes ages and ages to achieve progress through those small things but they are of importance and should not be forgotten.
I think it is curious, and I could never understand it, how those people who spoke most about ending partition were those who frequently acted in the most partitionist way. It would never occur to them to go and see what life was like in Northern Ireland and how people lived there and to talk to people there.
I welcome the fact that the British Government seems to be prepared to open talks with Sinn Féin, at whatever level. However, I believe that there is a problem with explosives in the background. We had a difficulty earlier with permanence, which I think we have overcome. The actions have demonstrated that there is a permanence about the ceasefire. That attitude has been reinforced by the very welcome developments on the loyalist paramilitary side. However, I still have problems about the Semtex and punishment shootings. I also have problems with policing and what the vacuum might be in the event that the paramilitaries decide to carry out summary justice.
I thank God that we have people like Senator Wilson in this House so that we have that legitimate and authentic voice. We could express what he has to say ten times over but it would not carry the authenticity which he brings to it. I will re-emphasise something which he said earlier — we need space.
I congratulate the constitutional politicians and the clergy, who were mentioned earlier. However, there is still one problem. The fundamental thing which we are going to have to reconcile is the statement that the union is safe with the statement that we are talking about the nuts and bolts of British withdrawal. That is the conundrum which still faces us.
We have debated Northern Ireland on a number of occasions in this House and we have had the opportunity to mark a number of very important steps in the progress towards a solution. The Downing Street Declaration of last December was one of the major steps. On 1 September of this year there was the ceasefire by the IRA and now, recently, we have had the loyalist ceasefire.
As Senator Dardis said, on each occasion the debate has been very restrained and constructive and the presence of Senator Wilson has added a huge dimension to our debates. Every time that we have debated this we have expressed hopes that there would be further progress. We can say today that there has been a tremendous amount of progress. We can now look forward to what is generally described as the peace dividend.
I sincerely welcome the announcement of the loyalist ceasefire. It was absolutely essential that trust was built up in the cases of both the IRA and loyalist ceasefires. It was built up painstakingly over a long period of time and with tremendous effort from constitutional politicians, church representatives and people on all sides of the community.
We have to pay tribute to those people, particularly the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, John Hume and others. It was interesting to hear Gusty Spence mention Cardinal Ó Fiach. Gusty Spence, an old loyalist of long standing whose past has been a very violent one but who has embraced peace, talked about his relationship with Cardinal Ó Fiach. These relationships have been extremely important and the careful work done in the background has been essential.
It is also essential to keep the framework of the Downing Street Declaration and its guarantees permanently on the agenda. As Senator Dardis said, the principle of consent has to repeated and people have to be sure that they can trust that it will always be part of the discussions.
Since we last debated this issue, support for the peace process in other parts of the world has grown. Both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have travelled, and have been criticised for travelling, to various places. This has, however, been essential. On 2 September, just after the debate in this House, the Tánaiste met with President Clinton. The Americans have pledged support for the peace process in the context of employment creation and inward investment. This is relevant to the points made by Senator O'Toole about the importance of the support from abroad being felt on the ground among the communities in the North of Ireland.
Senator O'Toole was right to raise the importance of the changing lives of ordinary people on the ground. It is important that whatever money and support comes from abroad is used in a real and practical way to change lives and bring people closer together. It is important that we work with community groups. I have a copy of the news magazine of the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which contains evidence of tremendous work on the ground in Northern Ireland. It is necessary to build on this.
The peace process will not be effective unless it works from the bottom up as well as from the top down. It is important that a framework and safeguards for both communities exist and that each community realises that their aspirations, hopes and security are equal to those of the other side. That must be guaranteed from the top while not forgetting the approach from the bottom. The latter approach must also be successful and work in conjunction with communities on both sides.
The EU also pledged financial support and increased its support from £12 million to £40 million. That is a sizeable increase in the support of the EU for peace in Ireland which should be used wisely. Since we last met, John Hume has been nominated by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament for the Nobel Peace Prize. Many Members have praised John Hume and I have done so myself in the past. It is only right that this nomination was made and I am sure it will have everybody's support because he fully deserves it.
There are basic constitutional differences which have to be acknowledged. However, regardless of the decisions made, people on both sides have to realise that their views on constitutional issues will be safeguarded and that the ground rules of the Downing Street Declaration will be the framework for what happens. As long as that is present, there is room for people to trust and talk to each other and make political progress.
The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation has been discussed here. I share the hope that the situation concerning the Alliance Party will be resolved; I understand that it is the subject of ongoing discussion. I also wish the unionist parties would join the forum. I know they have doubts and do not see themselves participating but we, as Members of the Seanad, should urge them to take part. It has been said that participation will be without prejudice to the position on constitutional issues held by any party which should give comfort and understanding to the unionists. They will not be browbeaten in this process. We should encourage them to get involved.
The peace process is on very firm ground — popular support. There has been widespread support for both ceasefires in both communities in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Britain and elsewhere. That is probably the greatest hope for a way forward. The hard men of violence who are still there on both sides and who do not like the peace process know there is no popular support for their stand and that they will not get support if there is any resurgence of violence on either side. That is the real ground on which we can hope that the peace process will move forward.
Obviously it is no easy process. It is very slow. The chief executive of Co-operation North said:
Peace is not just absence of violence; it is a positive force and the process of achieving it can be slow and demanding.
We have to acknowledge and accept that. Senator O'Toole, Senator Wilson and Senator Maloney, from their experience on the ground in Northern Ireland, have all very clearly demonstrated the difficulties. Nevertheless I believe the difficulties can be overcome but they must be overcome slowly and always while working with the people on the ground.
I welcome the fact that John Major is currently consulting with his senior Ministers in relation to opening dialogue with Sinn Féin. That is another step forward which we could hope for in the near future.
I was not here on 2 September; I was in South Africa and I was there also on the day the ceasefire was announced. I was impressed by the attention it got and the hope it raised. I was impressed because I was in South Africa, a country that has changed dramatically in the last four or five months.
Many of the people to whom I spoke had been pessimistic about their future in South Africa last April when the election took place but were now positive, confident and looking forward with optimism. They believed things had changed. In the new South Africa, attitudes had changed and it was this change in attitudes which excited me most about the opportunities we have here.
Five years ago these people would have thought that a South Africa run by the majority was unthinkable, and certainly not something of which they would want to be a part. I saw how these people and their attitudes had changed and were continuing to change. I did not ask myself would it not be great if the unionists were to change like that as well. Instead, I thought this could happen to all of us in Ireland.
We need to change the way we think and we must learn to think the unthinkable if we are to successfully bridge the gap that exists between the two communities in the North and in Ireland as a whole and bring about peace and genuine reconciliation.
I want to make points, the first of which is about winning. It might be useful to ask ourselves what we cherish highly but are prepared to give up. We can reach a lasting solution in Northern Ireland only when both communities begin to realise that they cannot have everything they want. Until they agree to a compromise that is equally painful for both of them, there is no way to find a solution on a win-lose basis; it will have to be on a win-win basis. We will do our cause no good if we entertain foolish hopes that somehow or other the walls of Jericho will collapse in front of our eyes and a united Ireland will emerge painlessly from the rubble. There is a necessity for us to begin to rethink matters.
We have too few solutions to discuss and models to examine. It seems there is only one solution on the nationalist side — a united Ireland, maybe not now, but at worst a little way down the road. In the past we spoke about halfway houses to unity, joint sovereignty, condominium or something like that. On the unionist side, the preferred solution is a continuation of the status quo with perhaps a few cosmetic changes. The essential issue for them is that there is no constitutional change until a majority in the North endorses it. I do not believe there is much prospect for a worthwhile settlement if these are the only two models to work from. What I mean by a worthwhile settlement is one which is genuinely win-win. It would be easy to see progress if either side caved in and yielded to the other position. We could then have agreement in five minutes, but that is unlikely to happen.
We should realise we will not get all we want and what we can get will be painful and, in many ways, undesirable. Having realised this, we should then begin to search for new models on which to build the fabric of the solution we hope to reach. New models should not be disguised versions of what one side or the other wants; they should be totally new. I say "models" in the plural because the process needs to start from a selection of models, from a number of different opportunities and alternatives so that we may tease out the different attitudes to them. As we search for these models something we should ditch is the notion that at this point we can come up with a solution which we will put in cement. Whatever is agreed now cannot be the last word, but what it can be — and I suggest it must be — is a framework for evolution, trust and confidence to be built between the two communities so that further steps might be taken at a later stage.
I am optimistic about the prospect of real progress on this question. I was impressed by the debate this morning and the points made by Senator Dardis when he spoke about consent. I was also impressed by the point Senator O'Toole made about small things. My mother grew up on the banks of Lough Neagh, County Armagh, and my father grew up in the middle of the Mourne Mountains. As a youngster I visited the two farms and met the neighbours who, as Senator Dardis who came from a Catholic, nationalist background said, were Catholic nationalists. Their land was poor because that is where their families had moved to in the 1600s. They moved to the banks of Lough Neagh in the reeds rather than the good land from which they had moved and to the Mourne Mountains because the good land was held by another community. After 300 years this problem will not be easily solved; it will come in small bites and it will require patience.
What is sad is that the gap has widened in the past 25 years. It is a jolt to meet somebody and talk about rugby only to discover they would not play it nor would they be interested in soccer and then to meet somebody from the other side who would not dream of going to a Gaelic football match. We must find a solution, which will come from the things we spoke about today. I am optimistic about the two developments I spoke about. We will not have a win-win situation unless we and those involved in the process adopt a flexible approach. As I said we should have a number of models and solutions if we are to arrive at an eventual settlement.
I do not believe the significance of these events has impacted on any of us yet, much as we try to understand the change which has occurred since the Downing Street Declaration, the subsequent IRA ceasefire and then the loyalist ceasefire. As Senator Quinn illustrated, in many ways it has had a greater impact outside Ireland.
I reflect for a moment on the reason the Tanáiste is not with us, although he may be here shortly. He is not here because he and the Taoiseach are meeting the Leader of Sinn Féin. It would have been unthinkable six or 12 months ago that the Tanáiste would have been unavailable to address the House at a particular time because he was meeting the Leader of Sinn Féin. That is a measure of the dramatic change and progress which has occurred. We must see what our contribution can be at each stage of that evolution.
Undoubtedly after 25 years of horrific violence, 70 years of dissension, distrust, domination and fear of one form or another, there will be residual scars and wounds. There will be the need for healing, but there cannot be healing without scars to show where the original wound was. It would be too much to expect suddenly that that experience could be obliterated from the consciousness of those who came through that terrible trauma.
A lady — I will call her Maire McGuinness; that is not her real name — from Derry was a prominent and active supporter of the SDLP and endeavoured to do all she could over the years to shelter her children from any contact with violence and to bring them into the political process. However, on one occasion the youngest member of the family become involved in what seemed to be regular excitement, bottle and petrol bomb throwing. That night the family had a visit from the RUC and the British Army. As a consequence, she told me she had five active Provos in her family about which she could do nothing. The sadness of that impacted on my mind over the years and I used to ask Peter Carrington how we could extricate Maire McGuinness and those like her from the web of violence which was suffocating them when they wanted to work for peace; as she did, and still does.
I read an encouraging but sad story in a newspaper two days ago about a young social worker from the Creggan, Eugene Mullen, who worked under a pseudonym, an extraordinarily brave thing to do, in one of the loyalist working clubs in Belfast. The people there grew up in a certain background and tradition of which they were proud. However, they had a certain apprehension and attitude to Taigs and others, which they felt was patriotic. They felt it right to share this common attitude towards those who deserved their hatred. Who are we to judge them? This social worker developed a personal relationship with one of these young men who subsequently became, by our judgment, one of the most savage loyalist killers. It is sad to reflect on what might have been if we had all shown a little more understanding of the other person's position. That loyalist killer was one of the last victims of Northern violence before the ceasefire was proclaimed.
We have come from a period of violence but we must remember that in every post-war society — this was a war — those living in that terrible reality, whether in west or east Belfast watching their sons being maimed, killed or injured, the police who were also subjected to that experience, the British Army, youngsters from Leeds, Birmingham or elsewhere, who I saw looking like frightened strangers wondering what they were doing in Belfast — have all been scarred.
We now have moved to a different stage as a consequence of the great political commitment of the Government, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Mr. Hume and, let it be said, those in the Sinn Féin movement whom we may not always have wanted to acknowledge, much less admire, who have made this quantum leap forward.
Violence has been put aside. There are those who would wish us not to believe that. There are Cassandras, one in particular had the responsibility of Government during my period in Opposition in the other House and was in Opposition when I was in Government. I am talking about Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, who for some strange reason does not want to recognise these signs of progress, who rather wants to point out that there are irreconcilable differences, that it is not possible to reconcile the loyalist position which says the union is safe with the republican position which says that we now have the possibility of working towards a united Ireland.
We will always find a Cassandra who will say that these things are complex if not impossible, but it is up to each one of us, including commentators in the press, to recognise that the real significance of what is being done is that the irreconcilable is being reconciled. I did not think I would ever hear Mr. John Taylor, whom I have known for years, saying that he supported the contact and discussions between the British Government and Sinn Féin. Mr. Taylor was physically violated by Sinn Féin, or the IRA of the time, but I have heard this statement from him, and more besides. We have all heard it.
Let us not confine ourselves in this House — I am glad to say I have hardly heard it here — to pointing out the difficulties and the irreconcilable. We are not called upon in this Chamber to work out these complex details; what we are being called upon to do is to support through our words — we will not have much opportunity for action — the process which is now underway. I have been in Belfast a number of times within the last six months and, hopefully, I will travel there again next week. There is no doubt that as violence was the characteristic of the last 20 years, peace and reconciliation is the mood of the moment in Belfast as one of my colleagues has already said. That is the foundation on which whatever is to be done now will be built. How we build on that foundation will be the test of our achievement from this point on. It can and will be done.
Members know about the energy that is released in post war societies. Members should look at the energy that rebuilt Germany and the nation which emerged after all of the suffering and unspeakable brutality that was a feature of that nation at that time. There is good and bad in all of us. After all of that we saw the emergence of the European Communities. Dissention and residual traces of distrust are still in evidence today in the centre of that European Union. I have met it regularly in the course of normal negotiations on the CAP. If Members think there is a natural and easy harmony between the Dutch and the Germans, they are mistaken. There is not. They have to work at it each day in common cause for the economic future for all of us. The same will happen here. That is why progress through economic co-operation, respect for our mutual characteristics and respect for our separate identities is important.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I remind the Senator that his time is up.
Yes. That is the basis on which we can build that forum. The tone and theme of these debates in the Seanad has been consistent and the presence of Senator Wilson in this House has made a remarkable contribution as a reminder to us that our own immediate, narrow, comfortable assumptions never can be enough.
I personally reject the notion of the United Ireland that some unionists seem to fear, a notion that would mean we would dominate them or swallow them up. I would find that as reprehensible as any unionist does. For that reason I ask them to take every opportunity for involvement with the British and ourselves, such as exists in the British Irish Interparliamentary body. There are seats there waiting to be filled. I am on that forum, as they should be. Who else is to speak for them?
Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach. I was getting very worried listening to Senator O'Kennedy, because I was finding that the spirit of harmony in this House was almost undiluted, until he mentioned Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien.
It is perfectly legitimate for Senator O'Kennedy to criticise Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien and such criticism is welcome. However, to call him a Cassandra and to insult him as a prophet of doom is not to understand the position which he is taking. This new atmosphere of peace and goodwill which permeates all the political parties and the whole of this country is a very welcome one, but it is also very necessary that there should be those who say that everything is not perfect, that there are real dangers ahead and that we could be living in a fool's paradise.
Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien does not wish to make a self-fulfilling prophesy, but he has a record of courage, a record of warning against and of fighting violence unparalleled in this country for 20 years. If his prophesies are wrong, so be it, but as I understand what he says, he is telling us that if we continue to put pressure on the unionist population, as has been done for many many years in this country, there are dangers ahead of which we should be aware. One danger which he points out unambiguously is civil war. That is not a popular message in this country at present, but it is one which I find welcome, because we should have diverse opinions to counter the consensus which exists in all political parties in this House at the moment.
Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien has been right most of the time over the years. He has recently been warning us and reminding us of the uncomfortable truth, that in our midst we have welcomed a political party which has given up violence for the moment. He reminds us of something else which I know Senator Dardis rightly touched on — I did not hear all of his speech — in saying that questions had to be asked. Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien reminds us that these people have arsenals of arms, that they have not declared their ceasefire to be permanent and he reminds us that they have not renounced violence for all time. That is a very necesary and welcome message. It may be embarrassing and uncomfortable and contrary to the beliefs and optimism which exists, but it is something which we must face, not get paranoid about and which we must counter.
Like everybody else in this House I welcome the new atmosphere which has existed here since 31 August. I congratulate everybody involved in that effort and in the great success which has been achieved. We have to be careful about some of the things which we say and we have a special obligation in this part of the country to understand the unionist population rather than the nationalist population. The nationalist population appears at this stage to have reached an understanding of sorts and now it is time, indeed it was time before this, to make moves which breach the divide between us and the unionist population, which is much bigger than ever existed between various strands of nationalism.
I disagree with Senator Quinn when he drew a parallel, and it is a common parallel, between the unionists and the whites in South Africa. The Senator spoke of the wonderful achievement in South Africa. It is a wonderful achievement and, like the Senator, I was lucky enough to visit the country this year. The Senator went on to make the remark: if only the unionists were to change like the whites in South Africa. There is a mind-set at work here which blames the unionists and places them in the same category and pigeon hole as the whites in South Africa.
I must advise the Senator that I said the complete opposite.
The Senator remarked that if unionists were to change like that——
I said we must not think like that.
I took it down as the Senator spoke and he said if unionists were to change, we must not think like that. My point is valid, nevertheless, because one hears so often people saying if only there was a de Klerk on the unionist side, which implies guilt and also that de Klerk was perhaps part of a majority.
The unionists do not see themselves like that. There must never be a return to the old days of Stormont, of discrimination and gerrymandering, and the unionists acknowledge this. Indeed, I heard Ken Magennis say at Glencree that the unionists are continually apologising for that period, but nobody wants to hear.
In addition, the unionists, because they are in a majority, do not see themselves in the same category as the white laager bracket in South Africa. This does not mean that there should be what is now fashionably known as majoritarianism, as there are special reasons why this should not happen in Northern Ireland, and this must be acknowledged.
However, it should also be acknowledged that the Protestants or the unionists in Northern Ireland are in a majority, and this is an unpalatable fact which we are going to have to face. This is where the parallel with South Africa unfortunately ends. It is therefore unfortunate to draw this parallel as it does not exist, although it is tempting to do so. Indeed, the language of some of the commentators in calling for a de Klerk, while it is neat, is not apt at present.
We must change, and it is incumbent upon us in this self congratulatory period to change ourselves and our attitudes to the unionists in Northern Ireland. We must be extraordinarily carefully, especially as politicians, about what we say in this House and outside it over the coming months. It is a very delicate period and there are extraordinary difficulties ahead. In this respect the language we use will be very important.
We must stop talking about demilitarisation, not because the motives of those who use it here are aggressive or wrong, but because such language sounds to people in Northern Ireland like the language of the IRA. The word "demilitarisation", a word used by the Taoiseach frequently, is also a word used by the leaders of Sinn Féin. In consequence people in Northern Ireland will identify the Taoiseach's language with that of the IRA. It is important therefore that we do not allow this to happen.
In the past week, especially after the Official Unionist Party conference, we should welcome the fact that the Reverend Ian Paisely has been isolated to a large extent in the unionist community. Many people speak of his influence withering, but it will take very little from us to hand him those weapons of propaganda which he so desperately needs at present. In this context talk of demilitarisation will do so, as will talk of any kind of support for Sinn Féin. Even being photographed in a blaze of glory with Gerry Adams on the steps of Merrion Street is unhelpful and unnecessary in this context. It is also a pity that the American Ambassador to Ireland, Mrs. Kennedy Smith visited Northern Ireland yesterday and again provoked Mr. Paisely into a reaction which he was glad to have. The conflict is too delicate for gestures of that kind.
There is an extraordinary balance in Northern Ireland, where the loyalist paramilitaries claim that the union is now safe, which is in contradiction with Sinn Féin members, who claim that the union is not safe and it must go, or else they will not be successful, which contains an implicit threat. We must therefore be careful, and from this part of the island we must be especially careful about what we say so that we do not provoke any kind of bad unionist reaction at this time.
On a point of order, if the House is to have a statement from the Government on the debate this morning, there are only ten minutes to 1 p.m. and there may be other speakers. Surely, out of courtesy, the House should be advised if there is going to be a speech by the Tánaiste? There has been a succession of junior Ministers in attendance, which is not good enough. There may be reason for this but at least out of courtesy the House should be advised if there is a problem and arrangements should be made to extend the debate or have it rescheduled if it is impossible for the Tánaiste to speak at this time.
The information given to me is that, as the House is aware, the Tánaiste is at a meeting and we are receiving phone calls advising that he has been delayed. The firm intention is that he will be in attendance, hopefully before 1 p.m. If that is the case, I will ask the House, and I am sure it will agree, to extend the period of the debate to allow the Tánaiste to speak. If the Tánaiste is not in attendance by 1 p.m. then the situation can be considered at that stage to ascertain if matters can be facilitated on another day.
It has been confirmed to this side of the House that the Tánaiste has sent a message regretting that he was unable to be in attendance. There is no question of any offence to the House.
I did not say that.
As soon as he is free he will attend the House.
The Office of the Tánaiste has contacted the Office of the Government Whips on a regular basis requesting that the debate be continued as the Tánaiste is endeavouring to attend the House. The Tánaiste is genuinely delayed and I therefore propose that the House continue with the debate——
The Report Stage of the Milk (Regulation of Supply) Bill, 1994, is a routine matter and will not take long. There is no problem in using up some of the time allocated for it, if necessary.
I am a novice to these statements on Northern Ireland, principally because, to date, I believed that those who lived closer to the problem were perhaps best equipped to speak on the peace process. However, it is now time for those of us who live and work deep down in the south of Ireland to make our views known and make suggestions as to how peace can be maintained in the whole island of Ireland.
I welcome the peace process and in doing so I thank the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and all of the officials and officers who have undertaken so much work behind the scenes to bring together this process. Little did we believe a year ago that there would be such a long period of peace already and so many weeks without any person being violently killed in Northern Ireland as a result of their political or religious views. The question to be asked is: how can this continue and how do we ensure that it continues, not simply for six weeks, six months, six years but for six generations? This is what must be achieved and now is the time for much reflection on how best we may order our society so that we can live together in harmony on this island.
Senator Quinn made the point that we should use a number of models to examine how we can live together on this island. This is an important point and cannot be overemphasised. Senator O'Toole said it is through ordinary, run of the mill interchanges between the varying communities on this island that peace and co-operation will succeed.
I am very much in favour of the idea of formal linkages between local authorities, north and south. It is by bringing people together — people who have more in common together than apart — that we begin to see we can have a common destiny. Unless we talk to one another we will not know what each other thinks. In many ways, people in the South often have romantic ideas of what they would like Ireland to be. After a few drinks at night one often hears "A Nation Once Again" belted out, without any real thought as to exactly what type of nation we want. We must overcome generations of suspicion.
Suspicion is not exclusive to the northern unionist community as regards what is being done in the South. Some in the northern nationalist community are also suspicious about what we are trying to do. They feel we have let them down over the years by not attempting a peace process earlier. They feel we have left them to their own devices. We are often partitionist in our thinking. We have decided mentally that there is a partition between the two parts of the island. One remembers the reception Deputy Austin Currie received when he stood as a presidential candidate in the South. Remarks such as "Why does he not go back to his own country" were made, which automatically meant that many people who would otherwise consider themselves nationalist mentally thought of the Six Counties as a different place. Northern nationalists fear that we have sold them out and that we are not as much on their side as we pretend to be. We need to have a great deal of common sense. We must open dialogue with groups from all sides and bring out what we have in common rather than what is different.
I welcome the Tánaiste to the House. As I explained, the Tánaiste's office was in touch on a number of occasions to say that he was coming to the House but would be late. He was at an important meeting. The debate was to conclude at 1 p.m. I propose to call the Tánaiste now. Is it agreed to extend the time of the debate beyond 1 p.m. to allow the Tánaiste to conclude the debate? Agreed.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for your welcome. As always, I am glad to have the opportunity to address the Seanad. I regret that I was not here to open the debate, as was the original intention. However, people understand in the context of meetings which took place yesterday and today in relation to the setting up of the forum — I will respond to some remarks that were made in that regard — that it was unavoidable.
I am glad to have the opportunity to address the Seanad on Northern Ireland. The Seanad is to be congratulated for arranging an exchange of views in relation to developments there. It offers a valuable opportunity to review the momentous developments which have transformed the situation on our island and to consider the path ahead. On behalf of the Government, I am happy to be able to contribute to this series of statements.
I last spoke to the Seanad in July on Northern Ireland. It was in the aftermath of the Loughinisland massacre, an event which profoundly shocked the people of the entire island. There have been so many occasions like that over the past 25 years when, in the face of appalling paramilitary violence, it was difficult to sustain the hope of a better future. Yet today we have reached a stage where the outlines of that better future have become dramatically clearer. The ending of violence by both the IRA and loyalist paramilitary organisations has utterly transformed the future prospects of the people of this island. It has brought palpably nearer the day on which we may finally achieve a lasting political accommodation of our differences. It has opened up a space for exclusively political action and negotiation and the resolution of conflict by peaceful persuasion rather than coercion.
The opportunity we now have to build a new political order is truly unprecedented. We have been given a precious opening to forge a political consensus among the Irish people, North and South, in an atmosphere entirely free of the torment of violence. This moment must be seized by all concerned. This historic challenge is one which none of us, North or South, unionist or nationalist, can afford to shirk. Now is the time to draw a line forever under the savagery which has been suffered by both communities over the past 25 years and to start afresh in the search for a real and lasting political settlement.
The vast majority of Irish people of both traditions are, and always have been, resolutely and absolutely opposed to the use of violence for political ends. I always believed that the sheer illogicality, let alone absolute immorality, of seeking to persuade through terror would eventually be recognised, even by its practitioners. Moreover, all responsible political leaders on the island have known and argued that there was an alternative to the spiral of violence: dialogue and discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
When this Government took office in 1993 we committed ourselves to searching for an end to the conflict. We undertook to work towards an accommodation between the two traditions in Ireland, pledging that we would seek, through political dialogue and in an open and innovative spirit, to address comprehensively all of the issues involved. We immediately began to discuss with the British Government how the conditions for dialogue might best be established. It was clear that the prospects for a political settlement would be immeasurably greater in an atmosphere of peace brought about by a total cessation of all paramilitary violence.
The Joint Declaration agreed last December has a profound and lasting significance. It defines clearly and unambiguously a set of principles which underpin and safeguard the fundamental rights and aspirations of both traditions. It is of permanent validity and it continues to be central to the approach of the two Governments. In addition, however, it specifically threw down a challenge to republican and loyalist paramilitaries. In the light of the balanced and comprehensive statement of fundamental principles in the declaration, how could they claim the remotest shred of justification for their continued use of and support for paramilitary violence? To republicans and to the rest of the nationalist community, it made clear that the British Government accepted that the future of Ireland was for the people living in Ireland freely to determine without external impediment.
Equally, it made clear to loyalists and the rest of the unionist community that the Irish Government accepted that the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with, and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It made clear to all in Northern Ireland that there would be a place in democratic politics and in fully comprehensive dialogue for all democratically mandated parties which established a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and showed that they abided by the democratic process.
The twin cries of "Brits out" on the one hand and "sell out" on the other became totally implausible as pretexts for continued campaigns of murder. We badly need a climate of mutual forgiveness now. It is right on all sides to seek to draw a line under the horrors of the past. This is not, however, to diminish or forget the sufferings of the countless innocent victims of this conflict. The most fitting memorial we can now construct for them is to ensure that peace is consolidated and made irreversible so that no one need ever again suffer what they have suffered.
We believe that the peace which has now come is here for good. The announcements by the IRA and the loyalist paramilitary leadership of their respective cessations of violence were couched in comprehensive and definitive terms. With each passing day the solidity and durability of what has been achieved becomes steadily more apparent, as has been acknowledged by a number of leaders of unionist opinion. Indeed, the fact of the loyalist cessation itself was clear confirmation of this interpretation of the IRA's intentions.
I believe that a definitive consensus on this issue will soon be achieved and that it will be possible for the process of preliminary discussion between the British Government and Sinn Féin to commence. This will mark an important step on the way to a fully inclusive dialogue involving the two Governments and all democratically mandated parties. Equally, with goodwill and creativity I am sure that ways can be devised to ensure that the important and distinctive voice of loyalism can make a positive contribution to this process.
I am, of course, mindful of the continuing and wholly unjustifiable punishment beatings and shootings which continue to scar both communities in the North and I strongly urge that these cease immediately. More generally, I would assure Senators that the Government, while confident that the use of violence for political purposes is indeed at an end, will continue to be vigilant and prudent in its approach.
In the new situation in which we now find ourselves, it is essential that we and the British Government move quickly to make tangible and real the benefits of peace. Our legislation and our security practices have both had to respond dramatically to the threat and the reality of violence. We have had to introduce and maintain measures which would never otherwise have been necessary and which in normal times would not be needed. Within the constraints of commonsense and prudence it is now imperative that with all reasonable speed redundant emergency laws be revised and where necessary reformed. Likewise, security force activity must be scaled down and transformed in character where this is feasible, as it certainly will be in many cases.
Within Northern Ireland certain areas and communities have been particularly affected both by paramilitary violence and by the response to it. They must see that peace allows them to lead normal lives again and, in the case of the young, for the first time. Some important changes have already taken place: a number of cross-Border roads have been re-opened and there have been some alterations in the forms and pattern of British Army and RUC operations. Nevertheless, the momentum must be maintained and I will, through the Anglo-Irish Conference, be working to ensure that this is indeed the case.
As is often said, however, peace means much more than the absence of war or of the signs of war. The violence which disfigured our island and caused such death and destruction did not arise from nothing. It could never be tackled simply or primarily as a security problem. As successive Irish Governments have recognised the violence which has been endemic in our history and in the history of the relations of the two islands has deep roots. The fundamental issues are, and always have been, political and constitutional in the broadest sense. Violence has been symptomatic of a deeper unresolved conflict which in this century has come to be concentrated and expressed on the narrow ground of Northern Ireland.
Not for one second do I suggest that the violence of the recent past is other than a perverted and evil response to the existence of that conflict. In seeking to construct a future for our children and their children in which political violence will never be experienced we must fully acknowledge the reality of that conflict. That in turn means finding an honourable and fair accommodation between the two traditions in which neither is victor nor vanquished, now or in the future, and in which the identities and aspirations of both are given equal weight and expression.
The way to that accommodation is through patient dialogue and negotiation. This will be a slow and laborious process, but as the northern poet, John Montague, once asked:
Who today asks for more
—Smoke of battle blown aside—
Than the struggle with casual
Graceless unheroic things?
As an important first step, the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation will shortly be commencing its deliberations. The Government sees it as a significant consultative body in which the participants can explore ways to advance peace and reconciliation and to overcome the barriers which divide us as a people. We hope and expect that the forum's discussions and the recommendations it may make will make a distinct and positive contribution to the climate in which wider political negotiations will take place in the future.
I regret that the unionist parties have not, for now, accepted our invitation to attend. Participation in the forum will be entirely without prejudice to the position on constitutional matters held by any party. Nevertheless, we will make every effort to ensure that the forum will benefit from the broadest possible range of experience and opinion, including from the unionist community. Some members have raised the question of the participation in the forum and I hope that the problems which have emerged in relation to the Alliance Party will be resolved. I see no great difficulty in having them resolved. It is regrettable that they have arisen in open debate. The Government set out what it thought was a reasonable representation for all the parties involved and weighed heavily in favour of the parties participating from Northern Ireland. I hope we will have the matter resolved in the course of our meetings with the party leaders and in the meeting with the Alliance Party tomorrow. It can be resolved and, hopefully, will be.
The Government, the Taoiseach and I, and our respective Departments, have put a lot of time and effort into the preparations for the forum and I hope that in a short period of time we will have agreement from all the parties. We have never set out to dictate to the parties in relation to representation, the terms of reference or the way the forum will do its business. We have set out to consult and by a process of consensus to arrive at the best working arrangements for the forum. I am confident that the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation will play a major role, just as the New Ireland Forum was an important part in developing relations on this island, with regard to finding a solution to the Northern Ireland problem.
The Anglo-Irish essayist, Hubert Butler, once commented that while opposites often attract, the attraction quickly wanes unless the full extent of the opposition is acknowledged. We have frankly to name and to express our fears, hopes and beliefs and to accept the reality of the fears, hopes and beliefs of others if dialogue is to be firmly grounded. The forum will play a key role in advancing this process.
At the same time, we are continuing to work intensively with the British Government on a framework document which we would put to the Northern parties for discussion as the two Governments' shared assessment of how a comprehensive and lasting political settlement might be achieved. It is my hope and intention that this work will be finished very soon. As we have made clear, the Joint Declaration will not be a blueprint to be imposed on the parties on a "take it or leave it" basis. Nevertheless, we expect that as the joint view of the two sovereign Governments it will carry substantial weight with them, as it obviously must with the Governments themselves.
Upon its completion we and the British Government will intensify our efforts to bring about the early initiation of talks involving all the parties. As was agreed in 1991, talks must be comprehensive, addressing all the key relationships, with no matter being excluded from consideration. The Governments are determined that the talks should be brought to a successful conclusion. The British Government has in the Joint Declaration described its role as that of encouraging, facilitating and enabling the achievement of agreement among the people of Ireland. For our part, we in the Irish Government have a particular responsibility to convince all the people of our island, unionist and nationalist, that such agreement is possible.
The Irish Government has promised that in the event of an overall settlement it will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in our Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. In advance of that, let me repeat once again that for us the principle of majority consent to a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is inviolable. Moreover, that is clearly the will of a majority of the Irish people. We will never try to obscure or fudge that principle. Anybody who doubts our sincerity or resolve in this matter is quite simply wrong.
Likewise, we guarantee to the members of the unionist tradition that in all circumstances their rights, aspirations and identities would be fully respected and allowed full expression. I confirm that we seek no more for nationalists within Northern Ireland than we would wish unionists to enjoy if the situation were reversed.
It is essential, however, that all of us approach talks seriously and ambitiously in a spirit of openness and generosity. The tempest of violence may have abated. It would, nevertheless, be profoundly wrong to believe that a policy of drift is now a serious option or that it would be in the long term interests of anyone in Northern Ireland. The status quo has been demonstrated to be deeply unstable. Tinkering at the edges will not eliminate that instability, which derives from a friction of identities and aspirations which must honestly be accepted and not denied or wished away. Only a comprehensive settlement which adequately acknowledges and accommodates the duality which lies at the heart of Northern Ireland, and of Ireland as a whole, can work. This means, in effect, that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland must actively agree to whatever arrangements are to be put in place. Within Northern Ireland nationalists must enjoy equality of treatment and opportunity. The institutions of the State, including the police, must reflect and express the reality of diversity. There must be parity of esteem for the nationalist identity and their aspiration to a united Ireland must be respected and catered for. There must also be North-South institutions which serve to reflect the nationalist identity while at the same time allowing all the people of Ireland to work together in all areas of common interest for the common good. It is indeed agreed on all sides that, irrespective of all political considerations, there are substantial practical benefits to be had from such co-operation in terms of growth of the economy of the island as a whole.
In short, as Seamus Mallon recently put it, acceptance that there must be consent to a change in the status of Northern Ireland does not mean that nationalists consent to the status quo. An impressive element of the statement announcing the loyalist ceasefire was its firm resolution “to respect our differing views of freedom, culture and aspiration”. It is important that the wider unionist community also acknowledges the implications of that difference.
Not to grasp this opportunity to build a lasting political settlement, which would be the most cast-iron possible guarantee of a permanent peace, would be unforgivable. There could be no better memorial to all who have died nor any better basis on which to build a new Ireland for the living.
While the costs of the last 25 years have been above all human, they have also been vast in financial and economic terms. Energies and resources which could have been much better used in advancing the prosperity of all our people have been diverted and wasted. We now stand at the beginning of a new era. I am convinced that the economic benefits of peace will be immense.
It is true that there will be some short term dislocation within Northern Ireland as a full peace-time economy emerges. Nevertheless, consideration of the experiences of the two parts of the island since 1969 suggests that there is now immense scope for the North to make rapid progress, particularly in developing its tourism industry and attracting inward investment. Furthermore, the psychological liberation represented by an end to the troubles should also have a major impact. Confidence is a key ingredient in successful economic development. History suggests that the indigenous private sector within Northern Ireland should have the potential to resume a much larger and more dynamic role.
In the process of economic reconstruction and development, both of the North and of our own Border areas, our friends abroad, especially in the United States and the European Union, have a major part to play. Their help and support have been invaluable throughout the entire peace process. I am in close contact with the US Congress and Administration and with the institutions of the EU as they work on proposals for further assistance to underpin the achievement of peace and reconciliation and the Government is making a detailed input into that process.
A fundamental objective must be the reduction of unemployment through the creation of useful and productive new jobs. Unemployment in both parts of our island is our greatest single social and economic problem. Both North and South are particularly affected by long term unemployment. Within Northern Ireland, while both communities suffer from unemployment, the situation is particularly acute for Catholics, above all Catholic males, whose unemployment rate remains more than twice as high as that of their Protestant counterparts. Deprivation and inequality have been intimately linked to the political instability of Northern Ireland and they must be tackled as a matter of the highest priority. While fair employment legislation has contributed to an improvement in certain aspects of the situation of Catholics in Northern Ireland, it is vital that the British Government explore all possible ways to bring about fair participation in employment and be active and innovative in seeking to reduce the unemployment gap.
Our shared experience of unemployment is one of the many similarities between the two economies on the island. These point to the need for a concerted effort, underpinned by new cross border and North-South structures, to develop co-ordinated and integrated policies and programmes which would enable us fully to maximise our limited resources and to take full advantage of the possibilities opened up by the continuing evolution of the European Union. There is considerable scope for joint action both in relation to overseas opportunities and to the development of trade and economic co-operation between North and South.
In conclusion, I wish to refer briefly to the experience I had last night in the Abbey Theatre where I attended the Frank McGuinness play. Frank McGuinness described the unrealised potential which has beset generations of Irish people from both communities on this island. Kenneth Piper, one of the characters in Observe the Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme reflects on his efforts as a young man to escape the cycle of violence and hatred:
I could not create for when I saw my hands working they were not mine but the hands of my ancestors interfering and I could not be rid of that interference. I could not create.
Last night in the Abbey there was real optimism that we have begun to leave behind the legacy of bitterness that has disabled us for so long.
The coming of peace opens up new vistas for the people of Ireland. It opens up the prospect that at last we might realise our potential, both social and economic. We must now work together to forge a political agreement which will represent an honourable compromise to which all can assent. In this spirit of partnership we can move to heal our divisions and, at last, create harmony and prosperity on this island.
I thank the Tánaiste very sincerely for his outstanding commitment to the peace process. This point has been made by all sides of the House today.