The Deputy has 12 minutes remaining.
Anglo-Irish Relations: Statements (Resumed).
I had suggested earlier that there had been a lack of activity under Article 10 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that portion which deals with the economic, social and cultural initiatives which might be taken under its terms. I had contended that, in the course of more than 30 meetings, very little had been done by way of initiatives on the part of ourselves and Northern Ireland. Indeed, it has been obvious to everybody that Ministers dealing with those areas have been singularly lacking in taking initiative. The real tragedy of all this is that the terms of Article 10 provide scope for so much discussion.
I might mention some areas in which dialogue might be encouraged, areas in which there is to be found a common ground and shared interest helping to break down barriers. In the transport area the rail link between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland constitutes a vital means of transferring people and goods. The many terrorist attacks on that rail link are a classic example of the partitionist mentality of the terrorists. They seem determined to reinforce the political Border between the two parts of this island by an economic one. Even in the Povisional IRA's own terms, there is no logic in these attacks. The rail link is a way of continuing communication in every sense of the word between the peoples and the economies of this island. There is an extraordinary irony in the attempts of the Provos to attack that communication thereby seeking to rebuild the barriers which the rail link is designed to break down. There is obvious common ground for all the people of this island in regard to the cross-Border railway line. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have shown a valuable lead in the campaign they have waged on the need to protect that railway link to force the authorities on both sides of the Border to pay more attention to the problem.
There are other issues under the heading of transport needing to be addressed. I have mentioned already the Euroroute, vital in the context of 1992 onwards. It is a source of extreme disappointment that the negotiations begun in 1985 have been allowed to peter out. The continued closure of cross-Border roads in an economic as well as a security issue which ought to have been addressed on a continuous basis having regard to their economic ramifications.
We live in an era of continually expanding communications. While local radio reaches into every corner of the country it is a tragedy — in the context of the need for us to understand each other a great deal more — that here in the Republic we cannot receive, say, BBC Ulster transmitted from Belfast. Equally there are many parts of Northern Ireland that do not get good reception for RTE. With a small degree of co-operation we would be able to ensure that the radio stations which serve the communities of both parts of the island would be able to provide a service which would cover the whole island. That would be a worthwhile step in breaking down some of the cultural barriers which exist at present. The people in my constituency can receive the stations from Wales quite clearly but they cannot receive those from Northern Ireland. Many of us are more familiar with the Welsh language than we are with the accents of the people of Northern Ireland. I would prefer to be able to receive the Northern Ireland stations than the Welsh stations so that I would be more aware of what is happening there than of what is happening across the Irish Sea in Wales.
I was Minister for Tourism for a few months and I am well aware of the problems involved in promoting tourism and endeavouring to get tourists to come to this country. I sometimes thought that if we had the same pragmatism some Northern Irish people have shown we could be more successful in promoting tourism and we could certainly have found a solution to the very damaging rod licence dispute which has bedevilled our tourism industry. However, be that as it may with more co-operation between North and South much could be done in the development of tourism on this island as a whole.
As I have said both parts of this island have suffered from adverse publicity as a result of the violence in Northern Ireland. A campaign conducted jointly by both tourist authorities could help considerably in overcoming that problem. That is not the only area in which a joint approach to tourism would be a positive step. For example, golfing package holidays which would include courses at Portrush and Newcastle and Portmarnock and Ballybunion and archaeological holidays which would include the Giant's Causeway as well as Newgrange should be jointly promoted. The list of these possibilities is endless.
I should like to refer to industry and energy. We have common needs and interests in the fields of energy. For instance as supplies of British oil and natural gas run out the energy requirements of the North can only be met economically by the South. I know that my colleague, Deputy Dick Spring, made several efforts in this area with his Northern counterparts when he was Minister for Energy and I wonder to what extent these efforts have been pursued by the Minister who succeeded him.
In the area of industrial development the IDA and the NIDA have often found themselves in competition for viable projects. This is a pity. I know there are many difficulties in the way of developing joint approaches to industrial development, but I believe a visible effort in this area would yield considerable fruit. There are other areas where there is room for co-operation, scope for dialogue and action under Article 10 of the Agreement.
We all know that agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy have been under attack for years by the Thatcher Government. The northern part of our island has suffered from that attack. I believe the agricultural interests of the North would be better put forward and represented by our Government. My colleague, Barry Desmond, was involved in the area of health and I would like to see some more obvious co-operation in this area.
For a short term I had responsibility for forestry. The hidden subsidies which are available to people from the North who are involved in forestry to buy our produce have put many of our industries in this area in danger. The subsidies for electricity, fuel oils, the cost of lorries, tractors and spare parts place them at an advantage over those people involved in the industry in the south. They can afford to put forward far more attractive quotas to our forestry department, now Coillte Teoranta, than people from the South. We need to have discussions on this area so as to ensure that there will be an even playing field for the industries both North and South.
There are many other areas we could discuss and there is a lot of room for making the kind of progress which helps to break down barriers, but rather than deal with each of these areas individually I would like to make one important general point. At their last annual conference in Brighton the British Labour Party adopted a comprehensive statement of policy in relation to Northern Ireland. That policy was underpinned by statements of principle — a commitment to Irish unity, a recognition of the Unionist opposition to unity and a declaration that that opposition should not be allowed to constitute a veto on political progress. The British Labour Party, in pursuit of these principles, set out a detailed strategy aimed at removing the barriers to progress. High on their agenda is the removal of economic barriers within Northern Ireland and between the two parts of Ireland. They believe that existing institutions such as the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be used to extend co-operation into a wide range of policy areas — these would include security, the economy, tourism, agriculture, energy, transport, education and social security — and that joint planning in these areas is both necessary and desirable. They believe that such harmonisation is necessary because of the challenge to both parts of Ireland posed by the approach of 1992. Coupled with the policies designed to improve conditions within Northern Ireland they believe it will be possible, step by step, to build the consent needed to achieve unity in Ireland.
That policy, firmly held by the party I believe will form the next Government in Britain, holds out a significant measure of the hope I referred to. It is a step by step policy and is aimed at producing forward steps rather than the erratic progress of the last few years. I have tried to point out that the mechanisms exist to enable us to begin on that path of progress. I hope that as a result of this debate there will be a new determination to use those mechanisms to their fullest.
The greatest single problem to be solved on the island of Ireland today is the 20 year campaign of murder, intimidation and violence in Northern Ireland. In recent years around the world we have seen a cessation of some of the bloodiest wars since the end of the Second World War — the awful Iran/Iraq conflict has ceased and the Russians have pulled their troops out of Afghanistan. Despite recent setbacks, strenuous efforts have been made to bring peace to Central America.
Elsewhere, the Berlin Wall is crumbling; the Iron Curtain is melting and in South Africa, the white régime is finally beginning to dismantle apartheid and to set the imprisoned black African leaders free.
But, in Northern Ireland, death still lurks in the hedgerows, in culverts and in back alleys, as the Provisional IRA carry on their self-declared and self-mandated murder campaign of ordinary people. Their whole campaign has become not merely the antithesis of democracy, but is even a perversion of language as they talk of liberation and peace with justice.
What kind of liberation are they offering ordinary businessmen blown to kingdom come simply because they do work for the security forces in Northern Ireland? What kind of justice is afforded by them to ordinary Protestant Irish people who happen to be members of the RUC and the UDR who have to live in constant fear for their lives, checking their cars for bombs every time they set out on a journey and dreading every knock on their family door?
How can you possibly pretend to be a Republican of any colour when you regard a six month old child, or the wives of British servicemen in Germany or Britain as legitimate, dispensible targets? How can you talk about according Unionist Protestant Irish people a fair deal when you wage a virtual campaign of genocide against that community, especially along the Border counties? The tragedy of this brutal, self-appointed campaign, which has shamed the name of Ireland and Irish people all over the world is not only the totally immoral and unjustified taking of human life, it is also the fact that the Provisional IRA's campaign — and the retaliatory violence of Loyalist extremists — is being rendered totally irrelevant and redundant in the context of European integration.
The whole IRA campaign is a blind and pathetic hangover from the past. They seem to be prisoners of history. When are they, and their misguided followers, going to wake up and realise that the vast majority of the Irish people, North and South, along with the people of Britain, and the other ten member states of the European Community, have all pooled part of their national sovereignty to create a United Europe? Increasingly, our domestic laws and institutions are being shaped by directives from Brussels, and not merely by decisions of our national parliaments.
The SDLP leader, John Hume summed up the situation very well earlier this week when he challenged the IRA to justify their so-called armed struggle in the context of the United Europe that is emerging. And, warning of the danger of the North becoming an economic backwater dominated by sectarian violence and Mafia-style racketeering, he told the IRA leadership that they should never forget that the Mafia began their career as a movement for the liberation of Sicily.
Since the foundation of the Progressive Democrats less than four years ago we have always made clear our primary desire to see peace and an end to the violence in Northern Ireland. That humanitarian concern is our top priority, and we believe that every other consideration must take second place to that requirement. As Nationalists we obviously and sincerely wish for the ideal ultimate solution of a united Ireland but we are totally opposed to any notion of Nationalist domination of Unionists on this island. Our initiative last year of preparing a new draft Constitution for the Republic set down our desire to remove any suggestion of domination contained in the existing 1937 Constitution, and to rewrite Articles 2 and 3 to reflect the wish for a united Ireland as an aspiration rather than any territorial claim.
The real lesson of the instability that has dogged Northern Ireland since the creation of that State by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, is that domination, or attempted domination, of any one community there by the other has not, and will not work. Unionist domination ultimately foundered in 1972 with the prorogation of Stormont and the IRA's vicious attempt to impose their will is equally doomed and hopeless.
The core problem that now has to be urgently resolved is the political deadlock between Nationalists and Unionists within Northern Ireland. A comprehensive, lasting solution to the Northern problem has, in fact, three — even four — separate, but inter-related dimensions.
These are the Unionist-Nationalist dimension within Northern Ireland; the North-South dimension essential to satisfying the legitimate aspirations of Northern Nationalists; the Anglo-Irish dimension essential to satisfying the legitimate aspirations of Northern Unionists, while the fourth is the wider European Community dimension, which hopefully can help neutralise the more sectarian aspects of the internal Northern divisions. None of the three main dimensions — the internal Northern one; the North-South or the Anglo-Irish — stands alone. All are vital elements in the comprehensive political settlement that is essential if we are to fill the political vacuum in which only the men of violence currently thrive. Therefore, to emphasise one is not to exclude the others; indeed, we must not exclude the others. None of these three dimensions standing alone can offer a lasting solution because all three are completely interdependent.
Bearing in mind these essential observations, let me say that the Progressive Democrats regard the internal Northern dimension as a very vital one. A key element in the complex Northern jigsaw has to be to get the people of the two Northern communities to live together, trust and respect one another and to agree to share together the task of administering the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. In that context it is important to realise that the historic Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 in Article 4 makes it the declared policy of the British Government to support devolution of "certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ... on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community". The Article then went on to state that the Irish Government support that policy.
This support for devolution contained in the Agreement is further underwritten in the Review of the Workings of the (Anglo-Irish) Conference, published in May of this year, when the previous Government here agreed with their British counterparts that it continues to be the British Government's policy, supported by the Irish Government to encourage progress towards devolution of the responsibility for certain powers to elected representatives in Northern Ireland. It is important, too, to realise that both Article 4 of the 1985 Agreement and Clause 7 of last May's Review acknowledged that devolution can be achieved only with the co-operation of constitutional representatives within Northern Ireland.
While the Progressive Democrats emphasise the importance of a devolved, power sharing administration as a key facet of the multi-dimensional solution to the Northern tragedy, we also realise that the prevailing situation in the North now is sadly one where neither the Unionists nor Nationalist constitutional politicians are enthusiastic about devolution. The Progressive Democrats would wish it to be otherwise and are anxious to help in any practical way to facilitate this happening. But Deputies on all sides of this House know that we are not looking at a situation today where Unionist and Nationalist politicians in the North are urging or begging the Dublin and London Governments to give them the green light for devolution.
In that context, I believe that the attempts by the Taoiseach to initiate new, but parallel processes to involve Northern Unionists and Nationalists in political dialogue, whether in the context of the Irish Presidency of the EC next year or in the quest for greater Community structural aid for the North, or in possible cross-Border economic and social development, to be very positive and very worth while. I have no doubt that the European Community dimension, and especially the eclipsing of the national boundaries arising from the free Community-wide movement of people, goods, capital and services in the next few years, will be the crucible where the murderous sectarian divisions of centuries in the North of Ireland will finally be dissolved.
Therefore, if any initiative, such as those put forward by the Taoiseach, can get round the Unionists' deadlock arising from the Anglo-Irish Agreement and can get them talking in any context at all to Nationalist Ireland, that would be a magnificent departure. The issue, therefore, of trying to resolve the Northern crisis is not simply a question of whether parties in this House are for or against devolution; that would be far too simplistic an analysis of the situation.
As I have said, the Progressive Democrats favour some form of devolved, power-sharing Government as one vital aspect of solving the problem, but even if the Irish Government were to advocate only this option and to exclude all other aspects of the Northern question, there is very little likelihood that it would, therefore, take off and find unanmimous favour with constitutional politicians in the North.
As I said at the outset, the primary challenge to us all, and the one crying out for an answer, is to end the murder, violence and intimidation. That means trying to get the two Northern communities to trust each other and to respect one another's traditions and aspirations. Every possible worthwhile option must, and should, be tried. And here in the Republic we must do our bit to break down the barriers of mistrust and division between Nationalists and Unionists.
Over the past three years the Progressive Democrats have maintained bilateral contacts with all shades of constitutional opinion in Northern Ireland. At a practical level, we are anxious to develop personal contacts with both communities in the North. In my own West Galway constituency we in the Progressive Democrats had a very successful meeting earlier this year which featured a representative of the Official Unionist Party. At party headquarters level we are initiating a series of cross-Border exchange visits, with Progressive Democrat members travelling North for weekends, and reciprocal visits by Northern Nationalists and Unionists. The first of these exchanges will take place before Christmas, when about 20 northerners will spend a weekend with members of our party here in Dublin.
I would like to welcome the recent comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Brooke. I believe they clearly signal the willingness of the British Government to work positively to improve the position in the North rather than to adopt a passive stance. Many people felt that with the domestic difficulties facing the Tory Government the tragic problem of Northern Ireland might be left to one side. Mr. Brooke's comments are particularly welcome in that context.
In conclusion, let me say that in the final analysis the only people who can rid the North of the scourge of violence are the two communities. Neither Dublin nor London, separately or jointly, can impose a solution. Let the constitutional leaders of both Nationalists and Unionists take courage from the events in Russia, Poland, Hungary and East Germany. Political courage can repay spectacular dividends.
With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to share my time with Deputy Michael Creed.
Your request is contrary to the Order of the House but the House may agree to it. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The debate is of immense importance and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on it. This morning Fine Gael tabled a motion which was defeated on the Order of Business. In this important motion we were seeking agreement that parties work together. That is why I was amazed to read in this morning's Irish Independent the headline “Dukes move to break Dáil unity on North”. The article further stated that Fine Gael, the main Opposition party were adopting a go-it-alone stance. Perhaps we are adopting a go-it-alone policy. However, we should not be shy about admitting that. At this point in our history courage is needed. Let us remember that to be alone is very lonely but if you are correct and believe in what you are doing, you have a duty to take your courage in your hands and try to do something positive.
Since 1969, 862 security personnel and 1,903 civilians, almost 3,000 people, have been killed in Northern Ireland. We can be complacent and stand idly by, but I believe that everybody must take his courage in his hands to see what he can do to bring about change. A former Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, laid some of the ground work for the Sunningdale Agreement and we must pay tribute to him for his work. However, the Sunningdale Agreement lasted less than six months, from December 1983 to May 1984. Sunningdale showed that an effort was being made, there was a government and an opposition but the tragedy was that the British Government had not got the courage to make sure it lasted. A former Taoiseach, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, and the people who took part in Sunningdale had courage and vision and were trying to make democracy work in the North.
Courage was needed to bring about the New Ireland Forum. It worked well. Initiatives were taken by the Forum, which published its report in 1984. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was another important and historic step. Rather than sitting around and doing nothing, we have a duty to take courage and try to do something. I can say without rancour, and this should be taken in a spirit of goodwill, that the Taoiseach has a duty to try to do something magnanimous and generous to try to bring about some understanding and rapproachement in the Northern community. The failure to appoint somebody from the North to the Seanad was a disaster. It was a grave mistake. Surely we could have got somebody from the Northern community to join us on this occasion in that Chamber.
We need courage. Let us remember that Captain Terence O'Neill invited Mr. Seán Lemass to tea at Stormont on 14 January 1965. I am sure, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that you can remember that well and that a reverend gentleman and three or four other protestors threw snowballs at both Captain O'Neill and Mr. Lemass. It has to be said that Seán Lemass had great courage to go North and that Captain Terence O'Neill was not only a man of courage but of vision. This country needs people of courage and vision but unfortunately, on both sides of the Border there are too few with courage and vision. However, I must pay tribute to the many brave and courageous politicians in the North of Ireland who, by being involved in politics, put their lives at risk daily.
We in Fine Gael have gone it alone today but I believe that in the Progressive Democrats there are people who believe in what we had to say in our motion this morning. We cannot look back. We can go places if we are positive about it. Our Constitution states that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas. Let us remember that we want all the island at some future date and that the aspiration of everybody in this House is for a united Ireland. We must first unite the people. We must have unity of the people. If neighbours cannot live together in harmony, no court in the land can change their minds. Similarly, in the North, unless the people decide to work together nobody can make them do so. However, in order to get them to work together there must be power-sharing in government. This will be a difficult step to take and there will be a great many problems in achieving it. Nevertheless that first step must be taken because in getting political movement, which is so sadly lacking, you will bring about unity of people. We, in this part of Ireland have a great duty to bring about as many meetings of people as possible in an effort to have a meeting of minds. We must be seen to be actively doing this at all times. We must improve our economy because such huge differentials in tax as exist on so many items at present cause problems in many ways. This House should unite in an effort to bring about devolution in Northern Ireland. Our first aspiration should be unity of the people. We must work to bring this about.
In calling on Deputy Creed the Chair would wish to extend to him a special invitation on the occasion of his maiden speech, to maintain, as I know he will, the tradition of the Creed family in this House.
First, I thank Deputy Enright for agreeing to share his time with me and the House for agreeing to his request.
I am glad to have this opportunity to speak in this important two-day debate, though I am sceptical as to whether it will have any real benefit. In the absence of any substantive motion, our comments will lack context and the debate will have little to offer by way of suggestions on how to solve the problems and the nightmare of Northern Ireland. It is important in this debate that we speak in the context of the EC. With the advent of 1992 it is imperative that people North and South should co-operate and agree on strategies and policies in an effort to get around the disadvantages we will face after 1992, as the only island nation in the EC.
With the movement towards full European integration gaining momentum national borders are becoming meaningless and are now little more than lines on the map. The important issue that will face the people North and South after 1992 will be the seas that surround us, not the lines that divide us. We have to bear in mind in the context of any debate on Northern Ireland that what is of importance to the people of Northern Ireland is their economic wellbeing. We must not jaundice any debate or discussion on that matter by showing political prejudice which we may have inherited from our predecessors.
The economy of Northern Ireland has suffered during the past 20 years. Since the start of the troubles there has been polarisation. If the North is to survive economically after 1992 it must be allowed to speak for itself. In the formative years of the single market this can be done by using the vehicle of devolution. Speaking as someone who comes from one of the peripheral regions of this State I can fully appreciate the alienation and economic deprivation which Northern Ireland suffers from as an outpost of the United Kingdom. It would be very positive if a strong voice was to emerge in Ulster to express the views and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland. It should be pointed out that this could happen without the Unionist or Nationalist traditions having to compromise their genuinely held political convictions. However, these convictions must take second place to the need to ensure the economic wellbeing of the people living there.
Gestures of goodwill and cross-Border co-operation are also needed. I wish to echo what my colleague Deputy Enright has said, in that it was unfortunate that the Taoiseach in nominating his 11 nominees to the Seanad did not in a gesture of goodwill and friendship put a hand across the Border. Although this may seem insignificant to us, it is a matter of importance to both the Unionist and Nationalist traditions in Northern Ireland.
There is a duty on us as politicians to give a lead. If we fail to do this, we are all aware of the consequences. For a start, those who show scant regard for the political and democratic process will prosper. Fine Gael have a proud record in this regard. As a Fine Gael Deputy, I am particularly proud that Jim Nicholson, a Unionist MEP for Northern Ireland, has joined our grouping in the European Parliament. This is proof positive that real politics can take place outside the confines of the so called Northern question and that people and parties can and do unite in the pursuit of common causes. Likewise, the election of my colleague Deputy Austin Currie to this House and the election of John Cushnahan, the former leader of the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland, to the European Parliament are further indications of that leadership, of the yearning of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland for a resolution of the problem and of open minds and hearts, prerequisites to any attempt at resolving the problem.
Of course many people despair that a solution will be found. Let me borrow a phrase used by the Minister for the Marine when talking about the rod licence dispute: "Despair is the enemy of hope". Out of despair has grown frustration and polarisation. We must keep on hoping. Recent event in Eastern Europe must strengthen our resolve. The people of East Germany were fed up with their lot and sought to change it. The ordinary people of Northern Ireland are sick to the teeth of killings and murders being carried out in their name. I am of the view that the so-called Northern question is a definite second on the political agenda for the ordinary person, second to the need for reasonable economic circumstances. Politicians must pursue this and co-operate together.
The main beneficiaries of the current impasse are of course the IRA godfathers and their racketeering enterprises which continue to grow. Their motivation is no longer any lofty political aspiration but rather pure economic greed which thrives in a climate of fear and which helps in recruitment to their murderous ranks. These bully boys must be alienated and isolated and seen for what they really are. The majority of people in Northern Ireland are united in their condemnation of these people. It behoves politicians to act in a positive way and co-operate with each other. The setting up of a devolved assembly is the best way forward. If such an initiative was undertaken in Northern Ireland it would be far more productive and effective.
Let me point out to the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland, who claim the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a barrier to any progress, that enshrined in that agreement is the statement that no change in their status will be brought about without their consent. I ask them therefore to co-operate with the other political and constitutional parties in Northern Ireland in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. If co-operation can take place between politicians from that province and former politicians from that province who are now members of the European Parliament for the Republic, there is no reason why the political parties in the North cannot co-operate with each other if they are willing to do so.
If we are to solve this problem we must forge a unity of minds and hearts within the two communities of Northern Ireland. I also believe that the onslaught of 1992 and the consequences it will bring for both parts of the island could well be the stimulus for the two traditions in Northern Ireland to chart their own course and this can best be done through a devolved assembly. That course would be democratically and peacefully charted by the people of Northern Ireland and the community as a whole would benefit substantially from it. All concerned with the nightmare that has been Northern Ireland must temper their remarks and never use the subject for political posturing. We must earnestly endeavour to contribute to a resolution of the problem.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate because the issue is of paramount importance to the two countries. The major difficulties arising from the conflict in Northern Ireland which has bedevilled the island as a whole, the UK and far beyond, needs to be addressed in a way in which it has not been addressed before. Speaking from the comfortable place which is this House, we have to be conscious of what we say on the issue and ensure that what we say will not further exacerbate the problems in Northern Ireland or lead to further conflict. No matter how well we feel we know and understand the people of Northern Ireland and the conflict, we must understand that we are somewhat limited in our perception of the issue because we do not live there with the problems and the difficulties. That puts us at a disadvantage in trying to come to terms with the hopes and aspirations of the people in Northern Ireland. It is a disadvantage that unfortunately sometimes leads to individual contributions which do not help to alleviate the difficulties.
The resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland rests firstly in the two communities in that part of the island coming together in mutual respect to discuss the issues which divide them and which allow the men of violence to justify their violent actions. Of course the coming together of the two communities will have to be supported and assisted by the Government in the Republic and the Government in the UK. This is a crucial aspect to any progress being made. The differences between the UK Government and our own over Northern Ireland have bedevilled our relationships over the years and have led to some extent to prolonging the difficulties in the North. So long as this problem in Northern Ireland remains unaddressed normal international relations between the UK and the Republic will never be achieved. Two countries which are geographically close need to work together for the common good on a range of international issues whether they be within the EC framework or further beyond. For that reason it is important to recognise that the resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland would have a most beneficial effect on the UK and on the Republic in terms of our ability to operate together on the international scene.
We know that the economic repercussions and difficulties which have arisen from the conflict have affected Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that in many areas we could work together. One only has to refer to the industrial area where we have two industrial authorities seeking economic investment from abroad and often times they compete against each other. The most glaring example of this type of competition is spelled out for us in the De Lorean affair of some years ago. They looked at both the Limerick site and the Northern Ireland site and perhaps it was because the two authorities were competing against each other for what appeared to be a major economic attraction, that the weakness of the project was not seen early enough. They could easily have sited the factory in Limerick with perhaps the same consequences. The competition between the two agencies could have led to the difficulty which eventually arose in bringing De Lorean on to the island in the first place and none of us was happy with the eventual outcome of the setting up in Northern Ireland of that company.
The same applies in the area of tourism. We have two bodies in the market places of the world extolling the virtues of the country in competition with each other instead of complementing each other's work to the benefit of the whole country. Both agencies in co-operation could be more successful in promoting both parts of the island. This inability to work together towards sound economic development and expansion has hampered the creation of jobs which are needed in both parts of the island.
There are other areas in the economic sphere which are affected, for example, the rail connection between Belfast and Dublin. Despite the fact that this problem was covered on a number of occasions here, the problem remains and the interruption of the service is having a major impact on the economic viability of those who need to use that service to bring goods in or out of either jurisdiction.
The financial costs of supporting the Border, which is an artificial border, are enormous and a country such as ours can ill afford to spend so much of our scarce financial resources on maintaining a Border with which we fundamentally disagree.
In the context of the EC there is no doubt that in the reasonably near future the Border as a division between Northern Ireland and the Republic will simply fade away. I expect that in time the Border posts will be removed. In the absence of violent conflict in Northern Ireland there will be no need for vast resources to be spent by both communities policing the Border, because with the dismantling of the barriers between EC countries there will be no further need for customs posts along the Border areas. For that reason there would be a tremendous economic benefit to both communities if they were to come together in some reasonable dialogue on the economic issues alone.
We have to recognise that progress on this island will not be made unless there is the sort of political leadership which was mentioned today during previous contributions. It is interesting to note that in eastern Europe the ordinary people, growing tired of entrenched leadership and political systems which were not changed for 30 and 40 years, simply took to the streets in a peaceful protest and in that way brought about political change which none of us dreamed would happen even in our own lifetime.
Therefore it appears to me that there is a need for political leadership of a type that may not be present in the context of Northern Ireland at this time. In taking lessons from the eastern European experience it would be well for the leadership to understand that if the people grow tired of the delays in resolving the problems peacefully the people may themselves decide to change that leadership as has been successfully done in eastern Europe.
Recently when an attempt was made by the Unionist population — and I do not criticise them for it — to mark the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and they called their people onto the streets it was interesting to note that the people did not respond. Is that a reflection on the leadership? On the nationalist side when people were called out on the streets to commemorate events that are important to them the numbers who came out were also few. That seems to indicate that at grass roots level people are becoming weary of what they perceive as weak leadership or as political leadership that is taking them nowhere.
The only realistic way forward is through dialogue. People with diametrically opposed views must ultimately sit down at the table and start talking to each other. The sort of political changes that have taken place around the world lead one to conclude that there must be room for hope for we, on this island, cannot remain untouched and unmoved by those events.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I visited Hungary on a delegation with you and the Inter Parliamentary Union and had the opportunity to speak to a parliamentarian there representing small farmers. He indicated then, that was in April of this year, that great change was coming to Hungary. I recall being somewhat sceptical of that type of statement and asked him what he meant by it. He said that the mood of the people was permeating up through all the elected representatives and that in a short space of time the one party that held sway and dominance in Hungary would be swept aside peacefully. His words, which sounded fantastic at the time to me, have certainly come true and that has obviously had an effect in other countries as well.
If it can happen there through the people expressing themselves and choosing the leaders they want to make progress, then why not here? The vast majority of Northern Unionists respect us and the traditions we hold. I am convinced that they would not be moved in any direction if we were simply to bend the knee, to shed our values and our traditional hopes and aspirations, but I feel they would prefer to deal with the opposing point of view knowing the standpoint of the opposition. They would prefer to deal with some organisation they can depend on even knowing that their views are totally different or even unacceptable. They would prefer to deal with somebody they can, to some extent, do business with. That time has not yet come but I hope it will.
Violence simply begets violence in Northern Ireland. It will certainly not lead to a resolution of the conflict. It only causes people to become entrenched in their views. It makes for suspicion of those who hold a totally different point of view but all the attitudes appear to be changing and to be softening somewhat. It is precisely because little progress has been made in Northern Ireland in terms of negotiation and discussion that a vaccum has been created that is filled by the men of violence from the IRA, the UDA and other organisations.
For a debate of this kind to be useful, it must be open and frank. It must concentrate on all the issues. Everybody in this House has clearly stated that violence will not solve the problem. Violence begets violence and the tit-for-tat killings which are a horrible feature of Northern Ireland will go on and on unless we break the logjam. What we now need is a strong and courageous leadership that will take the initiative to begin a dialogue which will involve all parties who have a contribution to make towards resolving the Northern Ireland problem. Leadership will have to take risks and political leadership will have to take the greatest risks of all if they are to encourage every individual, group or organisation, political party or anybody else who has a contribution to make. The political leadership on both sides of the Border and in the United Kingdom will have to find a way to bring everybody with a contribution to make to the table and in so doing ensure that there will be no re-emergence of violent conflict in the future.
I also welcome this opportunity to participate in this very significant debate which is another milestone in relation to our assessment of our attitudes on Anglo-Irish relations.
This time last year we debated in rather formal fashion one particular focus on Anglo-Irish relations, the Anglo-Irish Agreement. On this occasion, unfortunately, the debate is more open ended. We have simply statements to the House in relation to Anglo-Irish relations so the ambit and the remit and the dialogue is very wideranging indeed. It would have been preferable and in the interests of more constructive debate to have had a sharper, more precise focus on some particular aspect of the revolution of the Northern conflict rather than just going all over the place very much in the old style of "around the house and mind the dresser".
There was consensus in the House last year that progress would have to be made, that we would have to commit ourselves totally and completely to trying to break the stranglehold of the intractable problem of the tragedy that is Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate that in a year which has seen unprecedented progress on the world stage, a fragmentation of age old traditions and the breakdown of generations of prejudice, the mental attitudes of the two traditions do not seem to have come any closer together. In Poland we have seen Solidarity move from agitation and street confrontation to constructive leadership in government. In Czechoslovakia people power seems to have started a momentum which inevitably must bring about democratic and short term change. We have seen the two great super powers, the USA and the USSR, open up a process of understanding, dialogue and reconciliation that seemed well nigh impossible a mere three years ago. We have seen partitioned Berlin dismantle the physical barrier of the wall which has unleashed an overdue and much sought after and unprecedented fusion of the minds and hearts of the people of East and West Germany. There has been more progress in the past year than in the previous 20 years in opening up the white beaches to the black majority in South Africa. Yet here in this tiny segment of civilisation on the western periphery of the EC, on the eve of total integration of the EC, on the countdown to the 21st century when compromise and rationale seem to be the order of the day on the general world stage, the scars of tribal division in Northern Ireland seem to be as deep as ever.
Within the hearts and minds of the ordinary people of both persuasions in Northern Ireland there must be and is a tremendous natural yearning for peace, stability and reconciliation. I believe, despite the seeming deadweight of intransigence, there exists a tremendous fund of goodwill towards reconciliation if the men of violence would stand aside and allow the healing process to begin. However, every move in this direction is thwarted by the seemingly never ending litany of atrocities. The so-called avowed aim of the Provisional IRA is a united Ireland. What a bizarre way of setting about uniting a country by dividing it daily by intransigence and bitterness. If you divide the two communities you have no hope whatever of reconciling the community at large which is going to be part and parcel of a united Ireland some day. Until the people in the Catholic enclaves in Derry, Belfast and Crossmaglen see the Provisional IRA for what they really are — thugs and criminals masquerading as patriots and politicians — we will not even begin to move in the right direction. Their ability to place a landmine, to kneecap, to maim somebody, to shoot somebody in the back of the head, to have punishment shootings is nothing but-perverted ingenuity.
On the Unionist side, there will have to be a process of detachment from their paramilitary forces and an ending once and for all of the attitude of ambivalence which seem to characterise certain sections of the Unionist community, particularly certain members of the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party, when it comes to making clear distinctions as to where their support lies when it comes to these paramilitaries. There is such a vested interest now on the part of the men of violence retaining violence for their own selfish and criminal ends that they seem to have not even the slightest hint of interest in the welfare, wellbeing or long-term solution of the problems of Northern Ireland.
Essentially it devolves on the politicians who believe in democracy and the political process to lead the way. People can be led, can want to be led and are receptive to being led but, as has been said on all sides of the House today, it will take politicians to lead from the front, politicians who have the courage, foresight and the will to be pragmatic, realistic, practical and prepared to compromise, and there will have to be compromise, give and take, and a relinquishing and yielding of a certain amount on both sides if we are to make a breakthrough.
The reason Deputy Dukes proposed an amendment to the simplistic statement that we just debate Northern Ireland affairs was very clear, precise and honest; he simply wanted a debate where we would have clarity and precision of thought, where we would once and for all blow away any myths, illusions or false ideas or suspicions we might have in relation to exactly where people stood on some of the major tenets of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He quoted from statements going back to 1980, and particularly the Official Report of 1985 in support of his contention that there still is not clarity of thought on the part of the people who lead the present Government. Standing Order 41 was clearly intended as a facility to provide for a Head of Government to come back from an intergovernmental meeting or a foreign visit to make a brief statement to the House. It was essentially a reportage facility. The Standing Order states specifically that it is not for the purpose of allowing debate, yet it has been used on this occasion as a protective mechanism to shroud people's true intentions as to where exactly they stand or where they are at this crossroads in our history. Deputy Dukes' proposal sought clarity in relation to devolution. He sought to bring about a consensus in this House so that we would parade before the world and before the communities in Northern Ireland the fact that united we saw a bipartisan approach to the Northern problem and that devolution was a stepping stone. Devolution would be a facility, a forum, a mechanism or a form of practical government to allow people to have a say in their own destiny rather than having a particular set of principles foisted on them from abroad.
The Taoiseach quotes James Molyneux in support of his contention that the Northern Unionist community do not want devolution. They may not want devolution in the short term but they are interested in dialogue. In 1988 on three, or possibly four, occasions Mr. Molyneux indicated publicly that he was willing to have some form of dialogue and in response the Taoiseach said he was hopeful to have talks with the Unionists. It seemed to be a case of come into my parlour said the spider to the fly. There is a great deal of wary circling around each other and a great deal of slipping around hidden traps. That is the problem. There are too many hidden traps, too many suspicions, too many jealousies, prejudices and ideologies. What we want at this time is magnanimity and courage and, as Deputies on the other side of the House said just now, people who are prepared to take risks. As Deputy Dukes said, there are people in the Unionist community who are beginning to show some signs of amelioration, dialogue, participation at least in a talking process, and if we cannot talk we are going nowhere.
On the other hand, the Government seem to be interested not in stepping stones but in making one large, impractical, quantum leap forward into unity some day. It will never happen until we break down the suspicions and the innate distrust in the hearts and minds of the Northern people. Ken Maginnis, for example, is coming South on a regular basis to speak in universities. That in itself is a hopeful sign. Such people are beginning slowly but surely to break out of their siege mentality, but today instead of offering the hand of friendship and making a tangible gesture across the Border we have had from the other side of the House empty, sterile rhetoric and more megaphone politics.
The only way forward is devolution. Article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is quite clear and specific in relation to devolution, and it is not as impractical a prospect as the Taoiseach would have us believe. Who would have thought in 1973-74 that it would have been possible to get a British Conservative Prime Minister, the head of the Free State Government in the South of Ireland, the leader of the Unionist Party in the North of Ireland and the Leaders of the SDLP and the Republican communities in the North sitting together around a table and working out a system of power sharing?
Debate adjourned.