Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Feb 1996

Vol. 462 No. 4

Northern Ireland Peace Process: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. O'Malley

In my speech here on 14 February in the aftermath of the Canary Wharf atrocity I suggested that the first thing that needed to be done was to hold a summit where the two Governments should become and remain ad idem. Even though it has taken longer than one might have wished, and the interval has been marked by yet another bombing atrocity in London by the IRA, nonetheless I greatly welcome yesterday's agreement between the heads of Government and urge that this meeting of minds be maintained through all the vicissitudes that will arise in the weeks and months to come.

I believe the communiqué is as good as it could be in the circumstances, but let no one think that all is now well, that the peace process is back on the rails, or that we are back to pre-Canary Wharf days. The IRA had plenty of opportunity last night and today to withdraw its statement of 9 February last and to reinstate the ceasefire but has failed to do so. Their spokesmen, Messrs. Adams and McGuinness, are their usual evasive and dissembling selves. Two years later we are back to their old buzz word of "clarification". It is greatly disappointing that after 24 hours, and 25 years, the IRA/Sinn Féin feel that it is their right to murder people to advance their political objectives.

The great weakness of this summit and communiqué is that it all appears to have happened under a mushroom cloud of semtex explosives. The two main participants will naturally deny that, but it is unrealistic to think otherwise. That is an unsatisfactory situation. It makes it all the more important that the determination not to admit Sinn Féin to all party talks without a cease-fire must be resolutely upheld. Indeed, more than just a ceasefire is required to enable the political process to bring about a settlement. Anyone participating will have to do so on the basis that they accept in practice the principle of consent and the Mitchell principles. If the Mitchell report had been handled differently after its publication, Sinn Féin would not have been let off the hook but would have had to face up to what is contained in it which should be acceptable to any democrat or democratic party.

Participants in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation are deluding themselves if they think that a party which could not subscribe to the forum's agreed report because it accepted in practice the principle of consent is a party which should be dealt with in the normal way as just another political party. The decisions of this summit as set out in the communiqué should be seen through in all their consequences and that entails a determination to call the Sinn Féin bluff.

I am still very unhappy about the proposed elective process. Although the detail has yet to be worked out at the proximity talks starting on Monday full reflection should be given by everyone to the need for or value of an election at this stage. While in theory and in a normal society, I favour the concept of a list type election, I have serious doubts about its efficacy in Northern Ireland at present. It may well diminish the voice of the Alliance Party and exclude the voice of the two smaller loyalist parties. These voices need to be heard. As Deputy Harney said last night, the PUP and the UDP have been commendably successful so far in preventing any loyalist backlash or retaliation for the IRA atrocities. To exclude them would seem to be very foolish while they pursue their current anti-violence policies and a very poor reward for their constructive approach.

Likewise I am not sure that an electoral process which would strengthen the DUP at the expense of the UUP has a great deal to commend it. Even with all these drawbacks to a list system election a constituency based election of individuals can, from other points of view, be equally unattractive and destructive of hope for the consensus. It will further polarise an already divided society and may well reward a negative rather than a positive approach.

The commitment in the communiqué about a referendum is much less certain. Mr. Hume's original suggestion has, to some extent, been overtaken by events. One of the proposed questions was whether there should be all-party talks. These are now proposed for 10 June and are welcomed by an overwhelming majority. That question now seems superfluous. His other question on violence almost answers itself and might be redundant if it were proposed so loosely as to allow the IRA Army Council to urge a "yes" vote while keeping up their murder campaign. The value of a plebiscite is that it concerns some issue and resolves it. An endorsement of the six Mitchell proposals and the principle of consent by the great majority of the people on this island might serve that purpose.

Deputy Harney pointed out last night that paragraph 7 of the communiqué, read on its own, would appear not to require a ceasefire. I can only assume that would not have been the intention of the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister and, if this is so, it should be made clear immediately. Otherwise, it is a completely unacceptable pandering to IRA-Sinn Féin.

The process outlined in the communiqué will allow those who want to obstruct it to do so at will. That cannot be accepted. If there is a general consensus among normal democratic parties subscribing to universal political principles of non-violence to go forward, those who are not prepared to subscribe to them should be seen as excluding themselves. A compromise consensus can be obtained in the June talks between all parties of good will. That should be allowed to happen.

Undoubtedly, there will be huge problems and major obstacles in the way of progress between now and 10 June. There may be even greater obstacles after that date. Nonetheless the two Governments and the democratic parties should be united and determined to overcome the setbacks and obstacles that will arise. If that lowest common denominator of political resolve for political progress and the permanent peace that will arise from it can be demonstrated without deviation, sanity will prevail. The worst action would be to change the political strategy in response to further violence. Peace and political progress arising from a settlement are surely achievable objectives. Failure to achieve them would represent a lack of will, determination, goodwill or all three.

Nobody in this House seeks to make political capital out of the solution to this awful problem. For a House that was so divided in the past on the north, this is great progress. The same approach should be taken in the north and, whatever the domestic political difficulties at Westminister, no effort should be made in the future to solve or alleviate them in a Northern Ireland context. Arms for Iraq have no more to do with Northern Ireland than beef for Iraq. If Private Clegg should not be released, he should not have been released just because there was a leadership contest within the Conservative Party.

The apparent relaxation of anti-subversive security in this State, at least during the 17 months of the ceasefire, should now be tightened up. It was a naive gamble that did not pay off. It must not be repeated as a sop to devious and ruthless people.

Mr. Bradford

I wish to share my time with the Minister of State, Deputy Liz McManus.

I agree with Deputy O'Malley that it is important that all-party consensus continue, not just in this House but in the British Parliament, because it was this that allowed the two Governments to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion yesterday afternoon. The same goodwill and courage will be necessary in the months ahead if we are to see the beginning of a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.

One thing that concerned me in recent months was the number of people who expected an instant solution to a problem that originated not 25 years ago but generations ago. I look forward to increased political dialogue in the next few months, but I urge caution and ask for patience. A problem such as that in Northern Ireland cannot be solved overnight. We will not see a total solution in 1996, but, with commonsense and compromise, I hope we will see tremendous progress.

The Irish and British Governments deserve to be congratulated on yesterday's result. The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare and their colleagues on the Northern Ireland sub-committee of the Cabinet, put in Trojan work not just in the past three or four weeks but in recent months. There was much pressure on the Cabinet and on the Northern Ireland sub-committee in the wake of the Canary Wharf bombing but they demonstrated a sure touch. The same sort of certainty will be required in the next few weeks. Yesterday the politicans and the democratic parties seized back the initiative. We gathered here a fortnight ago to speak about the end to the IRA ceasefire and requested the IRA to reinstate it. We recognised the need for a political process and for political leadership by those who believe democracy is the only way forward. This was central to a solution and it has now been given. The political agenda has taken over. There is a political track in place for those who wish to utilise it. The message must go out loudly and clearly to the people in Sinn Féin that they must use whatever influence they can with the IRA to get it to reinstate a ceasefire. It is necessary to keep repeating what was said by the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister yesterday. The only group now keeping Sinn Féin from full participation in all-party talks is the IRA. We call on the IRA to reinstate the ceasefire and allow Sinn Féin to engage in all-party talks.

I concur with Deputy O'Malley on the need to be extremely careful about the Northern Ireland elections. It is necessary that all political parties be represented, because we are not talking about an ordinary political landscape. We have to ensure that the smaller parties who have no representation at present will be able not simply to take part in the electoral process but be represented in the political aftermath. In that regard, although there is the need to ensure representation of Sinn Féin, it must be recognised that the even smaller Nationalist party, the IRSP must also be brought on board. They too speak for a military wing in that the INLA has not gone away either, and it will be necessary to ensure that they finally lay down their guns. We must, therefore, ensure that the IRSP can play a political role in the months ahead. The joint communiqué issued on 28 February 1996 is a watershed and will go down in history as such. We congratulate everyone who has brought us this far and look for courage, flexibility and compromise from all concerned in the months ahead.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Ms McManus)

I congratulate all those involved in the preparation of the joint communiqué which has been welcomed with a great deal of relief. The two Governments have taken an important step and shown leadership but we must not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. We know the context within which all parties can work towards a resolution of the problem. Setting a date for substantive negotiations is not a sign of weakness but evidence of the resolute determination of both Governments to meet the objective of a negotiated settlement in Northern Ireland.

The framework has been laid down and it is up to the parties to respond. It would be desirable if the political parties adopted a positive approach towards this but if one party decides not to participate the process will proceed. It is worth stating that whatever difficulties had to be overcome to reach this stage will pale into insignificance compared to those that will arise when negotiations commence on 1 June. There is no easy route in politics nor is there a short cut to democracy. If Sinn Féin and the IRA do not co-operate in this initiative it will be clear that they are not serious about engaging in the peace process.

Physical force as a political weapon has been part of Irish history for centuries but it has no place in Irish life today. There is no justification for it. Sinn Féin and the IRA are at a point of no return. They must make a decision. If they choose the political route it will be only one of the hard decisions they must make but the advantages of political engagement are immense. I hope, together with thousands of others, that they will make the right decision.

This morning, a spokesman for Sinn Féin said it wanted a week or ten days to reflect on the communiqué. This is surprising because such spokesmen railed against delays in the past and had one simple demand, that a date be set for negotiations to begin. He said points needed to be clarified. The communiqué is written in crystal clear language and sets out a process in an unequivocal and unambiguous manner. It does not deal with all the issues with finality nor should it do so. It is a balanced document where no one loses and everyone will win. Accommodation is the keynote of the communiqué and while everybody gets something they also have to give something. The predominant character of the negotiations must also be accommodation.

It is clear from news reports today that Sinn Féin's response is not encouraging. It will not be forgiven easily if it fails to make the leap to democratic politics as 25 years of violence has convinced the overwhelming majority of the people that Irish unity is not worth the loss of a single life. It has been stated that the peace process belongs to everyone and that was made clear when the people demonstrated for peace on the streets last weekend. They were making the statement that peace belongs to them and they refuse to allow it to be hijacked by any paramilitary group. It belongs to all of us but it makes demands on us which we must live up to.

Some time ago Sinn Féin asked that the Governments be persuaders but it is now time for Sinn Féin to be a persuader if it is to have a credible role in the process. For too long the Republican movement has spoken in the name of dead generations. Now it has an unprecedented and unrepeatable chance to speak in the name of the generations to come. This is its moment to show where its true commitment lies. I hope it will have the courage, conviction and understanding necessary to make the right decision. Democracy may be a hard master but it is also a productive one. I have no doubt that those who vote for Sinn Féin and have done over the years yearn for it to be part of the political process. The great strength of democracy is that the people can have a voice if their representatives work to ensure it is heard.

I pay tribute to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and their staff for their work. I also pay tribute to John Major who is concerned with many political issues and crises. However, despite his difficulties he has concentrated in an effective manner on the Northern Ireland issue. We owe a debt of gratitude to him for that commitment. We now have the possibility of achieving a peace process. The framework, date and timetable have been set in the joint communiqué and we can only move forward.

Dr. McDaid

The BBC weather section announced yesterday that Northern Ireland experienced its sunniest February since the keeping of records in 1880. On hearing that I wondered if it were a heavenly sign that the sun was about to shine, politically speaking, across Northern Ireland and, therefore, the whole island. I had no sooner observed this when I heard a number of leading public representatives give their reaction to what was happening in London. I heard the comments of Martin McGuinness, as a leading representative of Sinn Féin, to the news that the two Governments had decided on a firm date for the commencement of the long awaited all-party talks. I confidently expected him to state positively that Sinn Féin would now expect the Provisional IRA to resume its ceasefire immediately. I could not believe I heard the dreaded word "clarification" trotted out yet again. We heard the words "clarification" and "self-determination" for several months after the Downing Street Declaration. We will yet hear the word "permanent". I remind the House and Sinn Féin that while these words were bandied about people were killed and maimed. I trust there will not be a repeat of this process. Perhaps there are grounds for hope given that there has not been a further act of violence since the bomb on the bus which took the life of the unfortunate and misguided young man from Wexford whose parents and family reacted with courage and dignity. It is remarkable that the statement from the O'Brien family, which received huge publicity in Britain, was the most effective message ever delivered to British people that the vast majority of Irish citizens had no hand, act or part in the acts of terrorism in Britain and elsewhere.

The enormous turn-out of people on the streets of Ireland last Sunday endorsed that message. The large numbers of Irish people who live and work in Britain will be particularly grateful to the O'Brien family for its statement. It was the Irish in Britain who were at the receiving end of the understandable anger at atrocities committed ostensibly in the name of the Irish nation. The overwhelming majority of Irish people would no more condone the bombing at Canary Wharf or Aldwych than the people of Yorkshire would condone the actions of the Yorkshire ripper.

A quarter of a century more than covers the span of life from the cradle to maturity. An entire generation of people who have grown up in areas such as the Falls Road, Shankill and Derry have never experienced a normal childhood. We can only speculate on the seriousness of the scar that leaves on a person. I remember a television documentary in the 1970s which depicted a class of seven, eight and nine year olds who were asked by their teacher to paint a picture of a normal day. A great majority of the pictures showed children at play in their front gardens in the Creggan estate in Derry, with flowers, toys, trees, cats and dogs, but most of them had one thing in common, in the sky was a large dark helicopter. For those children, that was as much a part of nature as the sun.

People have spoken about preconditions, real and imagined. The only precondition to talks is that which applies not only to Sinn Féin but to every party that wishes to participate — the condition enshrined in the first, fourth and fifth principles in the Mitchell report and stressed by my party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern when he said that Fianna Fáil would have no time for a twin-track policy involving the armalite and the ballot box.

I have said many times in recent years that Northern Nationalists achieved more in a short time in the 1970s through the civil rights movement than they will ever achieve through the use of armed violence or terror. I am sure the Irish nation unanimously agrees that the cause of justice and reconciliation was set back by at least 20 years by the extreme bitterness engendered by the campaign of violence. If Sinn Féin identifies any preconditions which it regards as seriously hindering the peace process I will welcome its early comments on them.

Lest anybody gets the impression that the British Government or Sinn Féin are the only culprits, I will refer to the performance of the Unionist parties. Strange as it may seem, the so-called modern wing of unionism, the Ulster Unionist Party under the leadership of David Trimble has adopted a line perhaps even harder than that adopted by the redoubtable Dr. Ian Paisley. Mr. Trimble is inventing preconditions, the most impossible of which would involve the total surrender of Northern Nationalists. They are expected to apologise to Mr. Trimble for daring to suggest that they have been treated with anything but kindness and generosity for more than half a century by what a former Unionist leader described as a Protestant parliament for a Protestant people.

Mr. Trimble recently visited Washington where he captivated his audience with the announcement that the Unionist Party has certain standards and that Sinn Féin would not be allowed share their company until it reached their standards. At a time which we hope will herald the resumption of peace and reconciliation, I will refrain from going into the details of the high standards employed by Mr. Trimble's predecessors for half a century. It was those standards that resulted in the establishment of the Provisional IRA.

I have carefully studied the communiqué and am struck by the fact that throughout the document the word most used is "negotiations"— it is used no less than 15 times. Sinn Féin has generally referred merely to all-party talks, and I am surprised it has not commented on this quite remarkable emphasis by the British Government. Section 10 of the communiqué states that the purpose of the consultations which will commence on Monday, 4 March will be to "(a) reach widespread agreement on proposals for a broadly acceptable elective process leading directly and without preconditions to all-party negotiations on June 10th 1996: (b) reach widespread agreement on the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda of substantive all-party negotiations". I would like the Government, in response to this debate, to explain whether there is an intended difference between the term "all-party negotiations" and "substantive all-party negotiations". The word "substantive" is mentioned at least twice, in sections 7 and 10. Perhaps there is no cause for concern, but I am puzzled about the wording in view of the extraordinary time and care usually taken in the drafting of a communiqué such as this.

I appeal to Sinn Féin to use all the influence at its disposal to persuade the Provisional IRA to not only resume the ceasefire but make an historic commitment to permanently abandon the use of force as a means of obtaining a political aim. I appeal to the leaders of the Unionist parties to give a commitment that we will never again hear of convenants written in blood. I appeal to the British Government to pay greater attention to what my colleague, Deputy Ó Cuív vividly described as "the prisoners issue". Surely that issue could be dealt with immediately. The position of Paddy Kelly has been highlighted more than once in this House. Surely on humane grounds alone his transfer should be possible.

As we approach another summer, would it be too much to ask for a drastic scaling down of what has become known as the marching season? It should be possible to commemorate historical events with dignity and good humour without the necessity for endless provocative marches. Perhaps we could take the drum as well as the gun out of Irish politics this summer.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I wish to share my time with Deputy Dukes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is satisfactory.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. I congratulate the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the British Prime Minister and the officials who worked so hard during recent years to put the necessary procedures in place that will help us to move forward.

While walking in a peace march on Sunday I was particularly struck by something that happened when a number of hecklers at the front started shouting and tried to disrupt people talking on the platform. When about 15 photographers ran to photograph the two or three hecklers, the people around them shouted they should photograph the children, not the hecklers. That was a powerful message. Our children are the future. That message demonstrated the type of Ireland we want to create for our children and our children's children. The public were annoyed that a small number of people at the front of the march could get so much attention, which is a symbol of the power attached to using those type of methods which can extend to violence and how powerful violence can be in exercising control. Yet, nobody wants violence. The opinion polls research published in The Irish Times on Wednesday illustrates that clearly. A strong message, perhaps stronger than any previously, has been sent that Irish people do not want acts of violence done in their names. As Deputy McDaid said, that is becoming clearer to the rest of the world. It must also be clear to Sinn Féin and the IRA that they have no mandate for committing acts of violence in Ireland or elsewhere.

My son and all the nine year-olds in his class wrote an essay on violence in school this week and their message to the IRA was to stop the use of violence. The need to ensure that violence ceases has touched everyone. For 18 months we experienced peace. There was great joy about the contact between the North and the South. There was a sense of things opening up, tourism was developing, people felt freer to move around and we were talking about improving the economy, North and South. People experienced a freedom that had not existed for a long time and the shock of the Canary Wharf tragedy was all the stronger because of that.

I am delighted that the two Governments were able to issue the joint communiqué yesterday. I praise John Major for his part in that achievement, but I was very disappointed at his response to the Mitchell report, a well written and optimistic document. Its focus is on decommissioning mind-sets which is the most important phrase in it. It was disappointing that the report was not given the attention it deserved and that the elections, as opposed to the other issues in the report, were given such focus.

I am very pleased that the two Governments acted together and as the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, said they reached agreement on the framework, the timetable and the intention. That is what the people want. I hope Sinn Féin and the IRA will take note of what is in it and that they will listen to the voice of the people expressed through peace marches and by children and that they will not use violence again.

I agree with the Taoiseach that irrespective of political difficulties or mistakes people consider may have been made — perhaps they were not mistakes — one cannot compare them with using an act of violence to achieve a political aim.

What happened yesterday must be welcomed. We cannot underestimate the challenges or difficulties that may arise. Stereotype thinking and rigidities are part and parcel of the Irish political scene. Often, it is very difficult to move beyond rigid certainties. If anything, this period calls for openness to change. I hope that if the election process is taken women will be more visible in the politics of Northern Ireland. I also hope they will be considered in decisions on the election system. It is extremely important that new voices, particularly women's voices, are heard. Women have not been involved in political parties as much in Northern Ireland as elsewhere, as they have put most of their energies into work at community level. I hope a way will be found to hear the voices of those involved at every level in the process in the months and years ahead. That is an important aspect of the process. If we wish to bring about change, we must create new dynamics. New people's voices must be heard.

I agree with Deputies who referred to the manner in which prisoners were treated during the past year. A Fine Gael delegation which visited republican prisoners in Britain from 15 to 17 January 1996 regretfully concluded that during 18 months of peace the treatment of prisoners by the Home Office damaged and destabilised the peace process. That is an extraordinary conclusion and the matter must be given more priority by the British Government than it has received to date. Peace is made up of change at different levels. It is about the American influence, how prisoners are treated, people power on the streets shaping policy, how Government and political leaders lead and everything coming together. We cannot ignore any aspect. We all have a role to play and the manner in which all these issues are handled is critical.

We should encourage people power to inform and shape policy.

Mr. Dukes

Yesterday the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Major took a major step in this process. It is no disrespect to either of them or to what they have done to say they have taken a large step forward after a time when some steps backward had been taken. What they have done is very significant. I hope it has in it the seeds of something that will flower and bear fruit in the not too distant future. However, without disrespect to either of them — rather it is with great respect to both of them and great appreciation of the quality of what they have done — I remain pessimistic. I am not sure there is a new dawn in prospect and I will state why. Paragraph 12 of yesterday's communiqué states:

The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister expressed their hope that all parties with an electoral mandate will be able to participate in all-party negotiations.

They recognise that confidence building measures will be necessary. As one such measure, all such participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body.

They would also need to address at that stage its proposals on decommissioning.

Confidence building would also require that the parties have reassurance that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of their traditions and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify.

That puts the parameters of the problem clearly before us. I am reluctant to use the much bandied about word "pre-condition" but commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence should be a sine qua non of a real democratic negotiation. They would also need to address the proposals on decommissioning of the international body — with which I agree — on which there is common ground among all of the democratic parties involved in this process.

I should like to recall also, because it is particularly relevant today, paragraph 61 of the report of the international body chaired by former United States Senator, George Mitchell, which states:

Rigid adherence by the parties to their past positions will simply continue the stalemate which has already lasted too long. In a society as deeply divided as Northern Ireland, reaching across the "peace line" requires a willingness to take risks for peace.

Those sentiments from the joint communiqué and the Mitchell report must be taken to heart by all of the parties seeking talks, all the parties who have been complaining about delays in talks and by all the parties who have been complaining at having been excluded from talks. Those parties must accept those statements — and here is the kernel of it — as being the only basis on which real meaningful negotiations can take place.

I say that with all the more conviction because I believe, however difficult things may have been to date, when substantive negotiations begin — as I hope they will fairly soon in the conditions I mentioned — we will find that that is when the really difficult issues must be faced.

I am not optimistic. I watched part of the RTE programme last evening which in one of its segments featured a member of Sinn Féin and a prominent spokesman of one of the Unionist parties, with an interviewer, degenerate into a squabble. The interviewer tried to calm them down. The squabble was not based on anything real about which we have to talk today but rather on their perceptions of what each had done to the other in the past or, indeed, something like Deputy McDaid's reference a few moments ago to Mr. Trimble's predecessors. That is exactly what the Mitchell Commission had in mind when it said:

Rigid adherence by the parties to their past positions will simply continue the stalemate which has lasted too long.

Unending and repeated rehearsals by the parties of the past sins of the other will simply continue that stalemate and we will discover that neither of those two attitudes will produce any benefit when we come to the real discussion. The real discussion, the substantive negotiations, the process in which everybody has been saying they want to be involved and which now appears to be within our grasp or coming near to hand will require creativity, generosity, a new dynamic to which Deputy Frances Fitzgerald has just referred. Furthermore, it will need concessions on the part of every participant. It will require every participant to give up some of his or her traditional positions and, above all, will require a real concern with people that prevails over concerns with doctrines that have been the bane of people's lives in Northern Ireland for so long and which, in so many cases, have been the cause of their deaths.

That prompts me to ask what does this mean because we should make up our minds what will be required before entering substantive negotiations. In Northern Ireland, in the traditional positions of the two communities, there are two flatly contradictory ambitions. One ambition is to see installed a 32-county republic and another flatly contradictory ambition, seeks to maintain, unchanged, a union with Great Britain. It must be clear to even a child that there is not a way in which those two ambitions can be reconciled; there is not a square that can sort out that circle. Neither is there a way that either one of them can be satisfied without immediately dashing the other. Any attempt to reconcile those two traditions politically is doomed to failure because it is simply an impossibility.

That is why all the parties that become involved in substantive negotiations — and all the parties have been saying for God knows how long they want to be involved in substantive negotiations — must accept that, by definition, that will require them to move away from, to give up, to compromise on, even to abandon some part of the bag-traditional stance, some part of the baggage they have carried with them so far. If they are not prepared to do that, then they are in effect saying there is absolutely no point in having substantive negotiations.

I consider that a relevant thought this evening because I have been told that around lunchtime today one of the parties that wants to be involved in these negotiations — it was not a Unionist party — said it will not abandon anything. If, on one side, we hear people say they will not abandon anything of their traditional position, matched by an echoing cry from the other side of not an inch, there will be no point in substantive negotiations and our political system will condemn the people of Northern Ireland to continued suffering and unrest.