The sitting was opened in public at 10.30 a.m. in the Slieve Russell Hotel, Ballyconnell, Co. Cavan, with Mr Michael O'Kennedy in the Chair.

1.  RECENT POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Motion made and Question proposed:

That this Body records its deepest appreciation of the commitment and hard work of all those involved, including the Independent Chairmen, in the multi-party talks which are now in their concluding and most critical stage; urges the participants to take, in a spirit of reconciliation and generosity, the final steps to a just, comprehensive and balanced statement within the three strands of the present talks; expresses its appreciation for the continuing goodwill and support internationally for such a settlement; recognises the need for all parties to continue to adhere to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have underlain the talks; and looks forward to a successful outcome to the talks and the support of the people in the referenda, North and South.-(Mr Charles Flanagan.)

Mr Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly) said that the Steering Committee recorded its deepest appreciation to all those involved for their recent efforts and, more critically, as the last nine days approached. He regretted that yet again a plenary session of the Body took place without any Unionist presence from Northern Ireland. He recorded his appreciation of the involvement of people from the US in attempting to forge agreement, particularly President Clinton, who had maintained a keen interest in Northern Ireland and George Mitchell whose contribution had been immense. He also referred to the involvement of the US Ambassador to Ireland, HE Mrs Jean Kennedy-Smith, who was to depart later in the year.

The peace process had gone down a rocky road since the last Plenary Session but that the next nine days were critical. He regretted the re-emergence of violence throughout Northern Ireland. He outlined recent events on both sides of the Border and thanked the Gardaí for its efforts. The level of progress on demilitarisation was disappoining but unsurprising given current circumstances. There was frustration in rural areas about military activity caused primarily by Republicans.

Punishment attacks were nothing short of fascist intimidation, and although some had sought to justify them by reference to crime, there has been no reduction in crime. He was disappointed that in spite of intense negotiations at the talks there was not greater condemnation of these atrocities. The Mitchell Principles should be rigidly applied and there should be no halfway house between democracy and violence. Ending punishment attacks and other atrocities was fundamental to peace and should be as high on the agenda as the prisoner issue.

Decommissioning was a closely-related issue on which there had been no new developments. He wondered whether the April 9 deadline was realistic and whether something quick was wanted or something right. He believed that the outline of an agreement would be achieved but that those involved would have a huge task in preparing for a referendum at the end of May. The Body had a role to ensure the issues were put to the people in the form of a campaign; he wanted the Irish members in particular to take a strong and positive line. A settlement would only work if each party made a mammoth effort to address the agendas of the others as a priority. A peaceful future had to be based on a fair and balanced settlement; nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed. He recalled the Taoiseach's outline of the basis of a settlement. It behoved all parties involved to make the final effort.

The issues of self-determination and consent were fundamental to a settlement. There would be balanced change to Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic of Ireland's Constitution and if there was peace on the island that would not be an issue, because constitutional change had been accepted for many years along with an acknowledgement of the two traditions on the island. Given European advancement and movement away from the nation-state theory, there should be no difficultly changing a Constitution agreed before the Second World War.

He wished everyone involved in the talks success and good fortune.

Mr Kevin MacNamara (Hull North) raised the issue of Strand Two, which had been at the centre of many problems for the past 30 years. He recalled the failure of the Sunningdale agreement and prior proposals. Yet again in these talks it was the desire of the Unionists to seek an internal settlement without reference to a North-South aspect that lay at the root of problems. The Unioniosts had a deep fear that if they made any concessions would be on a slippery slope to a united Ireland. Many regarded the Unionist fear of the Republic as irrational and without foundation and felt that the Republic had been generous in its attempts to put Unionists minds at rest. Nevertheless, the fear existed and it would be the crunch issue. It was up to everyone to convince Unionists that this was the best chance for agreement in Northern Ireland for both communities and those in England and it was equally important for everyone not to be blinded by their hopes and aspirations.

The spirit in which the agreement would be implemented would be of equal, if not greater, importance than what it contained. He believed that the impending agreement would be a skeleton requiring much fleshing- out to make it work. The equality, intimidation, policing and prisoners issues could easily throw an agreement off course, as with Sunningdale. The agreement would be a start, not a conclusion.

Senator Joe Costello believed that the Taoiseach had put it in a nutshell when he identified compromise as the key element in forming the final resolution. There had been a number of failed agreements; and he concurred with Mr McNamara's comments. He referred to Mr Peter Brooke's three stranded approach in 1991 and the totality of relationships which had been the thrust of all negotiations since then.

Constitutional change on the claims to territorial jurisdiction was a sticking point for Nationalists, North and South, and could be achieved in a referendum only on the basis of a satisfactory quid pro quo from the UK that would leave intact the Nationalist aspiration to a united Ireland but would qualify it by the principle of consent. The proposed internal Northern Ireland executive and legislature had to be based on the principle of proportional representation and must be seen to share power and responsibility between both communities. The present forum and peace talks arrangements- whereby parties and groupings which did not receive a critical mass of electoral support were included because they reached an agreed threshold of community support-should be retained. A North-South ministerial council with implementing bodies was a sensitive but necessary dimension which could become the success story of any new structures.

He welcomed the proposal to establish an East-West intergovernmental council. The Body should be the model for, and parent body of, the new legal entities being developed in Scotland and Wales and at the discussions on Northern Ireland. The quality of life for people in Northern Ireland was paramount. and any internal structures should be underpinned by a Bill of Rights. The issue of policing had to be speedily resolved, and that of prisoners must be given priority. He hoped for a new deal for the new millennium for Northern Ireland.

Lord Rathcavan confined his remarks to the issue of North-South bodies, which he believed would be the most contentious in the final stages of the talks. He noted that the Taoiseach had watered down the previous description of "executive bodies" to one of "implementing bodies with meaningful powers", but he also used the words "powerful bodies" which might be a bit strong to those in the North. Such bodies should operate under a remit handed down from the legislatures. The use of the words "executive powers" or "powerful" had been too emotive, and it would be helpful if the Governments indicated their positions in more detail on the proposed structure and checking mechanisms of North-South bodies.

He had personal experience of cross-Border co-operation on a large scale through the organisation which developed a single "Brand Ireland"operated by a central executive in which he played an active role during his eight years as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The project had been successful and made great commercial sense to those working in tourism; unfortunately, the new Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation in Dublin had decided without consultation to change Bord Fáilte's logo and had unnerved Northern opinion on how these new North-South bodies would function.

The new bodies had to be accountable to the new Assembly and to the Dáil, should be focused and objective, should not have wide-ranging powers, and should be operated by independent professional staff and directors, not by politicians. Such new North-South bodies would make a stronger case for the continuation of the Body with its welcome knowledge of all-Ireland issues and affairs.

Mr Brian O'Shea (Waterford) said that deadlines were important because they focused minds on solutions and that compromise was the key in reaching workable agreements. Mr McNamara had rightly said that there were difficulties for the Unionist community and it was regrettable that they did not attend. Settlement proposals would not be implemented without real political support, and bringing the settlement to fruition would be important. Grudging support for a settlement would be unhelpful.

The chairman of the talks would play a pivotal role in the days ahead and that the support of the US President was important. Some took a simplistic view that once settlement proposals emerge, there would be no problem selling them, particularly those concerning to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution. Sometimes it was mistakenly said that it was those with republican views who most strongest supported Articles 2 and 3; but support went much deeper than that for a variety of reasons. It was incumbent on politicians in the South to quell fears and cultivate a spirit of generosity. The majority of those on the island had had enough of the bomb and the bullet and wanted to rid Irish politics of violence. The positive elements in society had to be brought together and we needed to rid ourselves of adherence to symbols of the past which were no longer relevant.

Some elements, no matter what decision was reached and however overwhelming the democratic mandate, would use unlawful means to thwart implementation of the agreement. The stronger the mandate on both sides, the more such people would be isolated and it would become clear to them that they had no support in a new, peaceful Ireland.

Mr Michael Colvin (Romsey) said he would not be in politics if he were not an optimist. If there was a settlement there would be implementation bodies; but the process of implementation would need to be monitored by an organisation which was seen by all to be impartial, particularly on human rights and policing. If the monitoring task was undertaken by the respective Governments, impartiality would be impossible to achieve. The Council of Europe had demonstrated its effectiveness in monitoring political activities in member states, impartially and effectively, and it included the United Kingdom and Ireland. Countries of central and eastern Europe could benefit from involvement in the monitoring of a settlement in Ireland because of the political upheavals they had experienced during their own troubled histories. Committee B on European and International affairs, of which he was chairman, had that suggestion on its agenda for further consideration and would welcome comments. The Committee had agreed that there should be a special plenary meeting of the Body as soon after the end of the multi-party talks as practicable, but after any referenda.

The Chairman said the last suggestion was one which the Steering Committee could consider if the occasion arose.

Dúirt Mr Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan Monaghan) gur mhaith leis tacú leis an rún agus a rá go bhfuil Sinn Féin ag obair go dian leis na páirtithe eile chun socrú daonlathach a bhaint amach.

Mr Michael Mates (Hamshire East) interjected to ask if Mr Ó Caoláin could speak in a language British Members could understand, and wondered if he was addressing the Body or the television cameras.

The Chairman suggested that Mr Ó Caoláin might be addressing others who understood him.

Mr Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan) said that the interruption was regrettable and showed a disrespect for the Irish language. His opening address would be in Irish and he would continue in English to facilitate the Mr Mates and others who did not understand Irish.

The Chairman asked the Deputy to be brief, as it was important that every Member understood what he had to say.

Mr Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan) said that he intended provide a translation and suggested that the interruption showed a need for simultaneous translation services.

Dúirt an Teachta go raibh deacrachtaí móra ann ach go raibh Sinn Féin ag obair fós chun síocháin bhuan agus cothrom na féinne don phobal uile a chur ar bun.

He supported the motion and reiterated Sinn Féin's commitment, as demonstrated in the all-party talks, to find an agreement on a democratic settlement which could form the basis for lasting peace and justice and a new relationship of trust between the two islands. Sinn Féin was committed to Irish reunification and the establishment of national democracy on a 32 county basis; but that did not mean it did not wish to be part of an agreement falling short of that objective. He directed his comments at those who alleged Sinn Féin had an exit strategy in the negotiations and insisted it remained strong in its commitment to its peace strategy.

While Nationalists and Republicans were willing to play their part in the search for agreement, they were not prepared to see the opportunity for a lasting peace reduced to a narrow agenda. Political and constitutional change must emerge from negotiations and must happen in the context of progress on justice and equality. The British Government was not a neutral force or facilitator in this process. A new type of Stormont or arrangement copperfastening partition would not be acceptable and there could be no return to Unionist domination. An agreed settlement needed to deliver progress in four areas: powerful all-Ireland bodies, constitutional and political change, equality and justice, and demilitarisation.

He reminded Members that the Body was meeting in the 200th anniversary year of the 1798 revolution in Ireland, a time of tragedy and hope; at that time, Irish democrats had made common cause with their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr John Home Robertson (East Lothian) said that he found it hard to take lectures from a representative of Sinn Féin on the subject of justice and goodwill at a time when punishment beatings continued and when so many deaths had occurred. The time had come to look forward, and he wholeheartedly supported the motion. There had been political developments in Great Britain, in that the people of Scotland had voted overwhelmingly for home rule within the UK. The nature of the UK itself was changing and he hoped that the people of Northern Ireland would move with history. Voters in Northern Ireland and the Republic would have an opportunity to move matters forward in referenda. That said, however, nobody had any illusions about the risks and dangers of the coming months.

He asked Members to consider the case of two Scots Guards who had been in Maghaberry prison for six years. They had made a terrible mistake when they thought they had intercepted a terrorist whom they challenged but who ran away and whom they had shot dead. They were now serving life sentences for murder, but the act had not been premeditated. It was not just to keep them in prison in Northern Ireland when convicted terrorists had been transferred to prisons in their home countries. He acknowledged that it was a difficult case for the Secretary of State to review but he wondered if his Irish colleagues could support the case for their transfer to Scotland, in the spirit of reconciliation and parity. The two young men were victims of a conflict which everyone was trying to bring to a close. He added that he had consistently supported the case for transferring Irish prisoners to serve sentences in Ireland.

Mr Conor Lenihan (Dublin South-West) welcomed Mr Ó Caoláin's contribution which rejected the myth that Sinn Féin was pursuing an exit strategy in the talks and which provided an assurance that his party was serious in pursuing peace. He also welcomed Mr Ó Caoláin's assertion that Sinn Féin was prepared to accept something short of the unity which it and his own party, Fianna Fáil, sought. He welcomed Senator Costello's contribution on the Nationalist aspirations in Articles 2 and 3. Mr O'Shea had pointed out that to undermine that objective would have a negative implications and would undermine the peaceful Nationalist and Republican parties. He supported Mr Colvin's idea for a special meeting of the Body in the event of an agreement, in order to reaffirm the Body's determination to sell such an agreement.

Members of the Body should commit themselves to campaign for agreement. He noted the opinion of a former Irish Attorney General, Mr John Rogers SC, that constitutional change in Ireland had failed in the past due to politicians not campaigning for a measure they proposed. The issues in this case were too important to allow such an approach. Issues of national sovereignty and frontiers were now considered differently than in the past; this was an important point in relation to a balanced constitutional change for securing agreement.

There were still armed elements determined to wreck a peace or any peace process with violence; and the Body should reaffirm that such elements would be dealt with ruthlessly. He instanced the negative impact of delay in the Middle East peace process, leading to further loss of life there. The goal of any peace process must be to save life; and that the process had to be a triumph for the pursuit of aims by political means. He supported Mr Colvin's proposal that the Body should signal its support for any agreement with a special meeting.

Mr Harry Barnes (Derbyshire North East) focusing on the Unionists, pointed out that if the scope and powers of the North-South bodies interfered with what they considered legal sovereignty they would be placed in considerable difficulty. There was a distinct difference between political and legal sovereignty, given the influence in any system of a range of international and economic influences. Any economic and social developments which occured on a North-South basis as a reslt of a settlement would result in a de facto move toward a united Ireland. People might therefore wish, over time, to reshape institutions. It was his view that if as part of a settlement the bodies to be established had executive powers it might be a step too far for Unionists, but that was not to say that the institutions could not be significant in their functional areas. There might be a need for a fast-track ratification procedure in the UK or Republic of Ireland or with in the Northern Ireland Assembly for decisions made by the bodies. Not having some mechanism to maintain legal sovereignty would be to push Unionists too far. Whatever the arrangements made, Nationalists could still retain their aspirations to a united Ireland.

Senator Paddy McGowan expressed his strong support for the motion. He emphasised to the Body the gravity of the tasks in hand and the great importance of ensuring a settlement for the sake of small farming communities in the Border region who had borne the brunt of the conflict. He appealed to Mr Ó Caoláin to use his influence with Sinn Féin to ensure that they would make it easier for the Unionists to reach agreement. He appealed to all who had influence to use it to promote peace and save lives. The peace process was not a "dry-run" but the real thing. He talked of the cross-Border business arrangements which have been very successful and which could be built upon. He complimented all those who have been courageous enough to date to go the extra mile for a settlement.

Mr Andrew Boylan (Cavan-Monagan) began by acknowledging the role of Senator George Mitchell in chairing the talks process and the courage of those who had participated in the talks and who had persevered despite intimidation. Referring to the air of expectation and support for a settlement, he hoped that there would be no delay in putting proposals before the people. Violent elements would attempt to disrupt the democratic process; moreover, the efforts of the police in Northern Ireland to address murders in the Nationalist community had been inadequate. Given the level of intelligence and co-operation that existed, it was not acceptable that men of violence roamed on both sides of the Border.

He agreed with Mr McNamara that after the agreement there would be the skeleton of a peace on which to build with investment in the Border region and Northern Ireland. Extra milk quota was needed for the farmers of the North and the six Border counties; this proposal had cross-Border support and would help to secure a living for many small farm families.

Senator Paschal Mooney, referring to the case raised by Mr Home Robertson, expressed his support for the transfer of the prisoners involved and undertook to communicate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the matter. One could not be selective about one's allegiances in matters of human rights.

The debate was taking place in the context of the ever-present spectre of violence. He expressed concern at the split which might take place in the Republican movement and surprise that Mr Ó Caoláin had made no reference to it because Sinn Féin's view on the matter would have been instructive. He accepted that Sinn Féin as a political party could only go so far in discouraging violent action on the fringes of Republicanism. He thought it important that the Body should highlight the matter. The majority of those killed in the North in the past few months had been from the Catholic/Nationalist community and had been killed for that reason alone. It was his strong view that sectarianism was the main evil to be rooted out by the peace process. There was a widespread perception among Nationalists that the RUC had not been active in following up the murders-which was surprising, given the numbers of security forces in Northern Ireland and the vast resources at their disposal.

The Body must encourage the two Governments to reassure both communities in the North on issues such as equality and heritage. He urged the Unionists and Nationalists to go the extra mile in search for peace.

He complimented Senator McGowan on his long-standing work in initiating cross-Border contacts with Unionists. As it was possible to have successful cross-Border co-operation in business matters, for example, it must be possible to work together at other levels. With regard to tourism, he referred to the decision taken by the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Dr. McDaid, on tourism branding and hoped that it would not be misconstrued as a breach of faith in North-South relations.

In the context of an overall settlement and demilitarisation in Northern Ireland, he hoped that the GAA would encourage a change in its rule 21 which prevented RUC and British Army personnel from participating in Gaelic games. He noted that association football was probably the only sport not organised on all-Ireland basis and urged the two associations to reopen discussions on an all-Ireland league. It was to be hoped that there might ultimately be an all-Ireland international team.

Mr Roger Stott (Wigan) pointed out that difficult decisions were to be made in the near future and noted that all Members hoped for a resolution of the problems in the North as a result. In that context he supported Mr Colvin's proposal for the Co-Chairmen and the Steering Committee to consider reconvening the Body for a special Plenary Session before the referenda took place.

Mr Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan) expressed his support for the motion. He referred to the recent shootings and bombings and stressed the importance of consent as the basis for any agreement. He agreed on the importance of and the need for meaningful North-South bodies. There was already a range of North-South bodies working successfully in farming, business and some social areas such as health and education. He referred to the importance of the prisoners issue but stressed that the victims of the atrocities should not be forgotten in the context of an overall settlement. He also emphasised the importance of ensuring that the middle ground the North was convinced that there is a future in the agreement sought. The hard-liners needed to get down to the real work of negotiation in the effort to seek the best possible deal for all. All parties had to be prepared to go the extra distance because for the Border communities the prospect of failure was unthinkable.

Mr Peter-Temple Morris (Leominster) complimented Lord Rathcavan on putting forward a Northern Ireland viewpoint in such a civil and reasonable way. His contribution underlined the need for a greater Northern Ireland presence at the Body, particularly from Unionists. He expressed support for the views of Mr Colvin, Mr Lenihan and others with regard to a special session after a settlement emerged. He reminded Members that the Body had considered holding a special one-day conference in the past, although it had not gone ahead and hoped that if a one day session were to be held that it might be possible to hold it in the North, after appropriate consultation.

It was very important that the case for the Body should not be lost or blurred in the rush to a settlement. With regard to the constitutional arrangements, he did not want the Body confused with a Council of the Isles. Although he expressed delight at the Taoiseach's indication to the Body of its future at the previous day's session, Strand Three, the East-West arrangements, was becoming very crowded. The Body's role should be the parliamentary coverage of the intergovernmental machinery. The development of a Council of the Isles or regional arrangements on the basis of variable geometry would blur that role and diminish the Body's effectiveness. If there were to be two parliamentary groups, one to cover the Council of the Isles and one for the intergovernmental mechanisms then so be it, but if there were to be but one, Northern Ireland MPs should take their places as Westminster MPs and there might be a limited representation for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. The Body would be needed more than ever after a settlement.

Mr Michael Mates (Hampshire East) reflected on the palpable difference in atmosphere in the debate on this motion to the first debate conducted in London when, at that time, there was a deal of mutual suspicion. The friendliness of the debate that had just taken place indicated the importance of the Body and the extent to which it has developed in a short period. Senator McGowan's remark, that the peace process was not a "dry-run", had been the most potent point made.

All Members wished to see a meaningful settlement; and he urged all to be careful not to lessen the chances of a successful outcome. He agreed with Mr McNamara that putting flesh on the bones of the settlement would be a difficult task and would only have value in its implementation. He agreed with Members that the North-South strand would be the most difficult of the problems to be faced. He agreed with Senator Costello that the key issue would be one of finance. He noted that it was not planned for that body to have any fund-raising powers, although it may have some spending powers for moneys allotted to it. That was a real problem to be faced by the Governments.

Referring to the prisoners issue, he noted in particular the points made by Senator Costello and Mr Home Robertson. Having been a Minister at the time of the case referred to by Mr Home Robertson, he pointed out the difficulties. He hoped that the sentiments underlying Senator Mooney's generous response would help the prisoners and their families.

While he understood that the prisoners and their families had been victims of the Troubles, he stressed the importance of remembering not only the victims who were killed, but those who were almost killed. He referred to a case with which he dealt when in the Northern Ireland Office of a prisoner who was coming up for possible release before the review body and who was serving a life sentence for an attempted murder in which a police officer had lost both legs and been severely disabled in other ways. The difficulty in that case was that had the man been released he would have gone to his home-which was three or four doors away from where the police officer still lived. He cautioned against making hasty judgments about prisoners being victims of the violence and their release without considering the cases of those victims of violence who were still alive and who had suffered greatly, and warned that the consequences could flow through the communities in which those victims live. He admitted that the case referred to presented him with one of the hardest decisions he had made in his time as Minister.

He welcomed the forthcoming referenda and did not foresee a problem in the Republic of Ireland. He was aware of the sensitivities about Articles 2 and 3 but considered that a comprehensive settlement required that they be addressed. He hoped there would not be an anti-referendum campaign in the North and that whatever was hammered out would be approved. He advised strongly against holding a Plenary Session between an announced settlement and a referendum as it might attract the criticism of trying to influence the outcome of such a referendum.

It had been a pity that Mr Ó Caoláin had not referred to Republican violence or the splits in that movement. He agreed that there must not be a return to Unionist domination, but asked Mr Ó Caoláin to remember that while domination was wrong, the wishes of the majority were paramount in a democracy and that those who had come late to the democratic process should realise that the majority community in Northern Ireland which had to approve and live with the proposals was the Unionist community.

Referring to Senator Mooney's point about the GAA, he was happy that the Senator had advocated the removal of rule 21. Gaelic games were great fun and should be open to all. He agreed strongly with Senator Mooney's points about association football and considered the Irish rugby team a shining example of co-operation. He vowed to support the Irish rugby team-except when it played England.

The Chairman considered that the debate had been significant. He wished that those who had inhibitions or suspicions had been present because they would have been reassured and encouraged. The spirit of generosity and determination displayed in the debate had been the hallmark of a significant moment in the Body's history. The Body had the potential to play a continuing and major role in the evolution of a permanent peace.

With regard to Mr Home Robertson's suggestion about the two Scots Guards prisoners, he considered it only fair and consistent to make a case for those prisoners as had been made by many for other prisoners. If necessary, Mr Home Robertson's proposal could be discussed more formally at the Steering Committee.

He considered that there was a consensus on Mr Colvin's proposal for a special meeting of the Body so that it might continue to play a role by way of encouragement and influence. The appropriate time would not be before the referendums, and a one-day conference, as suggested by Mr Temple-Morris, might be the appropriate means. He asserted that the Body's role would be positive and significant when the forthcoming element of the peace process was concluded.

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) agreed that if there was a powerful feeling that the Body should meet in emergency session it should be considered very carefully.

The Question being put it, was agreed to.

Resolved, That this Body records its deepest appreciation of the commitment and hard work of all those involved, including the Independent Chairmen, in the multi-party talks which are now in their concluding and most critical stage; urges the participants to take, in a spirit of reconciliation and generosity, the final steps to a just, comprehensive and balanced statement within the three strands of the present talks; expresses its appreciation for the continuing goodwill and support internationally for such a settlement; recognises the need for all parties to continue to adhere to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have underlain the talks; and looks forward to a successful outcome to the talks and the support of the people in the referenda, North and South.