Dr Mo Mowlam this morning signals her determination to resist Ulster Unionist pressure over Sinn Fein's scheduled return to the Northern Ireland talks process. While side-stepping the question of whether Mr Tony Blair should meet the party during its suspension, she says that - provided the IRA ceasefire is observed in word and deed - Sinn Fein will rejoin the talks on Monday week, March 9th.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Irish Times, Dr Mowlam also confirms that her department is pushing ahead with plans for the necessary legislation in anticipation of a referendum on a Northern Ireland settlement "some time in May".
During the interview, conducted yesterday, Dr Mowlam also:
gives the clearest signal yet that Mr Blair has discussed her possible appointment as Labour Party Chairwoman in a cabinet reshuffle expected in the summer says she, like Mr Blair, values the Union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain - while, on the question of future Irish unity, says she cannot know "what would be the situation 50 years down the road"
does not see British sovereignty over the North diminished as a result of any agreement, while asserting that sovereignty "means different things to different people"
confirms that the Framework Documents offer the "best guess" as to the likely parameters of a settlement
agrees that, given peace, change in the North's policing arrangements "is on the agenda"
accepts there is still institutionalised anti-Catholic discrimination and says the equality agenda is "terribly important to both communities" in the North, and
says she has to proceed on the assumption that the republican movement will accept a deal which falls short of its declared objectives. On this last point, Dr Mowlam says she won't prejudge the outcome of the process and explains nobody can get 100 per cent of what they want. But when pressed she says: "I assume, I have to assume they will. If I assume they don't, and many people assume that, I might as well give up now. I have to assume, as I have done for the last 18 months, the confident belief that we can make it."
She says that "no" she doesn't see British sovereignty diminished but says this is back "to the ageold case of definition". She goes on: "However we define sovereignty - it means different things to different people - would lead us to a position where we are discussing words and what they mean. What people want is to feel safe and stable in a Northern Ireland that they can call what they want . . . So I think getting into definitions of whether it is my definition of sovereignty or theirs is not constructive."
The flow seems to slow slightly when Dr Mowlam is asked whether she shares Mr Blair's enthusiasm for the Union.
Question: Like Mr Blair, are you a unionist?
Dr Mowlam: "A unionist?"
Question: Do you value the Union?
Dr Mowlam: "I value the Union. I have throughout my time in this job tried to facilitate an accommodation, and I have said at times therefore I am impartial. I value the Union but I am not taking one side or the other because we need in this process to pull people together."
Question: Can you foresee a situation in which Ireland would be united?
Dr Mowlam: "I don't know what would be the situation 50 years down the road. It is not for me. What I want to do is find a stable peaceful accommodation now, and I always agree with my Prime Minister."
The Secretary of State declines to say how she has advised her Prime Minister on that disputed meeting with Sinn Fein. She maintains she is not "overruling" Mr David Trimble but says the two governments took a clear decision on the party's suspension, adding "and our decision stands". She says she respects Mr Trimble's rights and views, and refuses the question of whether the UUP might walk out in protest at Sinn Fein's early return. That's a question the interviewer must put to it.
But Dr Mowlam strenuously rejects the suggestion from some quarters that, left to her own devices, she would not have suspended any party from the talks or is "hell bent" on keeping Sinn Fein aboard come what may. "Could I just point out in answer to that, I excluded them. If I was hell bent on hiding information then I wouldn't have done what I have done. If they want evidence, if they want facts, if they want examples, look at what we did." Following Thursday's retreat from the idea of a joint prescriptive paper by the two governments defining the likely terms of a settlement, Dr Mowlam was at pains throughout the interview to emphasise the responsibility of the parties themselves to negotiate, and the role of the two governments to facilitate agreement between them. Stressing the need for accom modation between the parties, Dr Mowlam refused to say that she regarded cross-Border bodies as "an absolute" requirement or to offer a view as to the scale of power which should be devolved to a new Northern Ireland Assembly.
Dr Mowlam confirms the "ballpark" will "look like some form of devolution in the North, some North/South co-operation and a definition of East/West relations". But she resists all invitations to provide the definitions.
Asked if she considers cross-Border bodies with executive powers an absolute, the Secretary of State replies: "I don't consider anything an absolute. What I consider is that there will be some accommodation on those three strands. We know the difficult areas and the example you give is one perception of it. The nature of the negotiation and the nature of an accommodation is what they discuss. It is not what I think, that is secondary."
Asked to confirm that, contrary to Mr Trimble's view, the North/South Council would not be subordinate to the proposed Council of the Isles, Dr Mowlam says: "I am not going to give you a headline saying `Mowlam disagrees with Trimble'. That's not what I am about. I have answered your questions in terms of the documents that are on the table and I have said it is up to the parties to reach an accommodation. We are not about imposing our views on them."
When pressed that Dublin and the SDLP would certainly not have the North/South dimension subordinated, Dr Mowlam similarly decides it is not for her to say "this is the limit of the Irish or the SDLP. If we had had that discussion eight months ago, two years ago, we would have drawn different lines." So it might be subordinate? "I am not going to give you a headline either way. It is up to the parties . . . that is what it is about," comes the reply.
Well into her theme by now, Dr Mowlam likewise refuses to say if she has a problem with Mr Trimble's preference for an Assembly based on the Welsh rather than the Scottish model. And she insists it is unfair to compare this reluctance with the clarity with which New Labour had identified the scale of devolution appropriate for Scotland and Wales.
"It is for the parties . . ." And ditto the question of whether Mr Trimble must agree the formation of a cabinet or executive, with the disciplines of collective responsibility, or whether the Assembly itself might serve as the executive.
The Irish view is that any settlement must incorporate clear signposts indicating a future path to the reform of the RUC. Does Dr Mowlam agree?
Without doubt the policing issue is central to future stability, and the government had begun the process of change with the Police Bill and its provisions for a complaints procedure, greater transparency and the role of the Police Authority. But it was difficult to put a time scale on longerterm, more fundamental change. Much hinges on the nature of any settlement, the nature of the peace, and the degree of stability it provides. And the Secretary of State clearly calculates there may be a long-term residual security problem in any event.
However she points out that the Chief Constable is already "looking internally in terms of cultural training" and she says "all communities know that if there is a peace, change is on the agenda". That said, Dr Mowlam was at pains to say any change would come with consultation and she could not venture if, or in what form, the issue might be represented in the settlement she hopes to conclude by Easter.
Dr Mowlam said there had been a lot of progress in countering discrimination over the past 15 years, although she agreed "there is still institutional discrimination" against Catholics in the North.
And she saw the equality agenda as important across the sectarian divide: "I think the equality agenda is terribly important for both communities, because one community thinks it central to get fairness and justice that historically they have experienced doesn't exist. The other community is very keen to see equality, particularly for those deprived and excluded in their community. So equality is crucial in terms of change . . ."