................................................................................ ON THE RECORD SEAMUS MALLON INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 15.2.98 ................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: Good afternoon Mr Mallon. SEAMUS MALLON: Good afternoon. HUMPHRYS: Are you really saying that it is possible that tomorrow morning you will argue against Sinn Fein being excluded from the Talks? MALLON: I will not make any position until I hear the evidence. The only evidence that we will get is from the Secretary of State and the Irish Government. Under the rules of procedure it is for the two governments to take the initiative in this matter. They are the people with access to the evidence, to the intelligence and to the background information in relation to this. So until we hear that from the Secretary of State and the Irish Government, I believe it would be wrong to pre-judge the situation in either direction. I think natural justice would demand that we wait until we hear that before we give a definitive position. HUMPHRYS: So in other words,if, tomorrow morning Mo Mowlem and the Irish Government say : Yes, we have looked at what the RUC has found, and we are satisfied that there are grounds for excluding Sinn Fein from the talks, you would go along with that. That's what you need,for them to tell you that they are satisfied? MALLON: Well, I would resort to the rules. Actually the rules of procedure laid down by the two governments. It's in a House of Commons command paper that each party in this circumstance would have to show that it had demonstrably failed the Mitchell principles. No, it will have to be demonstrated that that is the case. I do not know the quality or the quantity of the evidence that the Secretary of State may have or the Irish Government may have, but ultimately the parties are in a position, the political parties, where they will have to guided by the two governments. HUMPHRYS: Right. MALLON: And in those circumstances the parties will be aware that there are two things at stake here. One is the moral core of the whole political process and these negotiations, which have got to be protected. The other is the political imperative to try and get a political settlement which is as inclusive as possible. There's the dilemma that we're faced with. We have got to ensure that the political imperative doesn't become political expediency, and we have got to ensure that that moral core is there, because without it then we're into a quagmire of expediencies which will not further the cause of getting a settlement. HUMPHRYS: It doesn't sound to me as if you're saying you would demand incontrovertible proof, because of course incontrovertible proof is impossible to come by, except in a court of law, and clearly you can't expect that by tomorrow morning. Therefore what you're saying is, if London and Dublin say, the London and Dublin Governments say: we're satisfied that demonstrably they have failed this test, you would say okay. MALLON: Demonstrably is the term I think, even in a court of law, incontrvertible proof is not the term used. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. So that I think while we're dealing with a quasi-judicial process here, we have got to be absolutely careful about the words we use. Let's use the word that is used in the command paper and the rules of procedure, that is demonstrably, and then I think if we do that then we can both serve, both the moral imperative that is there, and the political imperative that we all face. HUMPHRYS I used the word demonstrably of course, because that was the word used by your leader on television a few hours ago. MALLON: I think incontrovertible was the word used. HUMPHRYS: I'm sorry - incontrovertible - I beg your pardon. I'm confusing my incontrovertible and my demonstrably. Incontrovertible is the word that John Hume used on this programme - on this station a few hours ago. MALLON: I think the term demonstrable is the one that will be the key word in relation to our own rules, the position of the Irish Government and the position of the British Government, and I think in terms of that we have got to wait and see what they say to us. We have got to ensure that we do protect both the democratic requirement here and the moral imperative that is there, and in doing that we're going to all have to walk a tightrope. We have got to do the proper thing, we have got to do the right thing. If that proper thing and the right thing takes a certain amount of courage, then we'll have to show that courage. HUMPHRYS: And if you show that courage and Sinn Fein are excluded from the Talks tomorrow, what happens then? Do you - because of course if they're not, the Ulster Unionists are going to walk out - that is as sure as God made little apples. Are you then prepared to sit down and talk and do a deal with the Ulster Unionists? MALLON: What I'm saying to the two governments, and we've been saying this for some time, that because of the incident with the UDP and their expulsion, because of this controversy and the possible outcome of it, I believe that the type of context for continuing negotiations within the type of format we have at the moment has been expended, that the two governments have to refocuss the entire process. That they will have to do that in my view,in terms of an end paper. In other words a global over-view of what the final settlement might be, and then transport these Talks out of the context they're in, into a very intensive session on nothing else but the actual end global paper, so that real negotiations can be done in a specified period of time. If that approach is taken, then it will prevent any of these peripheral and ancillary factors, important though they are are, from distracting from the real purpose of the negotiations, and that is to get a political settlement that a majority of the people - a vast majority - in Northern Ireland, can agree with. HUMPHRYS: With or without Sinn Fein? MALLON: I would hope that all parties are there. I hope they are all included. (coughs) Could I go back on that John? HUMPHRYS: Please do yes. You said that you hoped they're all included, but- MALLON: I would hope that all parties are included. I hope that no parties exclude themselves by the type of actions carried out by those with whom they are linked. I think in any set of circumstances we need to see sight of that end paper in terms of the perimeters and the detail of what a settlement might be. In those circumstances I believe we could refocus the entire process, we could move into a different year and we could move into real negotiations because, quite frankly, what has been happening so far, they have been so soured and so poisoned by some attitudes within them, that in effect we have been talking around the bush, rather than trying to deal in tired negotiating terms with a final settlement. HUMPHRYS: But I think what you are saying there is that if they must go on without Sinn Fein, then so be it. MALLON: Well, I am not prepared, I don't think anybody else should be prepared to let people with guns, who have murder in their hearts and murder of intent to derail the entire political process. And it's not just the political parties who are involved here. There are two sovereign governments, the British Government and the Irish Government and the international dimension as represented by Senator George Mitchell. Now, are we going to let a small group of people, who have arms, who will kill people, are we going to let them derail not just our own party political process but the position of two sovereign governments and the position represented by the White House, via George Mitchell. I think we have got to be strong enough to stand up to it, I think that the political process has got to ensure that it does proceed and it should not be deflected by this or any other act of violence. HUMPHRYS: As we speak, Martin McGuinness is sitting in our Dublin studio waiting to talk to me. What can he say now, that would persuade you that they should stay in those talks tomorrow. Is there anything he can do that will give you that view. MALLON: Well I think he should do what I am doing and that is wait until we hear what is presented. I haven't heard the details of what the Chief Constable has said, he has said them to the Secretary of State. I haven't heard from the Secretary of State or from the Irish Government as to what the nature of that evidence might be. I would suggest that he and I and all of us, should not make any judgements whatsoever until we hear that evidence and hear the position put to us by the two governments, then we can make an informed judgement on that and do all that is going to be required of the political parties and that is to give an opinion as to whether the Mitchell Principles have demonstrably been dishonoured. HUMPHRYS: What is absolutely clear is that two men were murdered this past week. Is there anything that Mr McGuinness ought, as far as you are concerned, to say about those murders - whoever carried them out? MALLON: Well I think put in a position and I said this to the UDP at Lancaster House, put in the position where a paramilitary grouping with which they are linked has carried out murders and if they say they don't agree with them, I think they can do two things. One, is to disavow the act of murder and without any reservation and the second thing is to disavow those who carried out those murders. Disown them, disown them in such a way that it will clearly show that their preference is for the political process and the principles underline the political process rather than their links with a terrorist organisation. HUMPHRYS: Seamus Mallon, thank you very much indeed. ...oooOooo...