There have been endless surveys of opinion in Northern Ireland. Most have asked people from both communities what they want from a hypothetical political settlement, thus inevitably highlighting a stark conflict between the attitudes of the two communities. Such surveys are pointless and indeed damaging. What we need to know is not what the members of the two communities want but what on the one hand they regard as essential and, on the other, what they could tolerate.
At this critical point in the talks upon which the future peace of Northern Ireland depends, we are fortunate to have the results of just such a survey - undertaken by three academics for the Fortnight Educational Trust and carried out with facilities provided by the Institute of Irish Studies in Queen's University and with finance from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.
The reliability of this survey is beyond question: it is based on a quota sample of 1,000, interviewed in their own homes, only 8 per cent of whom refused to respond. Its objectivity is ensured by the fact that the questionnaire was the outcome of a year of discussions with the 10 parties represented in the Northern Ireland Forum. For this survey the two communities were defined as Protestant and Catholic, rather than unionist and nationalist. The respondents were asked to say in respect of each of more than 200 propositions whether they considered them to be essential, desirable, acceptable, tolerable, or unacceptable as part of a lasting settlement.
On a considerable range of proposals a wide measure of agreement between the communities emerges: the need to disband paramilitary groups and for freedom from incitement to hatred and intimidation; rejection of violence for political objectives; freeing society from discrimination; freedom of worship; and, interestingly, the right to peaceful demonstrations and parades.
Moreover, the vast majority of Catholics and almost three-quarters of Protestants regard it as desirable that power should not be abused by one group vis-avis another.
Two-thirds of Protestants see as essential or desirable a bill of rights guaranteeing equality for all, a development that almost four-fifths of Catholics see as essential. And the vast majority of Catholics and two-thirds of Protestants consider either essential or desirable the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into domestic law.
What are the other essentials for Protestants, and how do Catholics react to these?
On security, over two-thirds of Protestants regard as essential stronger and effective anti-terrorist measures, a proposition also accepted as essential or desirable by almost three-fifths of Catholics.
Similarly, almost two-thirds of Protestants regard it as essential that members of a Northern Ireland Executive be appointed only from parties committed to democracy and non-violence; a proposition that more than half of Catholics also accept as essential or desirable.
Two-thirds of Protestants see it as essential that any new Anglo-Irish agreement should recognise the present status and wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland and should accept that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland be required for any change in its status. Only one Catholic out of seven finds these principles unacceptable.
There is one other issue on which Protestants clearly feel very strongly, but where a compromise nevertheless seems possible. Almost two-thirds of Protestants told the interviewers it was essential that our "constitutional claim" to Northern Ireland be completely deleted. But a clear majority also said they could accept or tolerate this "claim" being modified "to only allow for a united Ireland with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
Interestingly, both communities could accept the replacement of the present constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom by a provision for full and guaranteed rights to British citizenship for all members of the unionist community in the island of Ireland. And Catholics would accept and Protestants tolerate the replacement of our constitutional claim by full and guaranteed rights of Irish citizenship for all members of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland.
Thus the essential requirements of the Protestant majority do not pose an insuperable obstacle to agreement. The real problem is how to accommodate the essential requirements of the Catholic minority in the face of Protestant objections.
Clearly a number of what Catholics regard as prerequisites for a settlement can be accommodated without undue problems on the Protestant side. A majority of Catholics regard it as essential that they have access to integrated education or to education in Catholic or Protestant schools. The right of access to integrated schools has been a consistent demand by a majority of Catholics in polls since at least 1968, despite the contrary stance of the Catholic Hierarchy. All of these are propositions that a majority of Protestants also see as acceptable.
On devolution, there is a striking uniformity of view between the communities on many of the features of a new Northern Ireland assembly. The areas of real difficulty, as one might expect, relate to policing and North-South bodies. Catholics see it as essential to establish a new and independent police complaints procedure.
This would be acceptable to Protestants, as would the recruitment of more Catholics, and Protestants would - just about - tolerate a more widely acceptable oath of allegiance.
There is a flat conflict, however, between the communities on the name of the RUC, its emblems and symbols and on police membership of loyal orders. What Catholics regard as essential changes in these areas, Protestants reject as unacceptable. On the other hand, while Protestants flatly reject disbanding the RUC to create a new force or forces, they could accept or tolerate the creation of new community policing units either as part of or separate from the RUC. Sorting that out could be the most difficult issue in the entire negotiations.
With respect to North-South bodies a majority of Protestants reject the idea of such bodies having power to make laws or to develop and execute forward planning for the island a whole.
However, they would regard as just tolerable that such bodies should have power to administer laws made separately by Northern Ireland and the Republic. On the question of what matters North-South bodies could deal with, Protestants could accept their involvement in matters concerning the environment, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, health services, roads, public transport and communications, water, gas and electricity and trade. They could just about tolerate their involvement in industrial development, financial institutions, economic development, training and employment, broadcasting and film, social services, education and human rights, and joint representation in Europe. That is a very wide range of activities, but the fact that involvement of North-South bodies would be individually acceptable, or at least tolerable, in each of these areas does not of course mean that extending the scope of these bodies to all or even most of them simultaneously would be accepted or even tolerated.
The North-South ship could all too easily be overloaded. Moreover Protestants reject involvement of North-South bodies in taxation, local government and planning, policing and defence. The development of the Anglo-Irish relationship in Strand Three raises few difficulties. A majority of Catholics in the North do not want the Anglo-Irish Agreement ended, but it would, of course, have to be replaced by whatever agreement may emerge from the present talks. And they don't want us to join the Commonwealth. On the face of it, this survey offers considerable hope for agreement in the present talks. But there are three qualifications that need to be made.
First, the questions on the way North-South bodies would be set up are not very explicit or comprehensive: there could still be difficulty about finding a middle course acceptable to both communities.
Second, a compromise along lines that would be acceptable to or regarded as tolerable by the Protestant community would not necessarily attract the support in these talks of the UUP. And, third, a settlement along lines acceptable to or capable of being tolerated by the general Catholic community might not necessarily be "saleable" to the IRA.
These are major qualifications. Nevertheless, a survey that demonstrates that a solution exists that could gain acceptance, however reluctant on some issues, by a majority of both communities is a most worthwhile exercise and ought to exert an important influence on the talks process.