Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 1988

Vol. 384 No. 3

Private Member's Business. - Review of Anglo-Irish Agreement: Statements (Resumed).

Mr. D. Ahern

I am indeed honoured and delighted to have the opportunity of contributing to probably one of the most important debates to come before this House for many years. As one who represents a Border constituency like Louth, I am, as it were, as close to the coalface as any in this State can be. Not only has my area suffered because of the artificial imposition of the Border in that farms and households have been literally cut off from each other but also because my hometown, Dundalk, probably had the largest influx of refugees into this State from the North during the 1970 troubles. Because of this it is particularly vital to the people I represent that any effort to stabilise the situation on this island should be supported. It is in that context that we are now discussing the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

As a member of Fianna Fáil, I am committed to the establishment of a united Ireland by peaceful and constitutional means. I am convinced that there will only ever be peace and stability on this island when we have such a situation. Not only do I see that unity as a physical unity but also a unity of minds and purpose. However, this unity cannot be imposed on an unwilling section of the population. The fears of that tradition must be allayed and it is only by dialogue that that can be achieved. The bomb and the bullet have only caused to hinder any chance of fellow Irishmen coming together. Thankfully, the position is by no means irretrievable. That is why constitutional politicians must renew their efforts to continue the progress made in recent years.

The Anglo-Irish process as we know it, originated from the Anglo-Irish summit in December 1980 between the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and Mrs. Thatcher. It progressed through the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council founded in 1981, the New Ireland Forum in 1984, and ultimately the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. It may very well be that the different Governments then — and indeed now — had different expectations arising from that Agreement. Perhaps one party saw it as a means to an end and the other party saw it as the end in itself.

The language used in the Agreement is vague, perhaps purposely vague. I do not think it would stand up to a detailed examination by the highest court in the land, as to what was in the minds of the parties thereto. However, it is this very vagueness which has been one of the best attributes of the Agreement, in that it has allowed both sides scope to manoeuvre.

In my opinion, there is nothing more vague than the declaration in Article 1 (c) of the Agreement, which states:

If in the future a majority of the people in Northern Ireland wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a United Ireland, they (the two Governments) will introduce and support, in their respective parliaments, legislation to give effect to that wish.

Under this, a day could arrive when the Nationalist people in the North become the numerical majority, i.e. 50 per cent plus one. What would happen then to the Unionist people who, at that stage, would not only be a minority on the island, but also a minority in the Six Counties? Would that be the end of our troubles? I think not. It might only allow the transfer of dominance from one community to another. This is not what I see as leading to a peaceful future on this island. It is for this reason that the Unionists should see that the only way forward is through dialogue with all parties on these islands.

Another area which has engendered much debate is the present review. Article 12 allows for the review of "the working of the Conference" in order to see if any changes in the scope and nature of its activities are desireable". This was, in my opinion, specifically restricted to the Conference only, in order to ensure that there be no dilution of the terms and aims of the Agreement.

Recently I had the opportunity of meeting a number of officials from the US who had direct responsibility for the administration, at their end, of the Anglo-Irish Fund, which was set up as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. When asked by them if the agreement had made any difference, I informed them that a large portion of my constituents would say that all that it has done is to allow the British Army to put a "ring of steel" around the area close to the Border; that it has made life a lot more difficult and dangerous for the people who live close to the Border. The springing up of permanent check points all along the Border has been a source of contention with the locals.

If asked, most people in the Republic would find it difficult to point to the benefits of the Agreement. They might justifiably say that it has made little or no difference. Similarly, in the North, the Nationalist people may even say it has made matters worse. However, if you were then to ask these people should it be scrapped, I have no doubt that the majority would be against that. Why? The reason is simple. Because it is generally perceived that the Agreement is an indication that, at long last, the British Government are not going to stand down under pressure from the "No Surrender" cries. Too often in the past they have bent under pressure and I am happy to say there is no sign of that now.

As I have already stated in a previous debate on Anglo-Irish relations, I have had occasion to contact the Secretariat on numerous occasions in order to gain information or movement on individual cases of people who live on the northern side of the Border. I have found the Secretariat mechanisms to be very beneficial and expeditious and indeed, most people involved have been mildly surprised with the responses and results obtained. The fact that the Secretariat allows a permanent presence of officials from the Republic within the North is certainly a shock to the Unionist thinking. The fact that it is up and running well is further proof that the Agreement has in fact helped to change the lot, however slightly, of some of the Nationalists who have requested its help. It has been a reassurance to them that their interests are being protected.

Looking at the impact of the Agreement in general, there is a widespread perception in the Republic, and indeed the North, that the British Government have used it solely as a vehicle for better security but without any movement on other aspects of the Agreement, notably, a proper system of justice in the North and harassment, to name but a few. For instance, the Extradition Act, 1987, was postponed by the Coalition Government in order to see what changes would be brought forward in the meantime in order to boost confidence in the administration of justice in the North. Nothing of any great worth came forward. We are still waiting. What happened to the harmonisation of areas of criminal law? I am glad to see that the British Government are coming round to our Government's view that greater use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1976, is more beneficial than the more cumbersome and sometimes ineffectual extradition procedures.

I would like to make it quite clear that we will not wear the use of this extraterritorial legislation in addition to present extradition procedures. It should be emphatically stated that if a person goes through the extradition procedure and is not finally extradited, he cannot face double jeopardy under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act.

Devolution is referred to in Article 4 (c). Deputy Dukes recently made great play of the fact that neither Government seemed to bring forward proposals for that. Deputy Dukes is showing a naivete in that there is no point, in my opinion, in bringing forward any such proposals until the parties within the North are inclined towards them. At the moment, both seemed to be against such proposals in varying degrees.

In my opinion, nothing will have any chance of working until such time as the Unionists are clear in their own minds, as to where they see their future. If there is any chance of peace and stability on this whole island, it can only be when the Unionists talk on equal terms with their counterparts in the North and also with the rest of us down here. This is why the talks without pre-conditions, as offered by the Taoiseach, are vital to the future. The Unionists must know by now that after three years neither Government will back down on this Agreement. Unless they talk to the rest of us, they will remain "out in the cold". That cannot be good for the Unionist people in the long run. In the Unionist Task Force report An End to Drift, the authors said as much.

The implementation of the three judge courts in place of the present one-judge system in the North may not make any difference in decisions being handed down, but I have no doubt that it would help allay the fears of people in the court system there. A system similar to our Special Criminal Court would be preferable, where there is a judge from each of the District, Circuit and High Courts.

On the question of harassment, I am sorry to say that this is still a major complaint of the people with whom I come into contact. In the Border area the policing role has been reversed, in that the Army are, in my opinion, the primary force. It is quite clear that an Army force is not re-active, like a police force. It tries to take action before situations arise and that is why we have had numerous events in the recent past which ultimately have led to unanswered questions.

I am happy to see that the Government have put a greater emphasis on this and on other issues which directly affect the lives of the people on the ground. It is because of this that the people, particularly in the North will gain confidence in the Agreement.

In the areas of economic, social and cultural matters there has been some progress. For instance, the Anglo-Irish Fund has made a start both in the North and in the Republic. In my own area the following are the major matters which have arisen as a result of the Anglo-Irish Fund: the launch of the Louth County Enterprise Fund which is very welcome; the Investment Company based in Dundalk which deals with investments along the Border and the incubator units in the regional technical college while assistance has been given to the worthwhile efforts of the Dundalk Enterprise Company. Substantial amounts of money have been spent in my constituency to boost tourism and employment.

There have been some misgivings concerning the emphasis placed by the trustees of the fund. It is felt that greater acknowledgement should be given to areas of particular disadvantage, such as the south Armagh north Louth area.

The fair employment White Paper published in May 1988 is to be welcomed and we await the details. I would suggest that the fines mentioned in the White Paper are not enough against defaulting employers. I feel that greater emphasis should be given to the use of State grants and contracts to ensure the implementation of the proposed changes. The situation where unemployment in Catholic areas is two and a half times greater than in non-Catholic areas must change, and change quickly.

The interparliamentary party first proposed at the Anglo-Irish Summit in 1980 is given support in Article 12 of the Agreement. I welcome the recent setting up of the sub committee who are actively examining this and I hope that the interparliamentary party will be in place in the near future. It will help to put Irish affairs higher on the British agenda than they have been up to now. It will also help to demolish some of the myths on both sides.

Finally, I would say that the agreement is a two-way process. It would appear from this side of the Irish Sea that most of the "give" has been on this side. I have said before that the perception, particularly in my area, is that it has been used purely as a means to tighten security without, at least, equal emphasis on the other items mentioned in the pact. This must change if the Agreement and its process is to be advanced.

The insensitivity shown by the British side in certain instances has not helped this side explain to the general public down here what we are trying to do in order to ensure that there is some progress on the political, legal, economic and social sectors within this island. Politically tainted decisions, such as the Thain release and the non-prosecution of RUC men suspected of conspiracy, make it very difficult for people in the Republic and indeed, the Nationalist people in the North, to have confidence in the British stated desire to "develop our unique relationship". Nor do these decisions show that there is greater "close co-operation" between our countries. Similarily, the timing of the decision to announce the ending of the right to silence would lead one to believe that the British Government does not care a jot for the feelings of the Irish people.

I would implore the British Government to be far more aware of the genuine fears and aspirations of the Irish people and to take them into account when they are making future political decisions. If they do not, further progress, particularly on this side of the Irish Sea, will be very difficult to achieve.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement is of benefit to this country purely and simply because it is the best we have on offer. The constitutional politicians in the North have to get together and the Unionists have to talk, as Deputy Deasy said earlier, with the consitutional parties down here so that one day we can all sort out our differences.

Mr. Shatter

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate as someone who was in this House on the first occasion the Anglo-Irish Agreement, was debated, and when it was concluded, during the lifetime of the last Government.

I listened with some sadness to the contribution made by the Tánaiste this morning. He eloquently summed up the difficulties that have arisen on this side of this divided Ireland with the Anglo-Irish Agreement while failing to acknowledge the failure of his party in Government to take the type of action the Agreement necessitated. He talked on the need to revitalise the implementation of the Agreement and to rekindle a sense of urgency. It seems to me that that need to revitalise the Agreement and to rekindle a sense of urgency derives from this Government's neglect of the Agreement, neglect of the Conference, and is due, too, to this Government turning many of the meetings that have taken place under the Anglo-Irish Agreement into fire brigade or emergency meetings forced on them as a result of a major act which created concern. Instead of the conference being used to set the agenda, to seek to confront the problems of Northern Ireland, on too many occasions over the last 18 months ministerial meetings have been a reaction to events that affect Northern Ireland.

Meetings of the Conference should be on a more regular and planned basis and should be designed to bring the intentions of the Agreement forward and seek to confront problems before they arise rather than solving problems which already exist. What this Government on occasion have done by their neglect of the Agreement is to hand the agenda from the democratically elected Governments of this State and the United Kingdom to the men of violence in Northern Ireland. It has been the acts of the men of violence in Northern Ireland which, on occasion, have dictated the pace of the Conference, the pace of meetings and the timing of meetings, instead of the Governments themselves. We have had the reality of a Government who have not moved on this issue except when they have been forced to do so, a Government who had a distaste for the Anglo-Irish Agreement when in Opposition and who have reluctantly sought to work some aspects of it since they came into office.

When I say I regard the Tánaiste's speech with some sadness, I make a similar comment about the speech I have just heard and the speeches of other Fianna Fáil Deputies. There has been a failure in their contributions to recognise some of the failures on our part in working the Agreement. A portion of this debate has been used by some Fianna Fáil Members — not the Tánaiste — to engage in good old fashioned "Brit bashing", to blame the British for all our problems. I found it distressing to listen to the previous speaker's contribution and to note that at no stage was there any comment or condemnation of the acts and atrocities committed by the IRA and other violent groups in Northern Ireland.

Catholics and Protestants are killed every week by the IRA and other subversive groups. There is murder and mayhem in areas not too distant from this capital city. Too many of the speeches we have heard this evening avoided any reference or condemnation of that type of violence and those types of acts.

The Tánaiste said we were celebrating the 20th anniversary of the first civil rights march in Derry and the third anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but no mention was made of the fact that this weekend we were celebrating the first anniversary of the atrocious murders which took place in Enniskillen on a day when people came together to commemorate their dead. There was no mention of the upwards of 50 people seriously maimed and injured. Many of those are still suffering injuries from which they will never fully recover. Just over a year ago they were blown apart in the square in Enniskillen. In a debate such as this there should be some mention of that kind of atrocity.

As democratic politicians we should, on all sides of the House, in a debate as serious as this, be seen to be unequivocal in our condemnation of the men of violence. Of course, the Fianna Fáil Party have some difficulty with this. I fully accept that members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are Members of this House do not generally support what is done by the men of violence but there is a degree of equivocation within the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party which means that people often are not quite clear enough in the words of condemnation they utter. There is an avoidance of confronting the extent of the problem and commenting on it. As Deputy Dukes said, there is a certain degree of sneaking regard for the men of violence, a degree of unacceptable ambivalence. We have seen that in recent months within the Fianna Fáil Party. There is an anti-extradition committee, a purely Fianna Fáil phenomenon, who are not really concerned with the system of justice in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain; they are a committee which basically have some degree of support for the fellow travellers and the men of violence. The committee were formed by members of the Fianna Fáil Party who, quietly and secretly, believe that there should be some turning of the head, some ignoring of the violence and mayhem which the men of violence create on this island.

There is not, within Fianna Fáil, a committee concerned specifically with peace and reconciliation. We do not have a committee which found the need to get together to vociferously oppose the shoot-to-kill policy of the IRA. Indeed, it is extraordinary how, when the British army behave in ways about which many of us in the House would raise questions, people who are Members of this House are prepared to use the phraseology "shoot-to-kill". I cannot recall ever hearing a member of the Fianna Fáil Party condemning the shoot-to-kill policy of the IRA. I invite a member of the Government, in the contributions which remain to be made, to utter that type of condemnation because it is far too simplistic, as the previous speaker did, to condemn certain changes in British law which seek to enable the men of violence to be brought to justice. We have changed the laws in this State; we have the Offences Against the State Act and we established the Special Criminal Court with three judges. We introduced the Criminal Justice Act in 1984 which amended and changed our laws to facilitate the Garda in seeking to bring to justice the men of violence. It seems on occasions that what is acceptable for us to do within this jurisdiction is not acceptable — to some members of the party opposite — for the British Government to do within their jurisdiction. Co-operation is a two-way process and on occasion it is far too easy to cast stones across the water instead of examining our own actions.

In regard to the Forum report, the Tánaiste stated that it stressed the overriding urgency of action and underlined the need, not merely to arrest the cancer, but to create the conditions for a new Ireland and a new society acceptable to all her people. The conditions for a new Ireland require changes on the entirety of the island and a degree of vision from the Government on this side of the Border in seeking to establish some degree of confidence on the part of the Northern majority in our goodwill and credibility. The tragedy is that Fianna Fáil, in Opposition and Government, failed utterly to make any meaningful contribution to creating the conditions for a new Ireland.

Fianna Fáil have maintained a tribal approach to sensitive social issues which undermines the credibility of claims of generosity to be extended to the Unionist minority on the island in the event of major political changes taking place. It is not good enough simply to say that the Forum report stated that there is a need to create conditions for a new Ireland. There is a need to make a positive contribution towards creating those conditions and it is a very poor political policy simply, on a regular basis, to announce that when the Unionists sit down and talk to us we will then be willing to be generous. The difficulty is, from a Unionist perspective, that very little generosity has been seen from the contributions made by Fianna Fáil in Opposition and Government in dealing with the issues which they regard as matters of some sensitivity.

Fianna Fáil have shown ambivalence in relation to extradition. The anti-extradition committee do not believe — no matter how many people are murdered, no matter what the circumstances of the murder — that those who have committed such murders or who are charged with them, should, in any circumstances, be brought before the courts in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is ironic to hear members of the Government talking about reliance on the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976, because they opposed the enactment of that measure when it came before the House. I do not believe that there is any seriousness of intent to use that Act just as I said in this House 12 months ago that I believed the amendments being introduced to the extradition process would create a facade of extradition continuing to operate when, in reality, the whole system would be clogged up with legal complexities and would not in practice operate. No more than one or two people have been extradited from this State for violent murderous acts since the start of the year. Perhaps a Government speaker will confirm if I am right. That measure, enacted about this time last year, has in effect brought extradition to an end although some members of the Tánaiste's party have not yet recognised the fact, hence the anti-extradition committee are still running around.

The failure of this State to be sensitive to the feelings of the Unionist population could never have been more evident than in the totally unnecessary controversy that arose in recent weeks over — of all things — the wearing of a poppy. If we have difficulties on this island in accepting the manner in which those of different traditions and backgrounds show respect for and commemorate the dead, how will we finally agree the systems of government that will respect and protect the rights of people living on this island? It is extraordinary that not a single Government Minister was willing to make any comment on this controversy in the last few days other than, when asked, to assure the media that in no circumstances would they wear a poppy.

There was no concept of the fact that not merely had 49,000 Irishmen lost their lives in the First World War but that just a year ago people commemorating the dead were bombed to death in Enniskillen.

An Ceann Comhairle

I intervene to tell the Deputy that the time allotted to him is almost exhausted.

Mr. Shatter

I thought I started coming up to 9.10 p.m.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy started at four minutes past nine o'clock.

Mr. Shatter

I beg your pardon. One would have expected an extra degree of sensitivity from the Government in relation to this issue. There has been a total failure by Fianna Fáil in Government to bring forward any possibility of devolution. The Fianna Fáil Party are locked into a time warp of unrealistic goals and expectations. They seem to be blinded by the possibility of the concept of a unity that will not come about for many generations. They are confined in an ideological strait jacket of their own making. The time for movement is now. If we are to take the agenda away from the men of violence we must establish within Northern Ireland meaningful political structures which give both the majority and the minority there a role to play in the political process. To date this Government have failed to make any contribution towards the achievement of that goal. I would hope that in the context of the review of the workings of this Agreement the Government would reassess their own contribution since they have come into office and, in doing so, would recognise the need to regard it as a matter of urgent priority to make a positive contribution towards the establishment of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland.

Minister for Energy and Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

As other speakers have said, it is timely that this House reflects upon the Anglo-Irish Agreement three years after its signing and as the two Governments begin the review of the workings of the Conference.

At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to the quality of most of the contributions to this important debate which reflect the seriousness of the issues which we are considering and the special nature of the Northern Ireland problem. Indeed, there is no other problem which has so deeply affected the lives of all of us on this island and which successive Governments and Members of this House must address with a greater sense of responsibility.

I have listened with increasing depression to that sterile piece of Fianna Fáil bashing that we have just heard from Deputy Shatter, which masqueraded as a contribution to a review of the workings of the Agreement. He did his usual throwing of dirt at Fianna Fáil in relation to violence and made accusations in relation to some attitude that he feels exists within Fianna Fáil with regard to violence. He said that no comment had been made by any Minister in the debate in relation to violence.

The Tánaiste, in opening the debate this morning, said emphatically that there is no acceptable level of violence. How much more precise can he be? The Minister for Justice in his contribution said that both Governments have firmly condemned violence and seek to bring it to an end. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that the most poignant and tragic loss is that of the lives of men, women and children, a loss of chilling finality which can never be made good. That has been the theme running through the debates and contributions of our Ministers and other speakers on this side of the House all day. That mere fact has never occurred to Deputy Shatter. What he is best at is grovelling and throwing muck wherever he thinks it can stick.

I would like to refer to a couple of the points made by Deputy Dukes in his intervention this morning. Deputy Dukes was critical of the comprehensive scope of the review outlined by the Tánaiste in his opening statement. The leader of the Fine Gael Party suggested, and Deputy Barry repeated this point, that the review would be substituting for the normal work of the Conference. This is an absolutely unsustainable argument. How would Deputy Dukes suggest that the two Governments review the "working of the Conference", as envisaged in Article 11, without reference to the subject matter which has formed the agenda of the Conference over the past three years? The review is not some academic exercise divorced from the reality of Conference discussions. Deputy Dukes' approach would lead towards a minimalist review, instead of the in-depth exercise that is appropriate and necessary.

Deputy Dukes was also critical of the Tánaiste's reference to dissatisfaction among members of the Nationalist community about the operation of the Agreement. The Tánaiste, while setting out at some length the advances achieved under the Agreement, also spoke of a feeling among many Nationalists that the Agreement has not made a substantive difference to their daily lives. I am not sure whether to take Deputy Dukes's response entirely seriously. He suggested that a large majority of people in the Republic would take a similar view that the Government decisions here had not impacted on their daily lives. I would strongly question any such contention. But even if it were true, it is an entirely mistaken point for the following fundamental reason.

In the Republic, we live in a normal democracy. It is not a society torn apart by the fundamental divisions that exist in Northern Ireland. We do not have a situation where 40 per cent of the community have had underclass status for over 50 years. The situations North and South simply cannot be compared. I think Deputy Dukes does a disservice to the Nationalist community by making this false comparison.

As the House is aware, in the past year I have been involved directly in meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference. On the basis of that experience I should like to offer my contribution to today's debate.

We have frankly to admit that while the period since November 1985 has seen a number of positive developments, it has not been a period of uninterrupted progress and success. The past three years has not seen the end of violence or the political reconciliation of the two traditions on this island which we long to achieve. Neither have the two sovereign Governments involved in the Agreement arrived at a resolution of the age-old difficulties which so bedevil our relationship. The two are inextricably bound together and are essentially part of the same political challenge.

In recognising these realities, it must be fairly admitted that from the outset the Agreement was burdened by some exaggerated claims from a number of its exponents. In fact the Agreement was a development of the important process begun in 1980 — it was not the end of that process. Its significance, however, was that it provided new systematic arrangements within which the two Governments could pursue a broad range of objectives aimed at improving conditions within Northern Ireland.

I do not propose in this debate to dwell upon the disappointing and difficult aspects of the Agreement. When this Government assumed office in March 1987 they took upon themselves the responsibilities bequeathed to them by the previous Government. One of those responsibilities was the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We made clear from the outset that we would fully work the structures of the Agreement and attempt to achieve the maximum benefits under its provisions especially in regard to bringing reforms and improvements in the position of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. It is that concern to achieve the maximum possible under the Agreement which has informed and motivated our efforts over the past 20 months.

Shortly after our election to office a programme of work for the Conference was established and meetings of the Conference began to assume a regular pattern. The frequency at which those meetings have taken place clearly shows the Government's commitment to working the Agreement and contradicts the ill-informed statements made by some of our critics.

During the first six months of this year, when Anglo-Irish relations were under their greatest strain in recent years — strains in no way caused by the Irish Government — we insisted that the processes of the Agreement and the Inter-governmental Conference be used to their fullest extent possible. As the House will be aware, I was asked by the Government to attend several meetings of the Conference during that difficult period. We insisted at that time that the issues and events which caused so much hurt and dismay here and among the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland should be brought to the Conference. We insisted upon voicing that dismay clearly and unequivocally at special meetings of the Conference and sought to convince the British Government of the need for a change in policy. There was a good deal of straight talking at those meetings. There was no pretence that real differences did not exist. We left the British Government in no doubt as to these feelings. We also left them in no doubt as to our full commitment to work the processes of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and of our expectation that this commitment be fully reciprocated by the British Government.

It is not my purpose today to go into the issues of the Stalker-Sampson affair or the other severe difficulties which emerged at that time. The House is well acquainted with the issues. What I would wish the House to reflect on is the way in which the Government fully utilised the Anglo-Irish Agreement to pursue these issues in a forthright and constructive manner. There was no attempt to obfuscate or avoid what were real differences. We insisted on our role and our rights under the Agreement as a guarantor of the rights of the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland. In spite of the grave differences involved, the British Government never challenged that role and those rights. This was a far cry from the exchange of curt telegrams and the dismissive attitude of past years when we sought to assert our rights to be consulted and to advise on issues relating to Northern Ireland. Our legitimate concern in these matters is now accepted as a fact of life in the relationship between our two Governments. The responsible attitude of the Government to the Agreement in the difficult early months of this year played no small part in underpinning that position. Indeed, that responsible attitude was rightly endorsed beyond these shores not only in the international media but by friends of Ireland in Europe, the US, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere as well as — I may emphasise this point — in Britain.

By fully utilising the Agreement and the Conference in particular we avoided a dangerous decline in Anglo-Irish relations. Instead of allowing the differences and difficulties to fester unattended in a diplomatic stand off, we used the Agreement to keep dialogue open. I must, of course, admit frankly that, although we kept the dialogue open and avoided a serious rift in Anglo-Irish relations, the British Government did not reconsider a number of those decisions which they took in their own interest. As the Taoiseach told the Dáil on 17 February last, we had reached an impasse on those vital issues relating to the administration of justice and confidence in the legal system. Nevertheless, we retained these issues on the agenda of the Conference so that we might pursue them more fully as soon as a fruitful opportunity arose. As Members of the House will be aware from the Joint Communique from the last Anglo-Irish Conference, the next meeting of the Conference will deal with these very issues of confidence in the system of justice and relations between the security forces and the community in Northern Ireland.

While admitting last February that we had reached an impasse on these vital issues, the totality of Anglo-Irish relations was not allowed to reach an impasse. We ensured that, in spite of all, other important matters on the agenda of the Conference should be pursued vigorously. Thus by the June meeting of the Conference we were in a position to welcome jointly progress made in the area of fair employment following the publication of the British White Paper on the subject. Given my own involvement at the time in pursuing this question of fair employment, it is right that I recognise and acknowledge to the House the seriousness with which the British Government and their officials have addressed the views and proposals of the Irish Government on this subject.

That June meeting also pushed ahead with proposals to alleviate the economic and social problems of west Belfast. In addition we were able to review the positive developments regarding our joint approach to the European Commission for a contribution to the International Fund for Ireland while at the same time devoting attention to improving the functions and targeting of the fund. The same Conference meeting also discussed education reform proposals for Northern Ireland and agreed to reinforce bilateral contacts between Ministers on economic and social questions.

Thus, at the end of the most difficult six months in the Agreement's short life we had ensured that, in spite of all the problems, a real programme of work had been achieved and, indeed, had outlined the programme for the following months. This reflected the determination on the part of both Governments to push forward with the work of the Conference in all important areas where progress could be achieved.

In considering the responsibility of my Department I can immediately see areas where co-operation could be developed under the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the future. For example, in the area of energy the maintenance of two separate electricity grids within one island is clearly wasteful. Increased co-operation between the two electricity boards would be of great benefit.

On the question of broadcasting I am very conscious that the reception of RTE TV is very weak, if not absent completely, in many parts of Northern Ireland. I am aware there are some technical reasons that this is the case, nevertheless I am anxious that the issue be raised at political level in the context of the Agreement. Indeed, the broadcasting of Radio na Gaeltachta in the Belfast area could also be looked into at that stage.

Mr. McGinley

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. R. Burke

In looking back over the past 20 months I am sure any fair minded observer would conclude that this Government have pursued a most constructive approach to the problems of Northern Ireland. We have sought to promote dialogue between politicians and between the two sovereign Governments. Not only have we kept faith with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we have pursued its opportunities and used it whenever necessary to relieve tension.

We have never pretended the Anglo-Irish Agreement was the enduring solution or the last word to be spoken on the painful problem of Northern Ireland. The Agreement provides a means to address some of the symptoms of that problem and, it is hoped, to build confidence and greater understanding. The Agreement does not exclude political moves and dialogue outside its ambit. As a Government we have worked at that Agreement constructively. In approaching the review of the workings of the Conference we will seek to ensure, with the assistance and constructive views of the Members of the House, that the Agreement is used to its full potential.

Mr. McGinley

I believe it appropriate and proper that we here in this House should avail of this occasion, the third anniversary of the signing of the historic Anglo-Irish Agreement, to express our thoughts and opinions on the operation, successes and perhaps failures since its signing on 15 October 1985, three years ago. I believe the signing of the Agreement to be a major milestone in the long and complicated relationship between this country and the UK.

Major credit must go to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, whose patience, commitment and perseverance contributed so much to the signing of that Agreement. Before ever becoming Taoiseach he showed a deep understanding and knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland. He has spoken extensively on the subject, and the Agreement itself stands as a major monument to his and his Government's efforts, comparable with the Treaty of 1921 or the Sunningdale Agreement.

Other Members of that Government, particularly Deputy Peter Barry as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Dick Spring as Tánaiste, also made a most significant contribution. I am afraid the attitude of the present Taoiseach and of the Fianna Fáil Party has been ambivalent from the beginning. They expressed reservations about the Agreement's constitutionality, but never had the courage of their so-called convictions to challenge this matter in the courts of the land. It is easy to cast doubts on the constitutionality of any legislation or agreement. We can all practise being fireside lawyers, but the litmus test of our seriousness and conviction is to challenge it in the courts, and this test has been failed by Fianna Fáil both in Opposition and now in Government.

The Agreement itself provides a framework for a process. It was never meant to be the final solution. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an instant or easy solution to the complicated and complex problems of Northern Ireland. The problem is one of division between people, a division which has been intensified by the paramilitary activities from both sides. The legacy of bitterness built over the past 20 years makes reconciliation infinitely more difficult. Given its complexity, the problem needs the serious and continuous attention of both Governments and the Agreement, through the Secretariat and the Intergovernmental Conference, has provided the machinery towards this end.

The first requirement is to deliver equality to both sections of the community. Only on this basis can real progress be made. The Agreement itself was a major step in this direction. The Irish Government presence in Northern Ireland, the right to make an input to policy making — how effective this input has been recently is open to question — the formal recognition of the rights and aspirations and cultural identities of the two traditions within the framework of the Agreement, places Nationalists, for the first time, on an equal footing with Unionists. However, there is much work to be done to give practical effect to that equality; there are nettles to be grasped and difficult decisions to be taken. Hence the need for continued commitment by both Governments. Given our historic experience we have to realise that British Governments have great difficulty in keeping their attention directed towards the Irish problem for any length of time. The negotiating period before the signing of the Agreement was exceptional. Hence the absolute necessity to give a wholehearted commitment to ensuring it reaches its ultimate aim of peace, justice and stability. Failure would have serious implications for Ireland as a whole.

During the three years of its operation the Agreement has grappled successfully with many of the grievances of the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. There has been significant progress in many areas. There is a fairer distribution and allocation of public authority housing. There are reforms of the laws on flags and emblems, in the area of supergrass trials, and in the acceptance that security forces, particularly the UDR, have to be accompanied by the police, especially in Nationalist areas.

However, there are a number of areas where little or no progress has been achieved. This is particularly noticeable where the Irish language and culture is concerned.

It was understood that an old Stormont Act, namely The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was to be repealed. This act makes it illegal to have street names in Irish in Northern Ireland. It is still on the Statute Book and the Irish language is not given any status or recognition as far as street names are concened — not even a second-class status.

Another area of grave concern is the recently published proposals on education reform in Northern Ireland. These proposals contain a quite deliberate downgrading of the Irish language in the educational system. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for Education, Dr. Brian Mawhinney received many delegations from Irish language organisations, the Catholic Church, the SDLP, and other parties with regard to the Irish language.

The position prior to the proposed changes was that pupils at secondary school level in Northern Ireland had to take a modern European language. This could be Irish or any of the other European languages such as French, Spanish, German, Italian, etc. However, under the new proposals the position is that Irish is no longer recognised as a modern European language and therefore pupils wishing to take the Irish language as a subject must first of all take a modern European language. This simply means that Irish is losing its status as a modern European language and has been relegated to the position of a third or fourth language. If this proposal is implemented it will have serious implications for the teaching of Irish to second level students in Northern Ireland. It is a most definite downgrading of the Irish language, which until now could be taken as a second language. I would appeal to the Government, particularly the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Taoiseach himself who has responsibility for the Gaeltacht, to take the matter up at the Anglo-Irish Conference and with the Secretariat.

This also has some implications for my own constituency of Donegal SouthWest, where we have nine or ten Irish colleges with thousands of students from various parts of Northern Ireland coming to the Donegal Gaeltacht every year to improve their knowledge of and fluency in the Irish language. If these proposals are implemented it will have serious implications for these Irish colleges and for the families who are depending on these colleges for their livelihood.

If Irish as a subject is relegated to second class status in the educational system in Northern Ireland, there is a great danger that people interested in pursuing the study of the Irish language will go outside the educational system for instruction. It is a well known fact that Sinn Féin are busily engaged in promoting their Irish language classes throughout Northern Ireland, particularly in the urban areas of Belfast and Derry. It is in the interest of all that Dr. Mawhinney should have another serious look at this entire area and maintain for the Irish language its present status.

In the special circumstances of Northern Ireland there has been a negative, indeed a hostile attitude, in official circles towards Irish since the state was formed. It is essential for the Conference now to positively promote the language. Dr. Mawhinney's proposals do not live up to the commitment in the Anglo-Irish Agreement to foster the cultural heritage of both traditions.

There is also another area to which the Inter-Governmental Conference and the Secretariat could direct their attentions in the immediate future. That is what is referred to as the `I' vote. This is legislation preventing people who move from the Republic to Northern Ireland from voting in local government or assembly type elections and it is still in place. The "I" in front of the name on the register means "Imperial" and this indicates that one can vote only in Westminister elections. In view of the fact that local elections are due in Northern Ireland in May 1989 there is great urgency in having this legislation amended or repealed. It should be dealt with as a matter of urgency and I believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be considerably weakened if it fails to make arrangements for people from the Republic resident in Northern Ireland for years to have a right to vote. Incidentally this legislation relates to all those people who have gone to Northern Ireland from the Republic since 1962.

Again, I wish to return briefly to the question of the Irish language. It is abundantly clear from the commitment and success of those involved in establishing the Bunscoil Lán-Ghaelach in Belfast that there is a demand among the people, particularly the Nationalist population for Irish. The Bunscoil Lán-Ghaelach in Belfast was given official and state recognition a few years ago after a long struggle and much pressure and negotiation and, indeed, I understand that Deputy Peter Barry supported their efforts when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs in the last Government.

There is general agreement on both sides of the Border and in the United Kingdom that there has been real progress and co-operation on security matters between the North and South. The Irish Government have certainly delivered on their side of the bargain. Extradition, however tenuous is in place. There are regular meetings between the Garda Commissioner and the Chief Constable and the success of their co-operation can be seen in the arsenals of arms, ammunition and explosives that have been found on both sides of the Border. However, some progress has yet to be achieved in the fields of justice and the courts. The Diplock courts, trials by one-judge and without a jury, are still operating. We must direct our attention towards those areas and now that the Agreement is under review it is opportune that they be taken up at the highest level.

As I said at the outset, some progress has been achieved through the Agreement. It is imperative that the Agreement and Conference have the support and commitment of both Governments if there are to be peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland and in this country. It is very much regretted that the leaders of Unionist opinion in Northern Ireland have not yet consented or seen fit to operate within the framework of the Agreement. In my view the Agreement protects and safeguards their aspirations and hopes for the future just as it endeavours to do the same for the minority Nationalist population.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. O'Kennedy)

Other speakers have dwelt on the different aspects of Anglo-Irish relations. I would like to dwell in particular on economic aspects, both because these are of major significance in themselves and because my own particular responsibility of Agriculture and Food is one where North-South economic co-operation could prove particularly productive and fruitful.

So much time and energy has been devoted in recent years to reacting to the problems and tragedy in Northern Ireland. By contrast relatively little time has been devoted to exploiting the great economic potential that can be realised through structured co-operation in areas of common interest. We will not succeed even in dealing with security problems if we confine ourselves to reacting. We must look to the common interest which knows no sectarian barrier and which can be translated into a new environment for opportunity and prosperity for all. Prosperity shared in equal opportunity and justice is the most effective weapon against violence and I propose to focus on the opportunities that exist.

There is hardly another sector where the interest of North and South can converge as much as they do in agriculture. There is hardly another sector where the interests of Northern Ireland and Great Britain diverge so much as they do in agriculture. Britain is not a primary producer and, understandably, it is more concerned with consumer interests, with cheap food and with the impact that has on the British community generally than in promoting the development of the agricultural sector in any part of the UK and, for that matter, in the North of Ireland. I do not say that as a criticism of any UK Government but as a matter of fact. In Great Britain, in contrast with Ireland where agriculture North and South is central to economic development, agriculture has a much lower priority. These facts are reflected in the strikingly different policies pursued by our Government and that of the UK in agricultural negotiations at Community level. They are also reflected in agricultural negotiations at the wider world level, now becoming more important, such as the GATT negotiations which will be subject to mid-term review in Montreal before the end of the month.

In Ireland, our policy is based not only on safeguarding rural incomes but on safeguarding and protecting the rural way of life as an essential element in the socioeconomic stability of our society. The values, cultures traditions, language, music and song of rural Ireland are at the base of our stability. The problems experienced in urban conurbations, here and elsewhere, are not characteristic of rural Ireland. In our policies we are determined to promote and safeguard the rural way of life. In that context we are developing an effective export strategy in the food sector which accounts for 30 per cent of our total exports. We are unique in Europe in having an economy based on such a strong sector as agriculture and food, with 10 per cent of GNP based on agriculture and 20 per cent of total employment based on that sector. We are making a major impact with our agriculture and food exports on world markets. Our fellow Irishmen in the North are becoming increasingly conscious of those facts and are now beginning to acknowledge them publicly.

It is fair to say that the similar agricultural situations, North and South, have more than once been recognised by the European Community in a practical way. Most of them derive from initiatives taken by Irish Commissioners, and Irish Ministers, most notably in the Agriculture Council. When those initiatives were adopted for our jurisdiction they had consequential benefits for our fellow Irishmen in the North, something we greatly welcomed. I should like to give some examples of initiatives I was involved in. Initially the calf premium was proposed as a special provision for Ireland at Commission level during the period I served on it. It was adopted by the Council in 1982 and when that occurred the UK requested, with our support, that the premium should operate in Northern Ireland. There was never any question of that premium applying in Britain.

There was a similar decision as regards the additional FEOGA-financed element of the suckler cow premium which also applies North and South. The value of those two schemes to Northern Ireland cattle producers was more than £5 million in 1987. Again, similar positive results for Northern farmers followed on from the special western package that we achieved — elements of which were, happily, applied to Northern Ireland. We enthusiastically took those opportunities, and many more, of extending to Northern Ireland benefits obtained principally by our own negotiaing pressure. If and when — I hope it will be "when" rather than "if"— similar circumstances arise in the future I will certainly follow that policy line. It is not just a matter of personal preference or commitment because it represents the commitment of the Government who have been constantly encouraging me in that direction. I am sure I can say that it represents the interest and commitment of every party in the House and the people of this jurisdiction.

On this island there is a great common interest in the prosperity of the farm sectors, North and South. I hope it will be possible to promote further co-operation in the future. As Minister for Agriculture and Food, I have been mandated by the Government to develop the ability and competitiveness of our farmers and our processors in order to realise the full potential of the agri-food sector. The figures I have just given as to what that represents in our exports demonstrate the commitment to which I have referred and the success of our policies in putting it into effect. The farm income survey of An Foras Talúntais — now Teagasc — for 1987 showed an increase of 30 per cent in farm incomes in the Republic in that year. Preliminary figures for 1988 indicate that they will show a further substantial increase this year over that record growth and increase of last year. We have now reached the position, by comparison with any other country in the European Community where the farm income situation is the best that has been experienced anywhere throughout the European Community and compares very favourably with performance in other European Community member states including the United Kingdom.

In stating that fact I want to emphasise that that improvement in farm incomes is at least as much of a consequence of overall Government policies — particularly the management policies in the economy which have been a consistent feature of this Government and that have been directed so ably by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance with reduced interest rates and reduced inflation rates — as it is of anything that I or my colleagues in the Department, Minister of State Deputy Walsh and Deputy Kirk, have been able directly to do in our immediate area. It is the co-ordinated approach. We focused on the market and we won.

We get the best prices for our product anywhere in the world at a premium above any other country in the European Community because of the policies I and my colleagues have pursued. That is the message that is coming through loud and clear to the North of Ireland as well. That is what signals to them that now there is a great opportunity and an advantage to be derived from a better and closer liaison with us in the area of agricultural policy particularly — and I am not excluding others — where we are represented at the Council, where we have a very effective and constant voice and where we have contacts, personal and otherwise at the Council and at Commission level. This contrasts with our fellow Irishmen in the North who are not represented in any sense at any of these levels. They look to us with a certain degree of understandable envy at this point. The message is clear. The benefit to Northern Ireland farmers and processors can be very considerable if we can agree a framework for dealing with agricultural and food matters in co-operation and consultation. On behalf of the Government I would be very glad to make myself available, at political or sectoral level, to advance these common interests without any pre-conditions.

The fact that successive Irish Governments fought hard and successfully for farmers in this jurisdiction — and indeed in the North — highlights the benefits that Northern agricultural producers could gain from closer co-operation with us. This will become all the more important given developments within the European Community budget and the broadening of the redesignated less favoured areas. On the basis therefore of mutual benefit it would seem reasonable, indeed essential, for both sides, North and South, to co-operate to bring advantage to agriculture for the whole island.

As I said earlier, the common interest in the economy, and particularly in this area, requires that we find a framework for helping our fellow Irishmen in the North or from whatever background — and it is time we respected each and every background as being a matter of conviction. Common interest requires that we recruit them in a common effort to their advantage much more than to ours. I hope the message is coming clearly to them now that we are ready to engage in structures to implement that common interest.

The Government are encouraged by the efforts which have already been made to find common ground between farming organisations on a North-South basis. We hope that those discussions can include all representative groups from both sides in the North and in the South. I am not going to engage in any farm politics at this point — I have never done so and I will not do so now. There are two different groups which are easily identifiable in the North — the Ulster Farmers Union represents, one might say, the majority of establishment farmers who are reasonably prosperous in some instances and very prosperous farmers in some other instances, and the farm group, west of the Bann who represent, by and large, the smaller farmers. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the group west of the Bann would generally have a greater representation from the Nationalist community, whereas the Ulster Farmers Union would have a greater representation from the Unionist community.

It is time that in the North as in the South these separate interests were put aside and we co-operated together in a common interest. I have some little experience in this area as I had the privilege of meeting the Ulster Farmers Union on more than one occasion, and particularly during my period as Commissioner. I hope I was able to demonstrate to them, and I think they acknowledged the consequence of my positive interest, that what motivated me and our party — and I think all parties here — and motivates me even more at this point——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A Aire, is trua liom a insint duit go bhfuil an t-am istigh.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Nóiméad amháin eile, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, chun críoch a chur leis. As we in this island face the challenges and the potential of the present, which will be even greater with the completion of the internal market in 1992, it would seem to be basic common sense to combine our strengths to gain the greatest advantage from the opportunities which will be presented to us. As Minister for Agriculture and Food I am ready and willing to engage in that process without any preconditions.

Mr. Durkan

Following the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement I had the privilege — with yourself and others in this House — to be present and to speak to the debate which followed. I am honoured to have an opportunity to speak to the pending review of the Agreement and the work of the Conference. It is timely to reflect on what the Anglo-Irish Agreement set out to do and what it achieved, whether it be limited or not and what it is likely and or capable of achieving.

Critics of the Agreement will point out that the level of violence has not diminished or decreased. They will use that excuse as a possible means or avenue to scrap the Agreement. On this side of the Border and on the other side of the Border there seemed to be, over the past 12 months, some indication that perhaps that might be in mind or if it was possible to reach some kind of tacit agreement along those lines that further progress might be achieved. I disagree entirely.

When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was first signed and the Anglo-Irish Conference set up it was seen not as an end in itself but a means of establishing some trust and confidence between two communities as a first timid and diminutive step towards establishing a relationship whereby violence might ultimately be defeated. In that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Conference has failed. At this stage the Conference has established a dialogue, albeit, one between two Governments. Those who criticise would be well advised to examine the input of the two Governments. When the Agreement was first signed it had the full support of both the Irish Government, under the leadership of the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, ably supported by Deputies Peter Barry and Spring and, on the other side, by the British Government and its Prime Minister, still their Prime Minister. Both Governments were committed absolutely to the spirit and letter of the Agreement.

At that time Fianna Fáil, then in opposition, were, to say the least, a little ambivalent about the whole issue. They gave it grudging support and had a grudging respect for it. To my mind that undermined their position ultimately when they assumed office because it would be obvious to any other Government negotiating with them that they did not have their hearts in it.

Now if we examine what could and should be done we find that the Government, the Conference or the two peoples on this side of the Irish Sea and those in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland — it could be argued — have not moved closer together in the way we should have liked. However, I do not think that would be possible within the space of three years. Indeed I do not think it will be possible within the space of the next three years unless certain specific actions are taken by both Governments. Both Governments have an absolute responsibility. The Government here have a responsibility to ensure that, instead of public pronouncements or public proclamations following atrocities of one kind or another, discussion takes place at Conference level. Likewise the British Government have an equal responsibility to ensure that, instead of making public proclamations in relation to sensitive issues, they discuss them at Conference level with the Irish Government where the interests of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities can be dealt with. Unless the Conference can gain the confidence of both Nationalists and Unionists together there is no possible way it will move toward the kind of structure ultimately which would lead to devolved government and hopefully, at some stage in the future, to a united Ireland.

Let us ask ourselves another question: whose confidence must we gain? Looking at it from our perspective on this side of the Border I hope we have the confidence of the Nationalist community. I sincerely hope that all politicians in this House have the confidence of the Nationalist community, I emphasise the constitutional Nationalist community. We would then have to ask ourselves whether, equally, we might have the confidence of the Unionist community. I would have to say that I do not think we have. Perhaps because of our history, perhaps because we are, by nature, equivocators — which has been very damaging to us — but for whatever reason, there is a suspicion in the minds of the Unionist community that perhaps we are not to be trusted. Perhaps it can be argued, and rightly so, that when they were in the driving seat they did not give much indication to the minority within their community that they would treat them well and did not treat them very well.

That is all in the past. If we are to achieve anything in this country it must be by looking to the future. There is no sense whatever in repeating the mistakes made in the past. We must plough a new furrow, one of our own, and carve out a niche of our own which hopefully will lead ultimately to the establishment of recognition by both communities of each other's right to exist and each other's rights to be equal. If the Agreement can be developed along those lines, it will have achieved more than we give it credit for, certainly within the confines of a day-long debate here.

For instance, whenever a serious atrocity takes place what is the first tendency? The first tendency is for people in both private and public life to speak out and condemn it, and rightly so. But, when criticism is to be levelled at one or other sector, then the first attitude should be to convene an urgent meeting of the Conference so that behind the scenes, in an unemotional and uncharged atmosphere, away from the glare of publicity, media tension and the hype that goes with it, the parties who are signatories to the agreement should thrash out the problem then before them and perhaps others that may not yet have appeared on the horizon.

I agree entirely with my Party Leader when he says that there should be more regular meetings of the Conference. That is obvious. Let us face it, local authorities meet at least once a month. We have here a Conference already established, the purpose of which is to try to bring two communities together, to try to bring to an end the horrible dilemma and saga of violence that has beset this country for the last 20 odd years. Surely it begs more attention than merely to call a meeting whenever a bomb explodes with consequent loss of life or whenever some other serious atrocity takes place? At least there should be ongoing regular monthly meetings of the Conference. Intermittently there should be an arrangement whereby, in case of necessity, a full meeting can take place at very short notice. If we are to replace violence with discussion and dialogue we must have adequately at our disposal the machinery whereby, virtually at the drop of a hat, we can set that machinery in motion, allowing the participants on either side make their contribution? Regardless of what persuasion or from which side of the political divide one comes, here or in the North, surely there is more to be gained by dialogue than by ducking, retaliating, shooting killing or maiming?

Likewise, whether it be the Diplock Courts, the Gibraltar shootings or any other issue affecting the communities in the North, the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the ultimate cessation of the violence, it is absolutely essential that an immediate machinery be made available whereby the two Governments can get together and make their case to one another? Let them thrash out, before going public, what they intend to do, how they propose to do it and how they can best do it without embarrassing each other.

There were some suggestions over the past 12 months about the possibility of scrapping the Anglo-Irish Agreement by entering into talks with the Unionist community. It is unfortunate that the Unionist community are not involved. They say they were not consulted. Yet the Unionist majority were invited to participate in the New Ireland Forum, as were many others, and some private individuals did participate. But no group has the right — in the serious circumstances obtaining in this island — to withdraw, contending they will not participate unless a particular structure is removed and expect either the British or Irish Government to assume they will be true to their word and will enter into meaningful discussions thereafter. That is too much to expect.

I mentioned earlier that we in this part of the island must gain the confidence and trust of the Unionist community. That is essential. If that cannot be achieved by politicians, by the public here, then we are going nowhere. Of course I am talking about the constitutional communities on both sides, whether they be Nationalist or Unionist.

As far as the unconstitutional people are concerned, both communities in the North have a great deal to fear and, ultimately, we in the South also have a great deal to fear. There is no sense in paying lip service to one thing and perhaps doing something else. There is no sense in holding hands with men of violence or saying behind their backs: well, you know, it was one of the lads or: they did it for Ireland. They did it for nobody; they achieved nothing and the longer that kind of nonsense continues in this country the worse will be the position and the longer we will be held up to public ridicule before the world, by doing one thing and pretending to mean something else. I have said before — and many other people have said in this House and elsewhere — that surely, at this stage, if we have not learned from our history that that kind of equivocation leads us nowhere, except down the kind of road we have travelled for the past 20 years and from which there is nothing to be gained, we have learned nothing.

Let us examine just another aspect. Ultimately we all aspire to a united Ireland achieved by constitutional and peaceful means. In order to be able to do this it is essential that we establish the confidence of the Unionist community and those who are not of our political persuasion. How do we do this? As was mentioned by Deputy Shatter, the wearing of the poppy is seen by many people, both North and South, as a way of honouring those who died for a cause. It may not necessarily be the cause which all of the people in this country subscribe to or all of the people in the North subscribe to but at least they died for a cause. Surely, if we aspire to a united Ireland we must at some stage expect that people of all political and religious persuasions would demand the right to have a day of commemoration and they should be able to commemorate their dead without fear or favour. How can we expect to establish the confidence of the majority in Northern Ireland at present and inveigle them into a united Ireland if we are not prepared to acknowledge even a small gesture such as the wearing of a flower? Anybody who attempts to so do is regarded as being in some way less than nationalistic, and veiled and not so veiled threats have been made through the media and elsewhere as to the undesirability of anybody going down that road.

Are we going to say to those people that in the context of a united Ireland there will be one day of national commemoration on which they may honour anyone they wish or are we going to say that there will be one day of commemoration on which, depending upon their persuasion, they will have the right to honour their dead in the way they see fit? Surely, in a Republic that is something we should aspire to, stand over and guard jealously lest anybody take that right away from either them or us.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement has been useful and it certainly has not led to an increase in violence even though some people might try to suggest that it has. A great deal of work still remains to be done. A great deal can be achieved if the Agreement receives the full support of both Governments. While I accept that the vision, and I admit it was only a vision, of those who drew up the Agreement, such as Deputy Garret FitzGerald, Deputy Peter Barry, Deputy Dick Spring and the British Government, has not yet been realised I hope that if a further review takes place in three or four years time that perhaps there will be some segments who will believe that at least part of that vision has been realised.

Mr. Conaghan

Like all other Deputies I welcome the opportunity of being able to contribute to this debate and I hope the views which I will express this evening reflect the feelings, opinions and attitudes of those who have spoken to me both from my own constitutency and from Northern Ireland. I suppose it is fair to say that the national question has preoccupied the minds of many Irish people down through the centuries. One wonders why do the British not leave us in peace and go back to their own country? We have no quarrel with the British people, they are both decent and fair, but in the main, successive British Governments have wrought the most untold misery on the people of this island. I have no hesitation in saying that since the first British soldier set foot in Ireland there has been nothing but violence, bloodshed, death, persecution, poverty and exile.

Since 1969 I have seen at first hand rioting, bombings and persecution and I know of many people who were picked up by the police, people who had no involvement, but who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. In many instances they were brutalised at the hands of a corrupt police force. I know of many families in my own constituency and in Derry city who are now caring for individuals who could be termed invalids due to the beatings they received at the hands of the police.

Let me make it quite clear that subversives should be given no quarter in any part of this country, neither should the UDA or paramilitaries from whichever side they come get any quarter. It is important that our Government should protest at a higher degree to the British Government about the many instances of institutional violence, carried out by the army, the UDR and the police force against Nationalists. I say this with all sincerity so as to bring to the notice of everyone what this issue is all about. I believe the Anglo-Irish Agreement contains one important element, namely, that we, as a sovereign Government, can make a case to the British Government on behalf of the Nationalist community in the Six Counties, in the process highlighting any grievances they may have. Other than this I believe that very little has changed. Violence is still considered to be an acceptable part of life, the police and the army harass the Nationalist community, the courts are seen to be unfair and unjust and the minority community are still considered second class citizens.

After three years one must ask what level of support has the Anglo-Irish Agreement received? I believe that the most important aspect of the Agreement is that it provides a framework for Nationalists to highlight their grievances and related matters. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is very low on the list of priorities of the British Government. As far as the British Government are concerned, the only thing that matters is that this is an international agreement which has provided the British Government with a high degree of respectability at international level. I would suggest to the Government that they as the other partner to the Agreement should highlight at international level the unwillingness of the British Government to push ahead with all aspects of the Agreement.

In relation to the security aspect, I would like to express my appreciation to the Garda Síochána and to the Defence Forces for the excellent work they have done and are continuing to do in the Border areas. One might argue as to why we should spend so much on security particularly at a time when money is so scarce, but let me point out that in the Border regions it is vital for the population who reside in those areas that security is maintained at a high degree of efficiency.

In relation to the economic and social aspects of the Agreement, I would like to say that I am disappointed at the lack of progress. For those of us who live in County Donegal, particularly east Donegal, the partition of Ireland was both humiliating and exasperating. Donegal is now practically a geographical and political island because only one main road links it with the rest of the Republic. The main access roads to County Donegal are from Counties Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh, about seven in number. These are blocked off by a ring of steel, manned by military personnel.

Unemployment is a major problem in Nationalist areas, such as Derry, Newry and Strabane. Despite many efforts cross-Border co-operation has not been accepted by the Northern Ireland authorities. There has been no cross-Border co-operation in relation to agriculture, tourism or industry. I ask the Government to request Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to get their heads together to draw up a plan to cover the nine counties of Ulster. At present tourism in Donegal is virtually non-existent by virtue of the fact that we are totally isolated and surrounded by a ring of steel manned by military personnel put there by the British Government. Why, therefore, could a plan not be worked out through the Agreement whereby the tourist boards could at least advertise Ulster holidays in the Republic through Belfast Airport and Larne Harbour.

Harassment still continues to be a major problem in Nationalist areas. I can speak of incidents in Derry and Strabane where there is still wholesale harassment despite the many complaints sent to the Northern Ireland Office. It is common practice for foot patrols to use insulting language to young girls and there seems to be ongoing body searching and stopping of young people in the streets. I believe this creates the impression among young people that violence may be a better way. Why should the RUC have insisted on setting up a check point and barricade opposite the police barracks on the Strand Road in Derry. which disrupted the flow of traffic into the city and badly affected the business of traders in the city centre? This matter has been under review since last June. I fail to understand why the Strand Road police station should have been picked from all the police stations in Northern Ireland for preferential treatment such as this at a time when violence was at a very low ebb in the city. These are the types of situations which the ordinary people in that city have to contend with. I want to put it on the record that 99 per cent of the people in Derry city are peace loving people but provocation seems to be the order of the day.

It appears that a code of civil liberties no longer exists. I am going on information given to me by people from the areas which are affected. Security forces have the right to break down doors and enter properties and continue to do this. It has come to my attention that when complaints were made to the security forces they claimed that under the Special Emergency Powers Act they had the right to do as they pleased. How can one have confidence in the security forces or in the administration of justice through the courts when principal witnesses such as members of the police force and the Army have no obligation to give evidence in the courts or at an inquest?

One must accept that the Nationalist population are sceptical of British justice in relation to its application to Irish men and women. Some of the happenings in this area during the past couple of years have tended to turn young people away from the democratic process and driven them to support subversive organisations. I think it is fair to say that some of the actions of the British Government have been the best recruiting campaign the Provisional IRA have had.

Extradition is dealt with under Article 8 of the Agreement and we must accept that extradition goes to the very heart of history. It is clear that the Government never had any difficulty in signing the European Convention on Terrorism as a general proposition but history imposed on us the necessity to look at Britain differently from all other European countries. Recently a Tory MP said on RTE, with utter arrogance, that unless the Irish Government signed the Extradition Treaty without any alterations the special relationship between Britain and Ireland would be destroyed. In my view his perception of a special relationship and the Irish view are far apart. He spoke like a colonial consul talking about a dependent state. As John Hume rightly pointed out immediately afterwards, this Tory MP spoke as if the Republic was still part of the United Kingdom. This sort of arrogance was obvious even during the negotiations which resulted in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I suppose old habits die hard and some British people have not totally accepted the fact that their overlordship of most of this country has ended.

Their insensitivity to the reasons for Irish caution and suspicion is boundless. They do not appear to realise that the many problems we have to address in relation to the legislation on extradition have been created by history, by Britain's gory record in Ireland and by the attitude of the British courts and the British police to Irish people. Any Irish Government who would not seek the safeguards which have been achieved in the extradition legislation would I believe be failing in their duty to Irish people on both sides of the Border. It is time the British cast away the holier-than-thou attitude with which they seem to clothe themselves when dealing with Ireland or with anything related to the Irish question, and perhaps they should admit that the extradition problems are mainly of their own making.

With regard to extradition, greater use should be made of the 1976 Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act. People who perpetrate violent crimes in the name of Ireland and in the name of Irish unity should be severely dealt with, apprehended and made to pay for their violent deeds. If the rule of law is allowed to break down, then we as democrats will have failed in our duty.

There is another question which should be addressed through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Some relief should be given in relation to the repatriation of prisoners. As Christians we should accept that the fathers and mothers of these unfortunate individuals who are caught up in this terrible conflict should be afforded every opportunity to see their offsprings.

The framework exists within the Anglo-Irish Agreement to deal with the age-old Irish question. The facts I have put on the record of the House here tonight are the views held by the people who have to live and eke out their existence in an area about which we in this part of the country have little knowledge and do not realise the difficulties and persecution they have to contend with. Perhaps it is time for some gesture to be made whereby military personnel could be moved back from the frontiers and off the streets of, say, Derry a city which has a peace-loving record. As I said at the outset 99 per cent of the people in this city would have no hand, act or part in violence. If the political will is there within the two Governments the Irish question can be settled by peaceful means. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is the framework under which the objectives can be achieved. As democrats we must wrest from the men of violence the initiative which perhaps they currently hold to a fair degree. Our Government must commit themselves to ensuring that the other party to the Agreement, namely the British Government, work towards what they agreed to in the pursuit of justice on this island.

Mr. Blaney

I am glad I was in the House to hear the voice of reason coming from the Government benches, the voice of my colleague from Donegal. There are so many people in this House and throughout the country who do not have a clue about what the realities are and who are mouthing about this wonderful Anglo-Irish Agreement as if it were the cure-all and end-all for all the problems which exist in our country, particularly in the Northern part of the country.

It is just three years yesterday since this Agreement was signed and we have heard various speakers today asking what is wrong with it. I should like some of the people who framed it to set out positively what it has done to improve the lot of our people in those three years. The Unionists were not consulted in the framing of this Agreement. Neither was anybody else. We in this House and people all over the country were not consulted. A few people put their heads together and somehow came to the conclusion that they were doing something wonderful in making this agreement with Britain to bring about peace in our land.

It was pointed out to them on the very night the Agreement was signed that there was nothing in the Agreement for the Nationalist people or for this country. It was pointed out that the Agreement contained a clear commitment to do what successive Governments had refused to do from 1977 to that date, this is, to undertake to sign the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism. It was recognised by successive Governments from 1977 onwards that implicit in that Convention and our signing of it was the undertaking to extradite our citizens to the jurisdiction of the Six Counties and Great Britain. For very good reasons over those years the wisdom of our various Governments prevailed and they did not sign the Convention. However, part of the Agreement was the undertaking by our then Government on behalf of our people, without consulting anybody except themselves, to sign the Convention which had lain there from 1977 to 1985. As a direct result, we have had the 1986 Extradition Act. It was not necessary to have it in such an extreme form. It stemmed directly from the Agreement. No doubt meetings of the Conference and meetings between the head of this Government and the British Government would have concocted the extreme nature of the Extradition Act which is now on our Statute Book. It was confirmed in 1987 but enacted in 1986 by the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle. That is how near it came to not being on our Statute Book.

The other giveaway in the Agreement was a commitment for greater participation by our Government through the security forces and the Army, securing the Border which we do not want. We cannot afford to pay the people who are looking after it. These are the only two positive things that can be pointed out as coming directly from the Agreement. It was said three years ago that all we were being given was the right to make our protests, suggestions and proposals to this so-called Conference, this get together that has been put together. The Conference has done nothing since except talk in retrospect about some atrocity and how much more security we should provide at our cost in order to secure the Border we do not want and contain within it, at the mercy of the occupier and their own security forces in the Six Counties, the minority population who have been battered and discriminated against down through the ages. It has not stopped. We, if you do not mind, were given the right to protest and make our proposals formally in this Conference. Without the Conference we would make our protests far more loudly, clearly and spontaneously and with far more effect on international opinion, rather than playing it softly until we have a meeting of the Conference. Then there is a get together with the British cohorts and their minions and they discuss what happened last week. Then some agreed statement is issued and Britain's face is saved abroad when she has put her foot in it or put her foot in our face, as she is wont to do so frequently.

That is not the only thing one must say about the Agreement. It was opposed by Fianna Fáil at that time. It was stated with great wisdom and foresight by the present Taoiseach that the Agreement was copperfastening Partition. Those are the words he used, as I recall. I do not dispute them. I agreed with that statement then and I have agreed every day since. It is true that during the three years the Agreement has aided and abetted the partitioning of our country and the suppression of the viewpoint on this side of the Border that it is right that we should seek the abolition of Partition and the unity of our country. It has aided and abetted the brainwashing which has gone on for years, particularly since 1975, to make our people believe that Republicanism and Nationalism are no longer noble attributes in the minds of our people but are dirty words, synomyous with subversion. This has been attained with the willing co-operation, blind it may have been, of successive Governments right up to this day.

This is not even a discussion. It is a charade, which is part and parcel of the charade which started three years ago yesterday with the signing of the so-called Hillsborough Agreement, which was supposed to do the devil and all for peace in this land and for the Nationalist people in particular. It has done sweet damn all for them and they know it. Those of us who have our eyes open on this side of the Border also know it. Yet we are to continue with the Agreement and we hear plaintive cries that we should give it a chance. That was said three years ago. It has had a chance during the past three years and we as a people and as a Government have been kicked in the face and kicked in the ass by Mrs. Thatcher and her Government on every possible occasion.

We have attained nothing of any benefit to this country. In particular, we have attained nothing for our Nationalist people in the Six Counties. The vast bulk of Unionists do not want it either, but for totally different reasons. Who wants the Agreement? For whom is it doing something other than Great Britain who concocted it with our own Government in 1985? How they were misled into believing they were getting something while they were giving something I will never know, but after three years surely they know that nothing has improved. It would be true to say that lots of things have worsened. We have extradition which is tearing our people apart, despite the efforts of all and sundry in the Establishment to suppress the views which are anti-extradition to Britain and the Six Counties, and why would they not?

There was an excuse for the Government in 1985 because they did not realise the full tragedy of what was happening in the Six Counties, but surely to God they are aware of the happenings since then, and especially in the last year and year and a half. They go traipsing to their Conference meetings, summit meetings, accidental meetings in Brussels, discussing what is happening here and what they will do about it, but whenever Britain can put the boot in she has done so.

There was the murder of young O'Reilly, the exoneration, after two years, of the soldier who was convicted of murder — he is back in his unit and we find he was never even taken off the payroll while he was serving his sentence for murder. There was young McAnespie — and others who was walking to a football match, still within his own county, and was shot. There was a big hue and cry here and a big inquiry in the North, but what happened? Nothing. We heard he was shot by a ricochet bullet — as if that made him any less dead — fired by a British soldier in a pillbox check point in Aughnacloy. His gun should not have been trained on the road never mind the trigger being pulled. Then there were the Birmingham Six, a case which has acquired a high profile in the last year or so due to the appeals and the charade of British justice being meted out. They are still in prison 14 years on. There are also the Guildford Four, the Maguires and recently the Wiltshire Three, who got 25 years. I am sure some of the legal Deputies will have read the direction given by the learned gentleman on the bench in that case. It is worth reading what he said when the jury came back and said they could not agree, but this is only what we can expect.

We do not seem to realise that we will not get anything from Britain by lying down and letting her walk over us. She does not think much of us, she never has. She treats us as her minions. She treats us as her inferiors. This has always been the case. The Government of today and the Government of yesterday accept this position. Never before in our history have we accepted that through our duly elected representatives. There may have been factions which accepted it and there may have been those who were bruised into accepting it, but never have a freely elected Parliament of our people accepted our second class status vis-á-vis Great Britain who still occupy this country and have not the goddamn notion of leaving it because her plea is backed up by our own well meaning people. I do not want to attribute anything other than well meaning to even the most daft things people have been doing, because they mean well, but Britain is looking at us and seeing us as she always did, as a lesser people, a lesser race, who deserve less. Now we accept that role in a craven sort of way, thinking that by toadying up to Britain, to Mrs. Thatcher and her Government — it does not matter a damn whether Mrs. Thatcher is there because no matter who is in power their outlook will not change——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Tá nóiméad amháin fágtha.

Mr. Blaney

This is one Deputy who never believed in the Agreement, who thinks it was a sell out, getting nothing and giving much. This has caused more strife than if it had never been signed, and I wish to God, Fianna Fáil, who had the right view three years ago would put on their thinking caps and see it, as their Taoiseach saw it then, as a copperfastening of Partition and unfasten it quickly, and tell Mrs. Thatcher and her Government to stuff it.

Mr. Leonard

I welcome this debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Like most Members of this House, I would hope that in time we would achieve, with the co-operation of both traditions in the North, the solution set out in the New Ireland Forum for this island of ours. However, we must realise the difficulties in the path to that solution posed by the legacy of history and the violence of the last 20 years.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement, while it fell short of what we had hoped for, did provide potential for advance, a framework on which the two sovereign Governments, in consultation, could work towards eliminating obstacles to peace and harmony between the two traditions. It was felt that the establishment of evenhanded treatment of both traditions resulting in peaceful conditions would in time open the way, hopefully, towards the ideal solution.

Now, three years after the introduction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, it is right and proper that we should look critically at what the Agreement has achieved. My immediate response, while acknowledging some achievement, is to express grave concern at the limited level of that achievement. While the very existence of the Agreement and the presence of the Secretariat at Maryfield give a certain reassurance to the Nationalist people in the North, much more substantial results must be achieved before the main bulk of the Nationalist people could be induced to have full confidence in the process of law and order and in equal job opportunities.

As we know from the past, it is not enough to set up bodies such as the Fair Employment Agency, but those bodies must be made to work. My parish straddles the Border and I have viewed with concern the Northern situation over the years. Two areas which gave rise to great concern were the unfair allocation of jobs and the unfair allocation of houses. It is accepted that the Nationalists get two and half times fewer jobs than the other tradition. For many years there was great concern about housing. The Housing Executive was set up and transformed the housing scene in the North. They built many housing schemes and I think most people would agree there has been a fair allocation of houses since the National Housing Executive was set up. I believe we have to get that same type of even-handedness into the job area and this must be a priority.

In making my criticism of the lack of adequate results from the Agreement, I am making due allowance for the very substantial resistance to the Agreement whipped up by a number of Unionist leaders. Many different tactics were adopted, including open threats of violent action. However, that level of extreme opposition seems to have lost its momentum and we can hopefully look to some more mature Unionists being willing to enter into debate on how their views can be heard and given cognisance in the process.

I am concerned that the Unionists and their friends in the Conservative Party in Britain, having failed to have the Agreement either suspended or scrapped, would now seem to be concentrating on rendering the Agreement ineffective in achieving change. Failure over a period to achieve worthwhile change in law and order, job opportunities and so on would mean that the Nationalist population would not support the Agreement although the vast majority have high hopes for it. No further time must be lost in getting down to work with the co-chairman to achieve improvements in conditions for the Nationalist people, which they are entitled to expect from the conference but of which they have received little to date. I appeal to the Minister not to allow his co-chairman to use the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a committee on security which, to a great extent, it has been to date. It must be made clear that the violence is only a symptom of the problem and that action must be taken on the underlying problems.

Many people mentioned security which is a very important feature on both sides of the Border. I congratulate the Army and the Garda on the high level of success they achieved — and are still achieving — in seizure of bomb making equipment, guns, etc. However, the news over the last few days must give rise to concern because there has been a move southwards from the North and a movement northwards from the South of bomb-making equipment and an arsenal of guns and ammunition. It is also a matter of great concern to me, representing the Cavan-Monaghan constituency, to learn that a map of County Monaghan has also been seized. It suggests that the people in possession of it did not have the best of intentions.

We can hold our heads high on this side of the Border so far as security is concerned. People are continually critical of the amount of money spent on security but it is required for our citizens in Border areas. In the early seventies, snatch squads came across the Border, there were security men in unmarked vans and bombing incidents in my own constituency with many people killed. At that time people were very anxious to increase the security in the area and the news today concerning the equipment and map reinforces the need for it.

Article 10 deals with the international fund and one cannot but be critical of the slow rate of progress in disbursing these funds. The initial allocation of funding was very unbalanced. I wrote to Mr. Charles Brett, chairman of the committee, outlining my views. I pointed out that it was important to have an even handed allocation of the funds in the southern counties along the Border. He replied and assured me that he would insist on a fair distribution of funds.

Many speakers mentioned cross-Border co-operation and this is an area in which both sides have fallen down because, despite various committees, progress has been slow. I was a member of the Erne catchment committee for many years. They dealt with economic developments and a number of their reports identified areas in need of assistance. A social and economic committee of the EC also clearly identified disadvantaged areas in a severely disadvantaged region. However, very little has been done to eliminate the problem. We suggested linking the Erne and Shannon waterways. There were other suggestions, such as demonstration units on the Border and pilot schemes in poultry production but none of them ever came to fruition. They did not get the political and financial assistance they deserved. I hope, in regard to this fund, that more emphasis will be placed on disadvantaged areas, North and South of the Border, that they will be identified and seen as flagships in the development of the areas.

It has often been suggested that in pressing for more results from the Anglo-Irish Agreement we are moving at too fast a pace. Rapid movement to deal with injustices, such as discrimination against the Nationalist population in regard to jobs, for example, is essential if more young Nationalists are not to become the prey of the paramilitaries. The financing of jobs should be put into operation as quickly as possible. When injustices have taken place for over 60 years, development proposals will take time to tease out but there must be energetic and urgent action to stamp out such injustice. That is the first area to which we should apply ourselves.

Article 8 of the Agreement deals with legal matters. If confidence is to be restored in the courts system in the North, the British will have to agree to the suggestion of a three judge court. The SDLP and their supporters have worked hard to make the Agreement work. John Hume, Seamus Mallon and their colleagues have had to bear the brunt of the burden and we owe it to them to make the Anglo-Irish Agreement work effectively. If the Agreement reaches its potential it could well be a major turning point in the affairs of this island. However, if it continues to concentrate almost exclusively on security matters and fails to achieve results in regard to policing, the elimination of harassment, a fairer court system and equality of opportunity and employment, it will have failed and the future of the North and the people of this island will be black.

Mr. J. Higgins

I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House on an historic occasion, the third anniversary of the signing into law of a momentous and historic agreement.

I do not share the sentiments of the speaker prior to Deputy Leonard, Deputy Blaney, in relation to his total dismissal of the Agreement as being nothing other than a charade. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Agreement, we have had a very constructive debate and a considerable, pragmatic and reasoned input from all sides of the House. As a result of the debate we have heard in this House, nothing other than the good of constitutional democracy will have been served by the manner in which people have addressed the House. Would that we could go back on the records of the House of this week three years ago. As has already been alluded to by Deputy Blaney, there is a marked contrast in the responsible attitude now coming from the Government benches as distinct from the attitude emanating from the then Opposition benches in terms of hostile reaction to what was obviously the signing into law and bringing into being of a significant measure and an advance in relation to Anglo-Irish relations on this island.

The reactions in the press during the past week — they have mulled in their editorials and their articles in relation to the merits of the Agreement — have been varied. They have varied from the extreme opposition expressed in the Belfast Telegraph to the more receptive, reasoned, logical appraisal of the Agreement in the editorials South of the Border. What people tend to do is to adjudicate on the merits of the Agreement in terms of bald questioning, by way of a naked interrogative such as, is it working. It depends on what your perspective is in relation to the Agreement but I honestly believe that it is working. The Agreement is an accord between two sovereign powers in relation to how they would jointly see their attitudes to and roles in a troubled corner which we would claim to be part of our jurisdiction and which Britain would claim to be their jurisdictional right.

The Agreement is working and statistics have shown that. The Anglo-Irish Conference has met on 22 occasions. The occasions of the meeting of the Conference have been too infrequent indeed. What we have to do is to see what is in place. In Maryfield and Hillsborough there is a permanent Secretariat and a permanent civil service in place working together on a joint co-operative basis. There is a Conference which can be, and has been, called together at very short notice in order to resolve differences or to reach mutual agreement in relation to how the various difficulties confronting the Agreement and the parties to the Agreement should be resolved.

There is more than that involved in the Conference. It is a significant breakthrough when three Ministers of a Government here can board an Army Air Corps helicopter in Baldonnel, fly across the Border, touch down in Belfast and say: "We are here by right; we are here thanks to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, signed in November 1985, which has put in place and copperfastened once and for all the right of the sovereign Government of the South of Ireland to a say in relation to how Northern Affairs, Nationalist affairs and interests, should be handled in the North of Ireland.

In years to come when we detach ourselves on an objective basis in relation to the merits of this Agreement this nation will thank the people on this side of the Border whose foresight, idealism and vision achieved the heretofore seemingly impossible, that is, the bringing of Great Britain to the Conference table in order to sign, once and for all, an international agreement to underpin minority rights in the North of Ireland. We owe an everlasting debt to the people who had the foresight, the vision and indeed the mutual trust of Great Britain to make that possible — they are Deputies Garret FitzGerald, Peter Barry and Dick Spring.

The record of this side of the House in relation to underpinning minority rights in the North of Ireland has been a proud one. The record of this side of the House in relation to the handling of Anglo-Irish Affairs has been a proud one indeed. It was this party when in Government from 1973 to 1977 — you, a Cheann Comhairle, were a member of one of the parties to that Coalition — who signed the Sunningdale Agreement, an Agreement which in terms of its achievement should be seen against the backdrop of the previous 50 years. Who would ever have said that it would have been possible to bring together, on the one hand, Brian Faulkner who epitomised Unionist intransigence heretofore in the North of Ireland, and, on the other hand, Liam Cosgrave as the head of the sovereign Government in the South, to sit at a conference table, work out an agreement, a power sharing partnership in the North of Ireland involving the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Unionist Party, sharing power in all aspects of life in the North of Ireland with the exception of security?

That agreement, if it had been persisted with, seen through and underwritten with the same spirit as it was entered into in terms of the confrontation of the Unionist bully boys in the North of Ireland and particularly the Ulster Workers' Council strike, if it had not been capitulated to by the Labour Government in the British Parliament, would have led to an elimination of much of the bloodshed that has been so characteristic of the tragedy of Northern Ireland since then. It was this party, as a major component in the Coalition Government from 1973 to 1977, that made that possible. Again, it was the vision, the foresight and the idealism of this side of the House that brought together all the strands of opinion in the North and the South of Ireland in relation to the sharing and pooling of their input, knowledge, resources and views in the form of the New Ireland Forum.

It is wrong for Deputy Blaney to say that there was not consultation. The hand of friendship was extended. An open invitation was extended to the Unionists of all shades in the North of Ireland, to all religious and ethnic groups and to all people in all groups, diverse and otherwise, in the South of Ireland to come together and to put their views rationally before the New Ireland Forum in an effort to reach consensus. Who would have said in the wake of the out, out, out derisory comments of the British Prime Minister in relation to the New Ireland Forum that it would have been possible to achieve the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Yet, against such a backdrop and such a political landscape it was achieved. It was achieved because of the persistence, the idealism and the commitment of the Taoiseach of the day, Deputy Garret FitzGerald.

While there is a change of nuances and a change of emphasis in relation to which aspects of the Agreement are of more paramount importance to the two partners in the Agreement, Great Britain and ourselves — Britain has a security emphasis and we have our own particular emphasis on this side of the Border — the Agreement is working. We have managed to lay aside 700 years of tribal bitterness between the two countries and to jointly act as custodians to an Agreement which has the potential, the components and the necessary capacity to resolve the problems in the North of Ireland by first of all ensuring that peace is restored to that troubled corner of our island.

The Agreement has the potential. The fact that it is not working is not the fault of the administrations on either side of the Border, although we on this side of the House would like to see a greater commitment, a greater lack of ambivalence, a more wholehearted resolve and a clear categorical statement in relation to where the present Government lie in regard to the long term future of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Tánaiste's references in the House today went a considerable way towards underpinning the faith of the Government side of the House in the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

At the same time the Tánaiste seemed to cast doubts on the merits and the efficacy of the Agreement. He said: "That is why all supporters of the Agreement must be sobered by findings which show that only a minority of Nationalists in Northern Ireland feel that the Agreement has made a difference to their daily lives". Yet the next paragraph would seem to contradict that. The Tánaiste went on to elucidate at some considerable length the achievements of the Agreement such as improved policing of the marching season. Surely that, in terms of the perspective of the ordinary Nationalist in the North of Ireland, has made a significant difference in relation to his tolerance of the marching season when heretofore he looked with fear and trepidation at the intimidation that invariably occurred, particularly in relation to the Nationalist community in the North of Ireland. The elimination of the supergrass trials, the introduction of a new code of conduct for the RUC and what we hope will come on stream shortly, the beginning of an economic programme for west Belfast, all in their own way are significant measures which will alleviate greatly the problems and the siege mentality of the minority community in the North.

Would that the Agreement had been launched on the same unanimous note as we have in this House today. Deputy Blaney has rightly recalled the allegations from the then Leader of the Opposition that we were copperfastening partition. We saw the typical, ruthless hell-for-leather opposition in relation to the Agreement then as we saw in the stance of that party in opposition on economic affairs. Doubts as to the constitutionality of the Agreement were cast by the present Taoiseach, Leader of the then Opposition, which were very much a continuation of the man's attitude to the New Ireland Forum. The ink was hardly dry on the Forum report when major doubts were expressed regarding the various formulae put forward to solve the problems on this island. Of course, we had the unprecedented measure when the deputy leader of the party was dispatched overseas in order to play down or sabotage the Agreement. Thank God we are now unanimous on all sides of the House about the Agreement.

At the end of the day if the Agreement is going to work its devolution aspect is of essence and importance. Some power sharing local assembly, not a reincarnation of Stormont, should be put in place. That will require compromise and common sense and a certain yielding by both sides. For that to take place it is quite obvious, as the Leader of this party has said, that we will have to have a more regular schedule of conference meetings and greater dialogue, and we must show the Unionist community in the North that we do not threaten their existence or identity but that we have genuinely at the core of this Agreement their care and concern.

I ask the Government please to put their policy on the table once and for all in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to have a Northern policy and express it without ambivalence. The centrepiece and major platform on which policy must stand is the Anglo-Irish Agreement of which we in the House this evening joyfully celebrate the third anniversary.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

It is important to place on the record of the House this Government's commitment to what is an international Agreement. Since we came into office there has never been any doubt that this Government were going to follow through on arrangements which had an international standing. It is quite unfair of Deputy Higgins to cast any aspersions on any of the doings of this Government in relation to the Agreement.

In addressing myself to the review let me say that, three years on, there is major responsibility on political entities in the North to admit that a containment policy is no longer feasible, that a much broader outlook must be taken in the interest of people of all affiliations to mark the way forward. The millstone of inactivity in the political sphere, nurtured through what I would term implacable stubbornness, has meant violence that has ruined co-operation and goodwill among all shades of opinion in the Northern part of our country. The fact now that both Governments have agreed on the maintenance of the Agreement must be accepted by all. There is a great onus on the Northern Unionists to come in, as it were, out of the cold and accept that invitation, which is genuine and sincere, and have a significant input into this whole democratic process. Surely the lessons learned from non-participation have served only to continue the misery felt by all persons in Northern Ireland.

In the security area this Government have done everything possible to hold up their side of the bargain. We have heard today from Deputy Gerry Collins, Minister for Justice, that we will spend this year £172 million on security connected with Northern Ireland. That, by the way, is four times per capita greater than what Britain spends on the same thing. This is an indication on the part of the Government that they are determined to stamp out terrorism that would do damage to our democratic institutions. We should remember that all of this is at a time of major financial constraints, and we should not be begrudging in this regard. After all, we are dealing with people in Northern Ireland who are our very own and whom we claim to be our very own.

Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the Garda, the Army and the Minister himself who, under extreme intimidation initiated or carried out searches throughout the length and breadth of this country after the Eksund find in the full knowledge that democracy in this State was being threatened by subversives. It is a matter of great satisfaction to our legal custodians that they have unearthed 850 firearms, 190,000 rounds of ammunition and 5,000 lbs. of homemade explosives, clearly demonstrating to all and sundry the extraordinary success subversives were having in terms of infiltration.

Let me come to extradition and pose a question. Is it not interesting that no case has been brought under the 1987 Act? To me at any rate this suggests that the safeguards brought in by this Government must be working and that the British authorities have not been presenting the type of evidence necessary for such cases to be successful. Surely everybody must be satisfied that this Act is such a major improvement on its 1965 counterpart.

The time has come now for the British authorities to recognise the scope offered under the criminal law jurisdiction legislation because of the obvious lack of belief in the 26 Counties that Irish citizens would get fair play in Britain or, indeed, in Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to suggest to Mrs. Thatcher's Government that at a time of review she would examine again the cases of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six and let us for once see that leniency can be applied in cases where conviction was gained under very clouded circumstances.

I consider that I have a right to say to the British Government that this Fianna Fáil Government have been most forthcoming in meeting the demands placed on them through the Anglo-Irish Conference. However, there is still a major element of dissatisfaction on my part and on the part of many more in this country at the harassment suffered by Irish people at the hands of British forces. I understand that 90 per cent of all complaints to the Secretariat in Belfast relate specifically to harassment. Surely the time has come for a response from the British side. Does it not raise the possibility that there is a problem with specific units of the Army and sections of the RUC? Is it not possible to pinpoint those groupings, to isolate them and have the necessary corrective action taken against them by the British? Have we in the South, and the Nationalist population in general, not the right to feel outraged at the shooting of young McAnespie in cold blood on his way to a match and the contrasting freeing of a convicted British soldier, surely grounds for us here in the South to say that there is one law for one side of the population in the North and another law for what they term one of their own?

One cannot hope to raise confidence in the British administration of justice with such abominations manifesting themselves. They serve only to help the recruitment drive by the IRA. It is not surprising therefore that, according to the PSI study, 38 per cent of all Catholics lack confidence in the fairness of Northern Ireland courts in dealing with Catholics. This study should also provide the impetus to restore confidence in the courts. We must reiterate the need for reform of the Diplock Courts and ensure the introduction of the three judge court for jurisprudence balance.

I am pleased that progress will soon be reported in relation to fair employment, but here again I suggest that it is necessary to establish a monitoring arrangement for public and private companies to ensure that they adhere to an agreed formula with heavy penalties for those who transgress.

Economic activity is a necessary adjunct to the establishment of confidence in Northern Ireland. I want to congratulate the Tánaiste on the major emphasis he is placing at the conference on having funds disbursed into unemployment black spots which are inhabited predominantly by Catholics. This is a process which must continue because there is no doubt that there is a relationship between unemployment and maladjusted behaviour.

I will be brief because I want to allow my colleague Deputy Dick Roche in. The review provides an excellent opportunity to carry forward the work of reform and political progress in Northern Ireland. We are fortunate that spearheading our negotiations is the Tánaiste who must be one of the most able and affable negotiators that this country has seen. We can look forward with pride and hope, in the knowledge that our negotiations are in safe hands.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might have advised me that he wished to share his time with another Deputy, but is it agreed?

Mr. Roche

What was in mind was that Deputy Harte would come in next and I would follow Deputy Harte.

Mr. Harte

While I am pleased with many of the speeches I have heard, I am disappointed with some. I find it difficult to understand why Deputies continually make this a British-Irish issue, because it is no longer that. The issue is not whether the Anglo-Irish Agreement is good or bad. It is in place; it is signed by two sovereign Governments. The challenge now is to get people in the North to agree to it, to get the Protestant leaders in the North to agree to it. If we cannot do that we will make no headway.

The bitterness expressed by southern politicians, Catholic politicians, makes no contribution towards progress. It is driving Protestant people and politicians in the opposite direction. Unless we put out the hand of friendship to get Protestant people to see that their future is to try to establish peace on this island, to try to work the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we will get nowhere. We cannot get them to work the Anglo-Irish Agreement if they are against it. I am at a loss to understand why Government members continually drag the British Government into this when the British Government and the Irish Government entered into an international agreement to try to resolve the problems of Northern Ireland.

We pretend here that there are things called nationalism and unionism, loyalism and republicanism. The whole world sees the Irish conflict as Catholic and Protestant. It is not about religion. It is not about the faith we all believe in as Catholics or the faith that we believe in as Protestants. It has nothing at all to do with religion. It certainly has to do with intolerant Catholics and intolerant Protestants locked in a bitter sectarian conflict. That is what it is about in Northern Ireland.

If only we could get out of the world of make believe and understand that there is no such thing as republicanism. Whatever it was meant to mean in the past, it no longer means that; it means Catholic. It is the same with nationalism. There is no such thing as nationalism any more. The Protestants see republicanism and nationalism as Catholic conquest just as we see unionism and loyalism as Protestant supremacy and that is what it is all about.

When I addressed a cross-section of the community at the first Lisburn Presbyterian Church Hall, County Antrim, I outlined my views on the position of Northern Ireland. I said that whatever about the past, the present conflict is not between Ireland and Great Britain. If it was, the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach would not be co-operating as they are through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Politicians in Dáil Éireann and Westminster would not have the close rapport which we know exists and which both sides value. The Irish would not be welcome, or hold such an exceptional status in Great Britain. It would not be possible for them to go there without a passport or visa, get employment without a work permit, qualify for health and social security services without reference to nationality, be considered for rehousing if there is a family need and, having become resident, qualify to vote, stand for public office and get elected to parliament. Neither would it be possible for large numbers of Irish students to attend universities in Great Britain, and the totality of relations of which we speak would have no meaning.

British-Irish history has been unfortunate and at times brutally violent. We have been guilty of terrible deeds to each other — I would claim that the Irish were mostly on the receiving end — but who was most to blame is academic. The fact is that the present political unrest in Northern Ireland is not really British-Irish, but a bitter sectarian conflict between intolerant Catholics and intolerant Protestants who have lost touch with the teaching of Christ and with their own churches. Undoubtedly some Irish see the conflict as a political struggle but the outside world sees it as Catholics and Protestants killing each other with the British Government wanting out and the British Army trapped in the middle unable to extricate itself. There is, of course, a popular opinion that there will be no peace in Ireland until the British Army go, but by the same argument they cannot go until there is peace. Surely there is a message in this for the men of violence. Just who is keeping the British Army engaged in Northern Ireland? There is another opinion that the British Army is using the violence of the IRA to train teenage soldiers in guerrilla combat, which may be good for the British Army, but bad for community relations and should stop.

Whatever the words unionism-loyalism nationalism-republicanism were meant to mean they now spell Protestant and Catholic. Catholics see unionism and loyalism as Protestant supremacy. Protestants see nationalism and republicanism as Catholic conquest. We cannot deny nor can we ignore that a strong expression of being Protestant and being Catholic runs constant through Irish society. Subconsciously and with unnoticed regularity people in both traditions interchange the words Catholic-Nationalist-Republican and, of course, Protestant-Unionist-Loyalist. When we speak it is not about Protestants, but Loyalists who are in jail; it is Catholics not Nationalists or Republicans who are discriminated against; it is Protestants not Unionists or Loyalists who work in the shipyards. We talk about Protestant ghettoes and Catholic ghettoes — the population head-counts are about the number of Protestants and the number of Catholics. It is Catholic and Protestant candidates who get votes in elections. The votes may have a choice between political parties, but only inside their own tradition — there are exceptions, but far too few.

When I, accompanied by my wife, placed a wreath recently where eight teenage soldiers were killed, some people asked was I right? The answer is a most emphatic yes because what is morally right can never be politically wrong and it also follows that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. It is Christian teaching that it is immoral to kill a human being, it does not matter who that person is or what nationality or religion they are. The uniforms they wear or who they work for does not alter the immorality of killing. Those who kill and destroy have lost sight of the immorality of their deeds and those who support, condone, excuse or conveniently ignore those deeds, share in the immorality of the acts. I cannot understand how churchmen on both sides can be selective in their condemnation of the immorality of killing. It seems that people in uniforms or people out of uniforms or boy-soldiers on a bus, are all legitimate targets and that it is not immoral to kill or destroy them.

If the killing of a human being is not immoral then nothing is immoral and if churchmen of all denominations do not get that message across, the entire teaching of the Christian way of life is in serious danger. Churchmen, successors of the Apostles, preachers of the same Gospels, followers of the same Christ, Worshippers of one God, must condemn without equivocation the immorality of killing and the destruction of human life. Their condemnation must be totally explicit, uncompromising and unreservedly final. Those who are involved in violence must be put in no doubt that the killing of a human being, no matter who he is, what he does, or how he is dressed is immoral and that there are no exceptions.

As a Catholic I am calling on the leaders of my Church to leave the Protestant community in no doubt as to where the Catholic Church stands on the immorality of killing. As a Christian I am calling on the leaders of the Protestant Churches to take more seriously that element of religious bigotry which lies at the root of sectarianism, which, in turn, produces sectarian politics resulting in sectarian murder. I solemnly believe, because of the religious dimension, that clergy of all churches have a more important role to play in finding solutions than is generally acknowledged. Politicians of all parties are politically impotent without their collective input and the people are calling out for good leadership and an end to violence.

Political leadership, however, is about more than stating one's own position and in the threatening and worsening circumstances of Northern Ireland. I wonder just what is the morality of the present political deadlock where politicians refuse or decline to seek solutions which could start a process which would bring violence to an end. Is it morally right to continue to refuse to enter into political dialogue with democratically elected Governments and elected representatives of the people when we all know that this year has been more violent than last year and that the next year, in the nature of things, is going to be no better? It might be politically popular not to have dialogue, it might be a political strategy, but in my view it is morally wrong. Elected leaders cannot and should not allow themselves to be vetoed by the actions of others. In my statement when I placed the wreath I appealed to elected leaders of the Protestant community to step forward and speak with me. I am repeating that appeal tonight. I will go to their homes, to their offices, to their party headquarters, to their Protestant halls, to meet and speak with them about peace on this island and our future together. If we can learn to trust each other nothing is impossible.

If there are people engaged in violence who sincerely believe, as I think they do, that their involvement is a noble cause in pursuit of a united Ireland can I say to them, Ireland is not ready for uniting, if it was ready Protestant people in Northern Ireland would want to join us. That is not the case and it is unlikely that they will consider unity until Catholic Ireland can create a society with which they can identify, and, hopefully join.

When I made that speech last week in the First Lisburn Presbyterian Church Hall I was well received and congratulated on trying to reason with what is happening in Northern Ireland. I was disappointed to hear Members referring to Britain and Ireland. This is not about Britain and Ireland. For God's sake, after 20 years of violence and almost 3,000 deaths, surely we can get it into the back of our heads that it is about sectarianism. We are not making a contribution by pretending that we are good Republicans or good Nationalists. We are Catholics, Irish Catholics. Unfortunately, there are people in the North of Ireland who call themselves Unionist and Loyalists but they are not Unionists nor Loyalists, they are Protestants. Until the Catholic and the Protestant Churches come together and try to iron out these terrible difficulties I see no future for the politicians on this island.

I sincerely believe, following the many talks I have had with Protestant councillors in Northern Ireland, that increasingly more and more of them are seeing that the only solution to the problem in Ireland is the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have been told by good Protestant people that it has never been given a chance. During the seventies, as spokesman for my party, I continually made the point to British politicians that they made a mistake of reading the Irish position as being friends and foes and by looking on the Catholic tradition which I come from as being enemies. I pointed out to them that hundreds of thousands of our people had gone to Britain, had married and settled there and were good citizens. Enemies do not do that. Whatever else we are not enemies. I pointed out to those politicians that tens of thousands of our people had joined their air force, their army and navy and that many of them had fought and died for them. Enemies do not do things like that. However, I pointed out to them that we had an objection to the policies they pursued in Northern Ireland.

In my view the Anglo-Irish Agreement got the British Government into a neutral position. I must ask myself, was my Government as neutral as I would like them to be or as neutral as the Protestant people would like them to be? I must ask, are the present Government as neutral as they should be seen to be by the Protestant community? I will leave those questions with the House.

Last week when Gay Byrne announced that he was going to wear a simple poppy, an emblem, all hell broke loose down here and people phoned him and said the most objectionable things. That was terrible. It was terrible that when the Pope said he intended visiting Ireland the Loyalist voice said, "do not come here." That was sectarianism in its extreme. A similar attitude was expressed by those who opposed the wearing of a poppy; sectarianism in the extreme. I was listening to extreme Catholic opinion, not republican opinion. When we do not wear a poppy we forget some of the great men of this country who fought in defence of small nations. Fr. Willie Doyle, a Jesuit from this city, received outstanding recognition for acts of bravery but we have forgotten about him. We have forgotten about Thomas Kettle, one of our literary geniuses. We have forgotten about Willie Redmond, a member of parliament, and the hundreds of others who lost their lives, including people from Donegal. What is the difference between young soldiers who fought in the First World War for what they thought was right and our soldiers who serve with the UN today? It can be argued that the circumstances are different but how different? In my view there is no difference except that we are a bigoted people unable to realise that those who died in the 1914-18 war were doing what they thought was right. I should like to pay tribute to three I knew who fought in the Second World War, Danny and Jimmy Kelly, brothers who lost their lives fighting as navy men, and Willie Morrison, a local carpenter.

If the expression of public opinion is echoed by the protests about wearing a poppy, and if that is how far we have come after 20 years of violence, then I despair. I want to say here and now that next year I will invite Deputies of this House to wear a poppy to respect the people who died in the First and Second World Wars. It seems terribly strange that we can pay respects to the German sailors and airmen who are buried in our soil and whose bodies were either washed up on our beaches or who crash-landed here. It is right that we should pay our respects to them but it is very difficult to understand why we can do that with foreigners and we cannot pay our respects to Irishmen who fought for the cause which they believed in.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Roche

I am conscious that time has been allowed to slip. In an interview in the Irish News on 15 November the Tánaiste pointed out that the Agreement had been in place for only three years and that Stormont had stood for 50 years. He made the comment that it is not easy to roll back decades of systematic discrimination in three years. A start has, however, been made in the Agreement.

I would like to address a few comments to some Deputies who made comments regarding Government attitudes towards the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is true that this party expressed reservations regarding certain aspects of the Agreement in 1985. However, it is blatantly and absolutely untrue that the Government are in any way equivocated with regard to the Agreement. Untruths, when they are repeated, do not improve, the remain untruths. Between November 1985 and March 1987 when there was a change in Government there were nine meetings of the Inter-Governmental Conference and there were two separate meetings of ministerial sub-groups. In the interim period since then there have been 13 meetings. The frequency of meetings has been greater during the period of this Government's term of office. I wish those facts could sink into the heads of some Deputies opposite. While I do not doubt their sincerity regarding the Agreement I question the wisdom of their continuously peddling an untruth regarding the Agreement.

The review of the Agreement now under way affords us the opportunity to redirect and to refocus the institutions and the processes that it has established. In the opening years the emphasis was on security. Security, while still a priority, is by no means the only priority now. The agenda for the Agreement must be broadened considerably. It is my personal belief that the highest single item on the agenda must be the building of confidence. From our side we have delivered on the security elements of the Agreement. We can now call on the other party to the Agreement to deliver on the confidence building side. In Northern Ireland confidence must be built up and, in particular, in the institutions of justice.

The single judge courts of Northern Ireland are an aberration. They cause disquiet even within the British Governmental system. People who are interested in civil liberties not just in this island but on our closest island and elsewhere are concerned about the Diplock Courts. They are not trusted by the Nationalists and they never will be, that is an unfortunate fact of life. The unfortunate requirement of special courts is well understood by us on this part of this island. The model of three judge courts which we have adopted could well be studied by the Northern Ireland authorities. At another level confidence needs to be built in the forces of law and order. This can only exist when they are no longer perceived as instruments of harassment or repression. The facts are that the forces of law and order — they may just be ordinary boy soldiers — may be cast in a role which they do not wish but amongst the Nationalist population they are seen to operate as forces of harassment and repression. There is a vital need for measures to redress the complaints that exist and to ensure that the reason for complaint would be brought to a halt.

The early release of Corporal Thain some months ago threw into sharp focus the tragic plight of SOSP, Secretary of State prisoners, in Northern Ireland — both Unionist and Nationalist. Many of those were involved in crime — some were involved in hideous crime — at a very early age. They entered jail in their teenage years and are now into their thirties. The most rankling injustice amongst these prisoners and their families is not the interminable nature of their sentences but a review system that is frequently difficult to fathom. I have met the parents and families of some of these prisoners. They are quiet people who want to live their lives in peace. They have had enough of violence and they want to be given the opportunity to put the violence behind them but they cannot do so given the position of their sons. I hope we will see progress here soon as this is one of the things that prop up division in society in Northern Ireland. I hope that progress will be recorded soon.

There are other issues in the area of justice, for example, the extraordinary scenes at the inquest which is now taking place in Northern Ireland and the continuing open sore of the Stalker-Sampson affair. These are events which should not be happening and which should never have happened. Confidence could be built with improvements outside this island too. The case of the Guildford Four has been mentioned and it is a case in which I take a particular interest. It has been allowed to drag on. Deputy McCartan, other Members of this House and myself met with the Secretary of State 12 months ago. Eight months ago the Secretary of State received the report on this case and yet progress has not been as rapid as we would have hoped. We all pray — because this matter bears heavily on us — that this long delay is indicative that something positive will happen in that regard.

The Birmingham Six case was also referred to here tonight. Those people are not looking for clemency or pardon but for justice. The intemperate, ill-considered and untimely political intervention during the course of the Winchester trial illustrates the need for greater British sensitivity in all of these issues. In relation to the Gibraltar affair in which there was extraordinary public interest and the trial by media which was carried on was damaging to progress in this island. The British establishment should at this stage come to the realisation that their every action impacts on events here. Their actions should be more measured and in future they should think more of the impact of any pronouncement that they make.

I sometimes wonder at the advice which is made available to British Ministers dealing with the extradition issue. Since 1985 there has been an unwarranted focus on extradition proceedings by the British authorities. Each major case affords people who have no interest in peace or justice — or, indeed, no interest in the people who are being extradited and who are at the centre of these events — unlimited scope for propaganda and publicity. These are foolish proceedings when there is an alternative which is acceptable and available. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act should be more frequently used. I understand that the previous Taoiseach gave unwise undertakings in this matter in Downing Street in November 1985. If this is the case he did none of us any great favours. I am pleased that the use of the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act will be considered within the wide scope of the review. I sincerely hope that more sense will prevail in future cases.

I have not yet mentioned the Unionists and their role in this affair. I listened with sincerity to the views put forward by Deputy Harte because I believe he speaks with sincerity on all these issues. Deputy John Kelly spoke recently of a Unionist De Gaulle and their need for a Unionist De Gaulle. De Gaulle resolved the Algerian problems by setting a date for France's withdrawal. There were French Unionists with only a "non" in their vocabulary ranged against him. Deputy Kelly may well have got the simile right but I think his geography is questionable. I would say this to the Unionists: when this State was born we were not found wanting in so far as the southern Unionists were concerned. Their worst fears were not fulfilled. The Government that assumed office when this State was born was generous to them as were all subsequent Governments. It is time that Unionist leaders stopped living in their own shadows and walked into the sunlight of rationality. We live on a small island and we cannot always live apart.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not a perfect document, it can be improved. It will not be improved if we in this House either underestimate the emotions it engenders or seek to falsely portray where we individually stand on it. This has been done from time to time by spokespersons from the main Opposition parties. Sometimes it is done in sincerity, and sometimes it is done in mischief. There may be some minor and short-term political advantage in mis-representing the Government's sincerity, or in mis-representing their commitment. As in the case of the national lottery, these types of mis-representations may draw a certain degree of publicity from their sloganising but they will do none of us here any service. We need to talk less about such things and listen more.

It is a tragedy that so much time is wasted in this House on debates of much less consequence than this one. It is a tragedy that, as the clock draws to the close of business, there are too few people willing to participate in this debate. The tragedy of Northern Ireland, that of the divided island of Ireland, is something that touches on all of our lives and is something about which we should all feel the same kind of passion as the last speaker. We should dedicate ourselves with the level of enthusiasm and passion to every possibility of bringing those divisions obtaining between us to an end.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not a perfect document; it has flaws and I have problems with aspects of it. I admit all of that, but it does afford us some opportunities and we should grasp them each and every day.

An Ceann Comhairle

That concludes the discussion on the Statements.