Anglo-Irish Relations: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I welcome this opportunity for a serious and comprehensive discussion on Northern Ireland. The issues arising are urgent, and of deep humanitarian concern. Our debate will, I am confident, reflect the gravity of the situation. The people of Northern Ireland would be rightly disappointed, if it were otherwise.

The problems of Northern Ireland are essentially political and therefore must be confronted and resolved through the political process. The search for a political way forward therefore is and must remain at the top of our agenda. But it is equally obvious that such progress will not be easily achieved, and that our efforts, if they are to succeed, will require genuine sensitivity to, and respect for, the positions of the parties within Northern Ireland.

But how can political progress best be achieved? There is an important point to be made at the outset. A willingness to listen to the position of others does not imply that one's own convictions and aspirations should be diluted or abandoned. Indeed, the opposite is the case; openness and clarity can only facilitate, not hinder, progress. A leading member of the DUP, Peter Robinson, said some weeks ago: "I have a much higher estimation for those who have even a directly opposite view from my own rather than those wishy-washy possessors of the middle ground who try to understand everybody but end up believing nothing".

We must neither deny the right of others to their beliefs nor be embarrassed by our own. In my party we believe in the noble objective of a progressive, enlightened, and fully democratic State, which will accommodate on a basis of equality all the traditions on this island. That concept, in its many different aspects and with all the guarantees involved, is clearly set out in the Report of the New Ireland Forum.

One of the fundamental realities identified by the Forum is, "the desire of nationalists for a united Ireland in the form of a sovereign, independent Irish State to be achieved peacefully and by consent". It was also explicitly recognised that, "such unity would, of course, be different from both the existing Irish State and the existing arrangements in Northern Ireland because it would necessarily accommodate all the fundamental elements in both traditions". Specifically, the Forum report made it clear that the new Ireland to which we aspire would require a new Constitution designed to ensure that the needs of all traditions on our island would be fully accommodated. The approach of the Forum report is generous, forward looking and genuinely intended to chart a way out of the prejudices and divisions of centuries.

I want to demolish the suggestion that because Fianna Fáil have a vision of the future, which is for us the ideal, this in some way inhibits progress in the short-term. There is also the implication that devolution is the only way forward and that, with a change of attitude on the part of the Irish Government, it could be readily achieved.

Here let me point out that the Coalition Government, who were in office from 1982 to 1987, had nearly five years in which to promote the policy of devolution. Finding, however, that they could make no progress in that direction, they focused instead on the conclusion of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Joint Communiqué issued on the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on 15th November 1985, specifically stated that the Anglo-Irish Conference would concentrate at its initial meetings on:

—relations between the Security Forces and the miniority community in Northern Ireland;

—ways of enhancing security co-operation between the two Governments; and

—seeking measures which would give substantial expression to the aim of underlining the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice.

The exclusive priorities, therefore, of the conference were initially justice and security matters, not political developments, still less economic or social progress. That Agreement contains a reference to devolution but the matter was not so far as I can ascertain discussed at the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference at any of its 11 meetings between December 1985 and March 1987 — certainly the subject is not referred to in any of the Conference communiqués issued at that time. The position in regard to devolution prior to the change of Government in 1987 is, therefore, that no progress had been made towards devolution. It is clear that there is no basis in previous experience for advocating any facile approach to this proposal.

I have repeatedly stated my position on devolution by reference to Article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the relevant language in the review of the working of the conference. Let me once again quote the relevant part:

It continues to be the British Government's policy, supported by the Irish Government, to encourage progress towards the devolution of responsibility for certain powers to elected representatives in Northern Ireland as set out in Article 4 of the Agreement. Both sides recognise that the achievement of devolution depends on the co-operation of constitutional representatives of both traditions within Northern Ireland.

Is anyone now seriously suggesting that devolution can somehow be imposed without the co-operation and consent of the constitutional representatives of both traditions? Are they not aware of the constantly reiterated claim by Unionists that one of their principal objections to the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that it was imposed? Those who would claim to adhere to the principle that constitutional change must be by consent seem, when it comes to Northern Ireland to advocate instead an imposed solution. It should also be noted that some of those in Northern Ireland who seek devolution in some form have made it clear that they would regard an initiative by the Irish Government on devolution as counter-productive.

Can the Leader of Fine Gael really believe that he is playing a constructive role in trying unilaterally to force an initiative on devolution in present circumstances? He must know that the preconditions do not exist and that there is no enthusiasm for it in any main political grouping in Northern Ireland at the present time. One cannot escape the conclusion that the Fine Gael leader's stance is related more to party politics down here than the realities in Northern. Ireland.

Let me now turn to the argument that devolution is the sole way forward and that "all roads forward pass through devolution". This approach is clearly restrictive and has the major disadvantage that it rules out all other possibilities of progress along other avenues. Those who advocate the "devolution only" approach must be unaware of the movement in thinking currently taking place in Northern Ireland, and the indications of an increasing acceptance that the problems of Northern Ireland will have to be addressed in a wider context. An analysis of the inter-relationships of these islands, including a recognition of the importance of the North-South relationship, is beginning to enter mainstream Unionist thinking. I would like to see this debate explore a wider field of possibilities and not be confined to the traditional narrow ground. Given the existing political realities in the North, it would be a serious mistake for us to tie ourselves into any one restrictive formula or focus exclusively on devolution as necessarily offering the only way forward.

The second issue I mentioned are the prospects for the achievement of devolution. While both the Agreement and the recent review, make it perfectly clear that the achievement of devolution depends on the co-operation of the constitutional representatives of both traditions in the North, that pre-condition is manifestly absent at present. It is naive to try to dispose of this inconvenient reality with the suggestion that all that is needed is for both Governments to define a devolutionary structure "which leaves no excuses for refusal to either of the political traditions". To suggest that any of the parties on the Northern scene decide their course of action on the basis of the availability or otherwise of excuses for inaction is; to put it mildly, disingenuous.

Rather than characterising attitudes as "excuses for refusal", we need seriously to ask ourselves why there is no great enthusiasm on the part of any politicians in Northern Ireland for devolution in current circumstances. Not to explore and understand the reasons for these current attitudes would be short sighted and would appear to demonstrate further a predeliction for the imposed solution.

The Unionists for their part have made their position perfectly clear. One of their major concerns about devolution is that they see it as in a sense mandated under article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Mr. Molyneaux stated very trenchantly in an interview on 22 October that "there cannot and will not be any movement on power-sharing developed Government until the present Anglo-Irish Agreement is replaced". He repeated the same argument in a further interview on 1st November.

Much as we may disagree with Mr. Molyneaux's analysis, we must accept that that is his stated position. If it is claimed that "all roads forward pass through devolution", it is as well to acknowledge the roadblocks and craters that are strewn along them at present. To enhance the prospects of political advance along any avenue it is essential that we recognise and understand the barriers that exist along the way and that must be surmounted if progress is to be made.

The SDLP position has also been made quite clear. John Hume expressed his party's views cogently and comprehensively at the recent SDLP annual conference. In outlining his party's proposals for talks, he said:

In the SDLP view, the central relationship, the one that goes to the heart of the matter, is the Unionist people's relationship with the rest of this island or rather their distrust of the rest of this island. Until that relationship is resolved and that distrust is removed, then, in our view, nothing will be stable or lasting. That view is drawn from our experience, from standing back and asking ourselves the reasons for past failures.

The Government share the sense of urgency, indeed impatience, that exists on all sides for political progress in relation to Northern Ireland. We want to remove the causes of distrust. We want genuine progress towards durable solutions and are prepared to devote the time and patience necessary to achieve it. We recognise that there is no easy or simple way forward. As I suggested earlier, if we are to secure political progress and succeed in sustaining it, we must begin to develop an integrated approach in which arrangements within Northern Ireland are seen as part of a wider landscape. In this regard, I am encouraged by the increasing acceptance, in a spirit of realism, that no political initiative, be it devolution or otherwise, could be sustained in isolation from the wider structure of political relationships on this island, and indeed from the totality of relationships within and between these islands. That was my position in 1980, when I met the British Prime Minister and her Ministers in Dubin Castle. Events since then have reinforced it. What is happening in Europe today makes the position, in my view, unassailable.

There has been some controversy over the recent comments by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Brooke, on the circumstances in which Sinn Féin might be included in some future talks on a political solution. I understood Mr. Brooke to have made it perfectly clear that a precondition for any Sinn Féin involvement in such talks must be the ending of the IRA campaign of violence. This is very much in line with what I said in my Ard Fheis speech earlier this year:

If violence were to cease, the possibility would open up, as it did in the New Ireland Forum, for a broad consensus among Nationalists on how to achieve political stability based on justice. Our efforts, supported by a large majority of Irish people everywhere, could then be constructively directed to persuading our Unionist countrymen that their future lay with us in a partnership of equals and in convincing the British Government that the future of Ireland could and should be left to all the Irish people to decide for themselves.

Violence — from whatever source — has scarred the lives of countless people in Northern Ireland and exacted a terrible toll in human suffering; it is futile, and it has the effect of undermining all efforts to secure political progress. If violence were to cease a very different political landscape would emerge. New horizons will — as I have already said elsewhere — be opened up, and new possibilities will present themselves.

Change is sweeping across the continent of Europe. Who can be unmoved watching these great historic events, and seeing the outpouring of happiness and elation as hundreds of thousands of people glory in their first taste of freedom?

Even at a distance we can feel the great uplifting of the human spirit that comes when the barriers that have kept people apart are torn down. Can we in Ireland not join this mood and become part of what is happening all over Europe? I wish to reach out to all the people of the North at this time and say to them, we too can break moulds and tear down barriers. Let us get around a table and talk our way out of these troubles and difficulties and find a new way to live together on this island in peace and mutual self-respect.

The climate worldwide today provides us with a unique opportunity to respond generously in our own circumstances to the international mood, make a break with the past and begin a new era of dialogue and co-operation.

I would now like to deal with the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the conduct of the inter-governmental conference in recent months. In particular, I would like to address the cricitism that the conference is being used primarily for crisis management and has focused too narrowly on security related issues.

The conference, as I see it, operates on two levels. In the first place, it seeks to bring about reform in areas of urgent concern in Northern Ireland and to secure changes of policy and in administration for this purpose. In this regard there is a full, on-going programme of work which covers the whole spectrum of issues addressed in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In addition, there will always be incidents and developments which by their very nature are difficult to anticipate and which, when they arise, demand immediate attention. It is the business of government to recognise and manage crises, not to ignore them or minimise the importance of the issues at stake.

It is, therefore, appropriate and necessary that, when critically important issues arise, they should receive priority on the agenda of the conference at that particular time. Any other approach would rightly invite criticisms that the conference was becoming irrelevant and its credibility being eroded. Once the conference exists, it should be used for any useful purpose that presents itself, including dealing with any crisis that may arise from time to time. To the extent that it is possible to do so, its existence should also be availed of to pursue longer term aims and objectives and this was in fact envisaged in the report of the recent review of the working of the conference.

The recent evidence of collusion between members of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries clearly falls into the category of issues requiring immediate and urgent attention. This was a crisis that demanded urgent management. It occupied the greater part of the time at three consecutive conferences. The clear proof of the existence of this type of sinister collusion seriously undermined the already fragile level of confidence that existed by the nationalist community in the security forces, particularly the UDR. We see this as a key political issue.

Confidence in the apparatus of the state and especially the security forces and the administration of justice is essential for the well being of any society, but it is of overriding importance in a divided society. If any large section of any community has good reason to regard those responsible for their safety and security as not being trustworthy, reliable and impartial, that society cannot regard itself as fully democratic and will certainly not enjoy a normal peaceful stable existence.

The security forces face difficulties and dangers, and in some respects certain progress has been made in improving relations within the community. But it is totally unacceptable, and destructive of trust and confidence, if individual members of the security forces act in collusion with those engaged in a campaign of sectarian assassination. Such practices strike at the very roots of a democratic free society. That is why we have called for a comprehensive review of both the basis and role of the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is almost exclusively recruited from one side of the community. Whatever short term remedial action is to be taken, and we welcome some of the steps that have been announced, a more fundamental appraisal is required in the medium term into organisations that show no reasonable prospect of commanding public confidence on a cross-community basis.

The Government seek an end to the existence of partisan practices by elements in the security forces. An essential step must be to establish some credible process through which the security forces can be made answerable to the general public. The conference has already devoted considerable time to dealing with these issues, which have a major impact on the issue of confidence.

The whole Anglo-Irish process first initiated at the Dublin Castle Summit in 1980 shows a manifest willingness on our part to make progress on a step by step basis. I believe that without undermining in any way our overall ultimate aim, we should use all available means to improve the day to day lives of the people of Northern Ireland, to improve their situation, and to protect their safety and their welfare.

On taking office in early 1987, the Government sought to direct the attention of the conference to the economic issues that are at the forefront of the concerns of ordinary people in Northern Ireland. We placed considerable emphasis on the issue of fair employment. We have pushed for special programmes for the most economically deprived areas of Northern Ireland. In the review document, we placed particular emphasis on the further development of cross-Border economic and social co-operation.

The Government regard the area of the economy as of crucial importance. Political change is, as we can see in Europe today, very often related to economic circumstances. We can also see the powerful attraction that a prosperous Community can offer. Since 1987 the Government have taken decisive steps to strengthen our economy, and to radically improve our economic performance. Ireland today is moving ahead, and investment confidence is at its highest for at least a decade. The ESRI report published this morning gives clear evidence of the current success being achieved by our economic management. We have at present the best opportunity, perhaps, since independence to make Ireland into a prosperous, successful society, a society whose rising levels of prosperity by itself can provide a powerful incentive to unity.

Economic difficulties affect both sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Recent figures indicating Northern Ireland's deteriorating economic performance and prosperity relative to the UK average are a cause of concern in both communities. It is not healthy for any society, as we very well know from our own recent experience down here, to be excessively dependent for the maintenance of living standards and employment on high public expenditure. Northern Ireland must also confront this and indeed the general challenge of 1992, and time is passing quickly.

My invitation to Unionists to join in discussion on the challenges and opportunities we confront in the European Community is increasingly becoming a matter of urgent significance. This invitation has no political overtones. It is simply a straightforward and open suggestion that there are mutual interests and concerns which we should in common sense discuss together. As the borders are dismantled and as 1992 approaches, the economic structures of North and South and the problems and opportunities facing them, are bound to converge and are already converging. We will have a common interest in seeking similar policies and programmes at EC level in sectors such as agriculture, transport, tourism, energy and investment.

With the Commission already discussing the allocation of residual Structural Fund moneys, we have an obvious interest in securing significant Community support for an imaginative and comprehensive cross-Border programme which would radically improve the quality of life in Border areas. We are actively considering at present, with the Northern Ireland authorities, the submission of such a programme for consideration by the Commission in Brussels.

At a time when the Community is undergoing radical change, and particularly when additional encouragement is being given to the development of cross-Border programmes, there is much of substance for us, North and South, to talk about. On 1 January next, Ireland assumes the EC Presidency. The period of our Presidency can and should be availed of to give particular attention to the economic problems of Northern Ireland and to explore between us how the challenges can best be met and how the opportunities can best be exploited.

I believe that it might be helpful if at this stage we were to prepare a paper setting out our thinking on how, in the context of our common island status in Europe and the shared challenges of 1992, the areas in which a common approach might be developed for the benefit of all Irish people, North and South. We will now prepare such a paper and put it forward in a totally non-political context simply as a constructive contribution to the preparations which are needed North and South for the forthcoming Single Market.

The three Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament recently made joint representations to the responsible Community Commissioner on the subject of the Northern Ireland allocation from the Structural Funds. Such joint representations clearly reflect similar concerns and agreed objectives in relation to Community policies. In the context of Ireland's assumption of the EC Presidency, I would suggest that the three MEPs might also find it helpful to communicate their views to me on issues of common concern to them at this time. It would be helpful if I could meet with them at an early date to discuss these matters, which are of vital importance to Ireland, North and South. I will be writing to them shortly to invite them to a meeting for this purpose. The important thing is that I should know at first hand from them the concerns of the Northern Ireland representatives so that they can be fully taken into account as a range of important policies and programmes are decided upon in the coming months.

I have, so far, dealt mainly with developments in the North-South relationship. I would now like to touch briefly on some issues arising in our relationship with Britain, the East-West aspect. Let me first of all warmly welcome the recent decision to establish soon the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, envisaged under the 1981 Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. I have great confidence that this new body will provide a useful forum for exchanges between parliamentarians of both sides and will contribute both to strengthening existing contacts between them and creating a still wider circle of friendship and understanding.

The release of the Guildford Four brought a widespread feeling of relief throughout this country. At the same time, the revelation that such serious miscarriages of justice can occur has caused equally widespread feelings of unease and dismay. It has major implications for the case of the Birmingham Six. I believe that the arguments for re-opening the Birmingham Six case are now so persuasive that they are impossible to withstand. The Guildford and Birmingham cases are not identical, but the similarities are such that the revelations in the Guildford case must enormously reinforce the grave doubts that have always existed about the Birmingham Six convictions and, taken with other developments, must reinforce belief in their innocence. Responsible people in Britain as well as in Ireland are increasingly questioning whether the finding in the 1987 Birmingham Six appeal could now be sustainable in the light of developments in the Guildford case. Public opinion throughout these islands — and indeed further afield as demonstrated by the debate scheduled for today in the European Parliament — has been aroused and alerted by the final outcome of the Guildford Four case and will no longer be satisfied with standard formulae, or stock replies. They want the British authorities to respond quickly in the entirely new situation that has now been disclosed. One tragic miscarriage of justice has been established. As the Birmingham Six enter their sixteenth year in prison nobody can any longer be certain that another is not still being perpetrated. This appalling possibility must in conscience be removed.

Summing up my contribution to this debate, I would say this. The issues are complex, requiring the utmost care and sensitivity on our part. Our concern is to improve Anglo-Irish relations over the whole spectrum but in particular to explore every opportunity to make progress on what must surely be recognised by all as the major outstanding issue between our two countries. In seeking to achieve political progress in Northern Ireland, it is important that we listen to and learn from what responsible politicians in the North are telling us. I listen carefully and attentively to what they have to say because they have to live with the stark reality of the situation. This will help to ensure that we do not act or speak rashly or undertake initiatives that are not carefully considered and thought through. The issues are too important, and the consequences of mistake too serious, to permit any other approach.

The Government's policy is, in the best intersts of our ultimate objective of unity, to make whatever progress we can now, for its own sake. We are working patiently for the development of dialogue and reconciliation within a framework that embraces all the people of this island. We seek an urgent end to violence. Through the structures of Anglo-Irish co-operation that have been developed over the last decade we seek reform in the institutions of state, advances in economic and social development, and better understanding between the peoples of these islands.

Mr. Dukes

The last occasion on which this House voted on an issue related to Northern Ireland was on 21 November 1985 when the Fianna Fáil Party voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The motion I wished to propose this morning was designed to restore bi-partisanship to Northern Ireland issues in this House; and let us remember that bi-partisanship began to crack when in May 1984, barely hours after the New Ireland Forum report was signed, the present Taoiseach gave it the back of his hand. Bi-partisanship began to crumble when Fianna Fáil voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 on the basis of spurious and untried constitutional reservations, and that bi-partisanship was shattered when the present Tánaiste was sent to the US on a cynical and futile mission to try to persuade the US administration not to support that agreement freely and sincerely entered into by two sovereign Governments. I want to restore that bi-partisanship because I believe passionately that the business of politics is to unite and not to divide people, but bi-partisanship must not, cannot, and will not be bought in this House at the price of easy complacency and conspiracy to inaction.

I find the Labour Party's position on the issue astonishing. Deputy Spring was involved in negotiating the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He was present when it was signed and yet today he wants us simply to wait to hear what a reluctant Government have to say. In the final paragraph to the preamble to the Anglo-Irish Agreement the two signatory Governments reaffirm a number of things including:

commitment to a society in Northern Ireland in which all may live in peace, free from discrimination and intolerance, and with the opportunity for both communities to participate fully in the structures and processes of Government;

That is possibly the most eloquent summary of the objectives set by the two Governments, that we can find. Significantly it refers without ambiguity to participation in the structures and processes of Government.

Article 1 of the agreement deals with the status of Northern Ireland. The drafting of this Article makes it perfectly clear that no change in status can be imposed on Northern Ireland. Equally it makes it perfectly clear that no change in status can be irrevocably ruled out. Article 4 (b) makes it clear beyond doubt that the UK Government wish to see responsibility in respect of certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland devolved within Northern Ireland on a basis which will secure widespread acceptance throughout the community. The article states specifically that the Irish Government support that policy. That part of the preamble to which I have referred and those two Articles form a framework within which the two Governments agree to approach the political evolution of Northern Ireland. Anybody who reads the letter and the intent of the agreement cannot credibly claim that it poses a threat to Unionists, to Nationalists or to anybody else.

Looking at the provisions of the agreement we can identify three key elements in the process of devolution. The first is that there should be full participation by both communities. There should be a sharing of responsibility. It is hardly necessary to ask why that should be so. Each of the two communities in Northern Ireland has a strong identity, a strong sense of history and a strong desire to maintain that identity and build on that history. It is also true that there are many people in each of the two communities, as we commonly define them, who do not feel these things as strongly, but these people, too, want to share in shaping their own future. If Northern Ireland is ever to be a community at peace with itself in whatever framework, it is clear that participation and sharing must be central features of the political process, whatever shape it takes. The second feature is that there should be participation and sharing in the process of Government.

The history and the circumstances of Northern Ireland must surely show us that the whole community there must be bonded together before it can make any strategic decision about its future. That bonding process requires that the whole community work together and what better or more constructive way is there of doing that than to work together in running the community's affairs?

The third feature of any structure must be that it would have cross-community support, that is, that it would have the assent of each of the two traditions. The particular circumstances of Northern Ireland mean that this assent must have a dimension to it that goes beyond the normal assent to be governed which we expect to find in single party Governments, or, as is the case here and in many other countries in Europe, in systems that produce coalition Governments. If those three elements can be brought together in Northern Ireland that community can begin the bonding that so many wish to see, a bonding that will rob men of violence of even the slightest pretext of legitimacy. Then the people of Northern Ireland can deal with their realities without having to fear that the impractical dreams of others may be imposed on them. Then, too, they can begin to work out their own solutions to the problems that face them, confident in the knowledge that Governments in Dublin and in London are supporting their work rather than impeding it.

In the motion I tried to put before this House today, Sir, I was calling on the House to affirm its belief that that is what must happen, and calling on the Government here to work with the British Government and with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to achieve it. The aim of that motion, Sir, was very plainly to bring people together. It aimed to bring this House together in unambiguous support for the process described in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and it aimed to bring the two Governments together in a constructive and positive action in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. It aimed to support the two Governments in the action that they should take with the constitutional parties on this island to bring a new sense of reality into political debate and to get away from the sterility of entrenched positions. The initiative in this regard can be taken by the two Governments and only by the two Governments. The Government here must play an active part in this endeavour. We cannot afford, and the people of Northern Ireland cannot afford, the luxury of passivity in this matter. Neither can we afford the luxury of ambiguity. There is no point in issuing rhetorical invitations to talks even when those invitations are accompanied by mysterious assurances that the Government here would be found to be more accommodating in unspecified ways than might be expected. We have heard the Taoiseach, in this very House, issue that particular mystifying invitation. What does it mean? Let us explore it. Does it mean, for example, that the Taoiseach and his party would be prepared to come off the fence, if that was ever where they really were, on the issue of divorce, in return for some unspecified political development in relation to Northern Ireland? Or does it perhaps mean that the Taoiseach and his party would be prepared to give up some other piece of their political mythology during the course of any discussions that might be held as a result of this vague invitation? Does it mean that the Taoiseach and his party would be prepared to set aside some expressed but untried constitutional reservations during the course of such discussions? This House is entitled to answers to those questions.

During the course of his remarks this morning, the Taoiseach claimed that the Coalition Government from 1982 to 1987 had nearly five years to promote the policy of devolution. The implication of his remarks is that this did not happen, and he draws conclusions from that to suggest that nothing should be done. Let me remind the Taoiseach of what actually took place during that period. The New Ireland Forum was set up in 1983 by that Government and reported in 1984. The present Taoiseach distanced himself almost immediately from the report. The then Taoiseach engaged in difficult and intensive discussions with the UK Prime Minister in 1984 and 1985. In those discussions he was able to draw on the very positive results of the forum's work. Those negotations led to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 which the present Taoiseach opposed although, of course, what he should have done was to recall that the original inspiration for that work lay in what he himself had done in 1980. The Taoiseach today recalls a passage from the communique that was issued when the agreement was signed indicating the areas on which the Inter-governmental Conference would concentrate at its initial meetings. The implication of those remarks was that devolution was in some way overlooked or set aside. He knows that there is no truth in that. His claim is nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to divert attention from the real issue.

My proposal requires an approach which is far from facile. On the contrary, it requires a high order of skill and dedication in diplomacy; but it needs two other things above all that, a recognition of the realities that face us and the courage to begin the task. It is disingenuous for the Taoiseach to claim that an approach that is based on the idea that all roads forward pass through devolution is restricted. Far from it; even the Taoiseach must agree that whatever else happens the northern Ireland community as a whole must play a part in ordering their own affairs. It is equally disingenuous for the Taoiseach to pretend that the need to examine the relationship between Unionists and the rest of the community in this island is in any way an obstacle to devolution. It is not. It is a relationship that must be explored in any event whatever path we follow.

Since this present Taoiseach took up office in 1987 I have asked him repeatedly to state his view on devolution. He has repeatedly refused to state any view. I have asked him repeatedly to agree that this is the inevitable next step in Northern Ireland. He has repeatedly refused to define any step which he would wish to take. I have been told from time to time, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that this is not the time for an initiative. I have even been told that initiatives can be dangerous. That may well be true of some initiatives. Was there ever a time when initiative was without risk? Was there ever a time when a step forward did not require a degree of courage and commitment that had to be carefully judged? There is another question, a far more important one. Has there ever been a time when immobility and a refusal to contemplate constructive moves brought any benefit to the people of Northern Ireland? The answer to each of those questions is no, and the tragic truth is there to be seen every day in the deaths and in the injuries inflicted by gunmen and bombers in Northern Ireland, in Great Britain and even in Germany. In the face of deaths and maimings who can credibly say that there is nothing we can do? Politicans cannot abdicate their responsibilities. We are elected in order to add in one way or another to the sum of human welfare. If inaction on our part is accompanied by death and destruction then surely we must act.

The motion that I sought to propose to this House, Sir, defined an act which I believe we could and should undertake, and I see some signs of a positive response to a new move. They are small, they are tentative and they demand great sensitivity but they are there. They are seedlings to be nurtured, and they are not going to be nurtured by a Government who simply concludes that everything is so difficult that there is nothing concrete we can do now.

Regardless of whether the Government act on the basis that I have set out in the motion that I have proposed, there are other things that need to be done. The Inter-governmental conference set up under the Agreement is not devoting enough attention to the political aspects of Anglo-Irish relations. This lack of attention to the political aspects of the relationship has itself been an important contributory factor to tensions in Anglo-Irish relations from January 1987 up to today. It is clear that the conference must inevitably spend a great deal of time on security issues. That should not mean they neglect political issues. If necessary, extra meetings of the conference should be convened specifically to deal with political issues.

Over the last 20 years we have criticised UK Administrations for concentrating on security to the exclusion of political issues. Irish Governments have been criticised for what the British regarded as an inadequate approach to security. It is, therefore, all the more incredible that this present Irish Government just a few weeks ago should have refused a British invitation to widen the scope of the debate in the conference to include political issues. We had yet another example of this problem last weekend. Prime Minister Thatcher is reported to have made a comment to the Taoiseach about safe havens. The Taoiseach's reported reply conveyed a note of sharpness which I think most of us in this House can well understand, but there is more to it than that.

There should be far greater and deeper understanding between two Heads of Government who are so intimately involved in the serious political issues of Anglo-Irish relations than was shown by this exchange. At the end of the day there is only one way to build that kind of understanding and that is to meet for as long as is necessary to confront the issues, to discard the unreal and irrelevant and to get down to fundamentals. That cannot be done in corridor conversations nor can it be done in the margin of European Council meetings where minds are preoccupied by other issues. The kind of understanding required simply cannot be built by contacts between Cabinet offices or by contacts between Ministers. This present Taoiseach imputed himself to be a master of the personal touch. It is long past time for him to apply himself in that way to Anglo-Irish relations.

I believe this kind of direct personal intervention by the Taoiseach will be necessary to underline the importance we attach to other issues in Anglo-Irish relations. One of the most pressing of these issues concerns the operation of the British courts in a number of cases in the mid-seventies. The revelations which led to the release of the Guildford Four have rightly raised huge question marks about some British police operations. The May inquiry is clearly needed but it does not go back far enough, and it appears there are serious questions as to how deep it can go. In the light of all that has happened and all that has been revealed there can be no doubt whatever but that the case of the Birmingham Six must be reopened and subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. The parallels are far too glaring to be ignored. Nobody with any real concern for British justice could deny that, and nobody with any real concern for British justice to Irish people should avoid any proper or direct action which he can take to ensure that this case is properly and minutely re-examined. This is another reason the Taoiseach must carry proper discussion of Anglo-Irish affairs to the level of the Heads of the respective Governments.

I want to refer to the inter-parliamentary tier. I was surprised to read in one of our newspapers a few days ago the suggestion that my recent appointment of members to that body was "precipate"— a word misused by journalists but I found it totally out of place in that report. Of course, it is not a bit precipate. I made those appointments some time after the situation in relation to the membership of that body had been clarified. My concern was to show clearly how seriously we take the work of that body, and my nominations are evidence of that.

Anglo-Irish relations are important in another context. They are, after all, the relations between two member states of the EC. The Community has embarked on an enterprise of profund significance, the unification of the Community market and eventually the construction of a true European union. The NESC have suggested, and this House by and large agrees, that our interests lie in seeing that this union is brought into being with the crucially important emphasis on ensuring a fair distribution of growth between the regions of the Community. There are sharp differences of approach between this country and the UK. The current attitude of the UK Prime Minister across a whole range of issues ranging from the social charter to monetary union seem set to frustrate the Community in this enterprise. There is surely a need for us to articulate our views, needs and ambitions directly to our nearest neighbour and partner in the EC.

I am pleased to note what the Taoiseach said today about the value of cross-Border consultation to the effects of the whole 1992 enterprise. One of the proposals I made in September of last year for the review of the Agreement was that the Inter-governmental conference be given a mandate to consider these issues. Here again there is a need for a direct and frank discussion between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. The successful and productive conduct of Anglo-Irish relations calls for confidence, frankness and absolute clarity on the part of our Government. This Taoiseach and this Government have as yet shown none of those qualities. This House and the Irish people are entitled to demand them.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Quinn

I thank the Taoiseach for facilitating the House and the Labour Party's request made on a number of occasions to have an opportunity in this House which would enable the Government first and foremost to express in a coherent and comprehensive manner their position in relation to Northern Ireland and the relationships between Ireland and Britain and both communities in Northern Ireland itself. The reason the Labour Party did not support the idea of a motion today is precisely that we share the sentiments expressed in the speech but not necessarily in the content of Deputy Dukes's contribution, which is that to cause a division in this House or to propose a motion at this time could be itself divisive. Therefore, we believe that the House needs an opportunity, and perhaps time, to reflect on what the Taoiseach said before we proceed to the stage where we start to pass motions in whatever direction we wish to travel.

The leader of my party will be responding comprehensively tomorrow in a measured manner to the Taoiseach's contribution and to the other contributions that will be made today. We wanted to have this debate for quite some time, but both Deputy Spring and I were struck by the distance which the Fianna Fáil Party have travelled and in particular by the speech the Taoiseach has given to the House today. Perhaps it is the winds of change that are blowing across Europe which enable Fianna Fáil to enter into such an historical compromise as the one expressed in the Taoiseach's speech, but I was reinforced in my analysis of it listening to Deputy Dukes's contribution. This party are now in Coalition Government with the Progressive Democrats, itself an indication of some political change. I was struck by the changes in policy that Fianna Fáil have now adopted and currently embrace relative to the points of Opposition that Deputy Dukes highlighted over the last five to eight years.

I welcome the fact that the present Fianna Fáil Government fully embrace the New Ireland Forum report. I welcome further that they embrace fully the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Taoiseach said: "I want to demolish the suggestion that because Fianna Fáil have a vision of the future, which is for us the ideal, this is some way inhibits progress in the short term". My interpretation of what the Taoiseach said is that the objective of a United Ireland is now for Fianna Fáil an ideal but is no longer necessarily a political objective. In coming to that conclusion I say, in no triumphalist way, that the position of the Fianna Fáil Party as expressed by the Taoiseach clearly represents progress that the Labour Party support and welcome. We are, perhaps for the first time since 1922 in this Chamber, united and basically agree in our analysis of what we would like to see happen on this island for all the people who live here. To that extent, while it may have taken us a long time, we should welcome it and build on it.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the SDLP Conference in Newcastle, County Down. I took that opportunity to meet with a number of people and, indeed, to visit some friends and relatives. The view expressed to me by a number of people actively involved in Irish politics in Northern Ireland was that they did not wish to see the issue of Northern Ireland politics once again become some kind of domestic political football, in the Free State, as they referred to it. I support that view. For far too long it was the temptation for domestic politicians, on this side of the island, to use Northern Ireland politics as a substitute for real politics in the area over which we had full control and jurisdiction. I would not like to think, and I hope it is not the intention of anybody in this House, that a concentration on political issues relating to the whole of this island could be construed in some way, by some people, as being a useful vehicle for having a domestic political go at our political opponents. That would serve nobody any good and whatever the temptations may be they should be vigorously resisted.

In Northern Ireland I also had the opportunity to speak to a number of people from the Unionist tradition. One of the things that frightens and worries me very much about the progress in politics that we all wish to see, including devolution, is the virtual abdication from the political process by large sections of the Unionist population and, in particular, professional, middle class or business people, people with education, resources and ability. I find that the frequent references by Unionist people to the mainland is a rather pathetic attempt to try, in some way, to bring the larger island closer to the smaller island so that somehow or other the domestic political problems of Northern Ireland, to which they belong and from where they come, could be lost and that they could move to the mainland.

When you talk with and listen to various people in Northern Ireland and hear them try to pretend that the problems of every day life there — not only the security but the economic and trading problems — can be avoided if one concentrates on the mainland, you realise the enormity of the difficulty that anybody active in politics in Northern Ireland has when they try to get a dialogue between both communities leading anywhere, but hopefully to some kind of devolution.

The SDLP's position, as expressed trenchantly at the conference in Newcastle, is that they are committed to talks, talks without preconditions, without pre-set formulae and without pre-set structures for a solution. All the previous solutions have been articulated and put on the table in various shapes but because a solution was put on the table it was immediately knocked down, thereby killing any prospect of talks that might lead to some kind of solution. Therefore, we must recognise, and this House would be well advised to work at recognising, the frame of mind in which the Unionist population in Northern Ireland finds itself — the sense of beleagured isolation they have. Until we fully recognise and understand that our efforts to achieve the sort of progress to which all of us are committed will not meet with success.

In that context the Labour Party were very disappointed that the Taoiseach was unable to find any representative of the Unionist tradition to take their seat — I regard it now as their seat — in Seanad Éireann. We believe that was a step backwards and that stronger efforts should have been made but we have no doubt that efforts were made. Perhaps in reply to this debate or at an appropriate forum the difficulties that were experienced in that respect by the Government should be explained. If we cannot find representatives of the Unionist tradition to take a seat in Seanad Éireann what prospects are there for devolution? Let us be realistic. That is the measure of the gap that is between us in some respects.

I welcome, in particular, the Taoiseach's endorsement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I recognise the enormous political difficulties that confronted the Fianna Fáil Party in coming to terms with the way in which that agreement was negotiated and the success and acclaim with which it was greeted throughout the world. I recognise that progress. I also recognise, as does the Labour Party, through our trade union contacts, the enormous sense of betrayal and isolation which many people in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland felt when that agreement went through. Let us never under estimate that because until they develop a sense of belonging all the talk and aspirations about belonging to this island, rather than to the mainland that we could express in this House will come to naught. What therefore can we do? The Taoiseach has referred to the Fianna Fáil Party as having a vision of the future — the ideal of a united Ireland. We all have that ideal but there are people who have a wider and bigger ideal — the ideal of a united Europe, the ideal of an integrated federal Europe. The possession of that ideal is not a barrier to step by step progress. The slow and relentless march of the European nations towards some greater form of unity without pre-conditions is a model we can usefully look at in relation to Northern Ireland and to the rest of this island. What, therefore, should we start to do without either abandoning the ideal or setting down preconditions for its implementation or achievement?

I should like to turn specifically to a matter the Taoiseach referred to, the forthcoming EC Presidency which gives us a particular opportunity to address European issues within the context of this island and more constructively, perhaps, to look at Irish island issues that could be successfully negotiated, built upon or developed within the framework of the European Community. I believe that the Taoiseach and the Government within the framework of the institutions that have been put in place by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, indeed, by any other bilateral institutions that may come about or simply by direct discussions could set about in a conscious and coherent way a programme of activities that would develop practical measures, practical confidence-building steps, to use a phrase from an international forum, that would reassure, in part, in a gradual way, members of the Unionist tradition who are deeply suspicious of any approach from the South. How could that be done? There are areas — not the obvious ones such as tourism and transport — that could be developed, which are of common concern and do not in any way challenge the integrity of the Unionist tradition or, in fact, their position relative to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. There is the question of the Irish Sea and the possibility of the establishment of a permanent standing conference on the Irish Sea, representative of all the authorities that share the coastline of the Irish Sea, both on this side and on the UK side. A coastline survey could also be undertaken along the entire island, North and South.

There is also the question of a joint positive health campaign in relation to problems that do not recognise any boundary or national frontiers, for example, AIDS, rabies and so on. A whole range of measures could be undertaken but they must be undertaken in a coherent and structured way. In effect, these steps must come from the Government. If they are brought forward with constructive proposals and the House is enabled to debate them, we will be positive and constructive in our response.

The Inter-governmental Conference, because of the events that occurred over the summer regarding revelations about the security forces in Northern Ireland, has been excessively dominated by security issues. It has also been dogged by political uncertainty in the South which led to an unnecessary general election in June and, regrettably, by the ill health of the former Minister for Foreign Affairs during the last two and a half years. Because of those factors the forum that would best provide an opportunity for a series of constructive measures on a bilateral basis between British and Irish Ministers on issues away from the central agenda of justice and security has not been properly availed of.

I now ask the Taoiseach to consult his colleagues and the Leaders of the parties in this House with a view to getting broad agreement for a series of measures that could be promoted by Irish Government Ministers or Ministers of State, through the framework of the Inter-governmental Conference, on a range of issues that make practical common sense. The object of these measures would be to put in place a series of proposals and achievements which would create a climate of confidence within elements of the Unionist community so that they would feel comfortable in talking to us, in relating to the other community in Northern Ireland and comfortable about their own identity to such an extent that talking to us would not threaten them in any way.

I do not for one moment doubt the Taoiseach's concern about the question of Northern Ireland and his realisation that the continued horror of violence visited daily on all the people of the two communities is not only a nightmare for them but serious concern for the rest of the island, not just in political or idealistic terms, but because it is a major factor that dominates our political agenda in economic and social terms and tourism and in how we appear to the rest of the world. This country's ability to achieve the sort of prosperity of which we are capable — and towards which we have an obligation to work — is seriously interfered with and held back by the continued campaign of violence in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland is central to this Legislature's concern and to this State's need to advance the interest of all its people. Indeed, per capita of population, we expend more resources, directly and indirectly, on security issues which are generated within the confines of another state than does the United Kingdom. Because of that, it is essential that we continue to work at making step by step progress in Northern Ireland. I share some of the concern expressed by the Fine Gael Party in the apparent lassitude that the Government displayed in their efforts to make progress in relation to Northern Ireland. Because devolution is not on at the moment, by virtue of the repeated refusals of the leaders of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland — the Taoiseach quoted Mr. Molyneaux in that regard — we should not simply say that nothing can be done. Many things can be done through the framework of the Inter-governmental Conference and through the East-West relationship to which the Taoiseach referred.

The Labour Party recognise that in the final analysis the daily horror of events in Northern Ireland — as was recently indicated to me by a member of the security forces in Northern Ireland — is, in effect, a working class war fought by representatives of the Catholic working class on one side and counter-fought, if you like, by Protestant working class people in uniform on the other. The working class communities in Northern Ireland suffer most as a result of the continued violence, in every sense of the word. The violence visited upon them should be ended as soon as possible and, in that context, I would like to see far more co-operation between the British and Irish Governments, not on the narrow band of security issues alone but in the realisation that the violence that has grown up in the last 20 years in Northern Ireland has now spawned a much more horrifying animal of which we need to be afraid. I refer to the mafioso type gangsterism that has manifested itself on building sites in Northern Ireland in the form of protection rackets and, more recently, in the continued attacks on the rail link between Belfast and Dublin.

Political violence has now become commercial violence in a number of areas. It is a form of gangsterism that owes as much to Al Capone as to James Connolly, indeed far more if the truth were known. The Irish and British Governments and other authorities should look at effective ways in which the godfathers of that gangsterism, businessmen North and South, who profit from it, can be prosecuted. There may very well be lessons to be learned from my reference to Al Capone because he was finally put away on tax evasion and not on specific crimes relating to the more obvious forms of gangsterism.

My family come from both sides of the Border and they speak disparagingly about the exclusive commercial and financial motivation of many people involved in the so-called patriotic struggle. We have to expose that kind of activity and use the instruments of Government, North and South, to take them on. In that regard, I welcome to a certain extent the progress made in Northern Ireland in relation to the protection rackets on building sites in the general east Ulster area.

The Labour Party want the Government to put on the record of this House, in a considered and measured way, their present position in relation to Northern Ireland. The leader of my party will be replying tomorrow to the speech made by the Taoiseach. We should have more debates and opportunities within the framework of our own political dialogue to review progress in relation to Northern Ireland. Questions to the Taoiseach — at Question Time — do not constitute the best forum in which discussion can take place.

We welcome the fact that the Taoiseach and the Government have allocated two days of the time of this House to discuss Northern Ireland. However, I should like to think this will not be a once-off opportunity, that when we have had a chance to analyse in full the position of the Government, the responses of other Government Ministers and the remainder of the parties represented in this House, we can examine how we should then go forward and what steps should be taken in order to achieve progress, however little that might be.

We do not believe — and certainly based on what the Taoiseach has said so far — we are not greatly reassured that the present Coalition Government are making full use of the existing institutions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement or within the EC to avail of opportunities to devise positive measures and programmes resulting in some degree of confidence being built North and South, between both communities within Northern Ireland and between both parts of this island. We do not see any evidence of such steps. We should like to be assured that such steps will be contemplated even if not at present.

Within the framework of our Presidency of the EC the Taoiseach is afforded a golden opportunity to avail of that formal position to initiate some of the steps about which I speak, to explore some of the possibilities to which I have referred in order that we could reach out to the Unionist community which to date — judging from their response — we have failed to do with any measure of success. That is the task ahead of us. We have made extraordinary progress on this side of the Border in regard to the historical position from which we began to the one now obtaining with which we are broadly in agreement. I welcome that. It is unproductive, not constructive, to crow over the changes and historical compromises arrived at along the way. By whatever route we have all arrived at the same position in relation to our attitude to Northern Ireland and given the two communities there equal validity in terms of their tradition, to borrow a phrase used by the Taoiseach. That is progress on which we should build. As far as the Labour Party are concerned, there are far too many issues of domestic political concern within the confines of this jurisdiction that would enable us to find frequent points of disagreement and conflict with the present right-of-centre Coalition Government, but Northern Ireland is not one of them. We will not render Northern Ireland politics a domestic, political football in this Chamber or State.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I shall speak for 20 minutes. Deputy De Rossa will be winding up for The Workers' Party tomorrow.

I too welcome the opportunity of discussing Anglo-Irish relations and the overall position in Northern Ireland. Although Northern Ireland is an area over which the Constitution of this State claims jurisdiction, an area which has experienced appalling violence and destruction over the past 20 years, Members of this House are rarely afforded an opportunity to address the problems of Northern Ireland, Anglo-Irish relations and our responsibilities thereto.

Unfortunately, we cannot welcome the restrictive nature of this debate, which is not really a debate at all but rather a series of statements. At the conclusion of the debate at 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, while many people will have expressed their views on Northern Ireland and the position of each party, we hope, will have been made somewhat clearer — although some will still be prevaricating — nothing new will have been decided not to table a motion before have been agreed or even discussed. It is most regrettable that the Government decided not to be table a motion before the House, even one of a limited nature, setting out a number of general principles behind which the Members of this House could have united. I was not aware of this thing called bipartisan policy until today. I wonder what it is; I still have not heard. While I have been a Member of this House I have noticed total disagreement between parties on policy with regard to Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is not any bipartisan approach. For example, we could have availed of this debate to create some type of unity behind a particular issue and perhaps to initiate some bipartisanship. The decision of the Government not to table a motion before the House simply reflects the lack of any coherent policy on Northern Ireland or Anglo-Irish relations on the part of this new Coalition Administration.

Of the 32 pages of the Joint Programme for Government agreed by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats one single paragraph only was devoted to Northern Ireland. That contained simply a statement of vague, general principles. Whatever about any other policies in this area the policy enunciated seemed to represent a total victory by Fianna Fáil over the Progressive Democrats. Certainly there was no commitment to devolved Government and no recognition of the need for dialogue between the democratic parties in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it is not alone the Irish Government who seem to have nothing new to say on Northern Ireland. The Queen's speech, delivered in Westminister on Tuesday last, demonstrated that the British Government have nothing new to say on Northern Ireland either. As an issue Northern Ireland figures very low on the list of Mrs. Thatcher's priorities. Incredibly, despite the continuing dreadful level of violence both Governments seem content to allow the situation to drift, leaving the initiative to the paramilitiaries, both Nationalist and Loyalist.

The last time this House discussed Northern Ireland in any detail was almost exactly 12 months ago. Deputies were then given an opportunity to make statements on what was called the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At that time we expressed the hope that the review process would be used as an opportunity to address the shortcomings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in particular to effect some changes in it in order to restore confidence among the Unionist community and facilitate the reinvolvement of the Unionist parties in political dialogue in Northern Ireland. The review, when finally published last May, proved to be a total non-event and received little attention here, being published just as the Dáil was dissolved and a general election called. It was simply a restatement of the commitment of both Governments to the original agreement and failed to propose any significant new initiatives or advance any suggestions as to how the current political impasse could be broken.

When the Anglo-Irish Agreement came before the Dáil for approval in 1985 we supported it, although very reluctantly, because it seemed to offer some possibility of progress toward peace, contained a commitment to democratic, devolved government and also to a Bill of Rights, objectives we consider to be essential prerequisites to progress being made in Northern Ireland. Speaking for The Workers' Party in that debate I said a fundamental flaw of the Agreement was that it was one between London and Dublin, not between the people of the Shankill and the Falls. I pointed out that the political representatives of the Unionist community had been excluded totally from the negotiations leading up to the Agreement, that having been treated in that manner the real danger was that they would retreat further into their trenches and that the differences within Northern Ireland would actually be accentuated by the Agreement. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. The Agreement did not bring peace. The political differences between the two communities were accentuated. The Unionist community remains resolutely opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its present form and it would be a grave mistake for anybody down here to assume otherwise. Against this background it is essential that the terms of the Agreement should not be considered to be written on tablets of stone. Both Governments should be prepared to show a degree of flexibility with regard to its terms in order to break the political logjam and allow dialogue to commence between the democratic political parties in Northern Ireland.

In addition, the Dublin Government have failed to pursue the limited political options available within the framework for the Agreement. The Government are committed — and this commitment is reaffirmed in the review — to supporting devolved government in Northern Ireland on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community. The Government have not only failed to pursue this matter at all but British Government sources suggest that successive Irish Governments have even failed to raise the matter at any of the Inter-governmental Conference meetings held under that agreement. The Agreement also committed both Governments to examing the advantages and disadvantages of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The Government raised this matter on one occasion — I think it was in September 1988 — but dropped it like a hot potato when the British Government suggested that a common Bill of Rights for all of Ireland might be appropriate.

Another crucial element of the Agreement was the commitment on the part of the two Governments to promote the economic and social development of those areas which had suffered as a result of instability. However, the Irish Government have done nothing to press the British Government to take the steps needed to eliminate poverty and unemployment in Northern Ireland. These are the conditions in which terrorism thrive. Instead of pressing the British Government to do their duty there the Irish Government have set about importing the very worst elements of Thatcherite economic policies into the Republic of Ireland.

I am also disappointed that no Irish Government have ever raised the question of integrated education in Northern Ireland, although it is not altogether surprising considering our constitutional position on sectarian education. It would be very naive to claim that segregated education is the totality of the problem in Northern Ireland. Certainly I am not suggesting that nor would I suggest that its ending will be a panacea for all the ills there which give rise to sectarianism. Nevertheless who can deny that sectarian education plays a major role in perpetuating sectarian attitudes and reinforcing the sectarian myths and prejudices which abound in Northern Ireland?

It is significant that the most vociferous opposition to integrated education in Northern Ireland has come from the Roman Catholic hierarchy despite the fact that opinion polls show that many Catholics are very well disposed towards integrated education. As recently as 9 November The Irish Times carried a report which stated that the Catholic Bishops considered the limited assistance in regard to funding for integrated schools promised by the British Government to be discriminatory and, therefore, illegal. Anybody who is familiar with the situation realises what small assistance is being given to a very small number of integrated schools. The attitude of the Catholic hierarachy to integrated education is backward and quite sectarian. The Bishops seem to be prepared to pray with members of other denominations, attend their funerals and issue joint statements but apparently draw the line at allowing Catholic children to share a classroom with children who are members of other Churches.

Progress towards integrated education is essential as part of a long term solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government should be pressing the British Government to provide far more assistance for the establishment of integrated schools. Of course, it is not just the attitude of the Irish Government which deserves criticism. The actions of the British authorities, in particular the arrogant and overbearing attitude of Mrs. Thatcher, have cast a cloud over Anglo-Irish relations on many occasions during the past few years. The whole series of shoot-to-kill incidents and the ensuring coverup involving the Stalker affair quite rightly caused public indignation in both Britain and Ireland. The belated release of the Guildford Four was, of course, welcomed but some of the details which have emerged since then have only added to the doubts about the adequacy of the British legal system. Despite the serious doubts about the validity of their convictions and the belief held by many people in Ireland and Britain that they were convicted in the wrong, the British Government have refused to consider releasing the Birmingham Six.

Within the past few months there have been alarming disclosures about the leaks of confidential security documents in Northern Ireland to Loyalist paramilitary groups. These are at present the subject of the Stevens inquiry. These leaks pose a major threat to public confidence in the system of policing in Northern Ireland. The resolution of this controversy demands the most vigorous and speedy investigation and the bringing to justice of those involved in any illegal activities. There must be no more cover-ups. We have always asserted that the State and all its institutions must be bound by the rule of law. To depart from that principle would not only demean the State and its servants but would place the State on the same plane as terrorists. Unfortunately, statements made by some politicians in Britain and Northern Ireland seem to imply that it is regrettable that the security forces are bound by the rule of law. This would be a negation of civil rights and democracy and would be the hallmark of a totalitarian State.

I want to refer briefly to the motion calling for a devolved government which has been circulated by Fine Gael. This seems to be the season for Fine Gael conversions on quite a number of issues. Having failed to do anything to promote the case for a devolved government during the 18 month period they were in office after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement——

Mr. Barry

How does the Deputy know that?

Tomás Mac Giolla

Interestingly enough those are precisely the words Deputy Barry used when I raised this point with the Taoiseach in March 1988. On that occasion I pointed out to Deputy Barry that The Workers' Party had a meeting with Mr. Tom King in Northern Ireland who informed us that this was the case. In any event if Deputy Barry looks at the speech the Taoiseach made today he will see it confirms that during their period in office up to 1987 the Coalition Government never raised the issue of a devolved government at any Anglo-Irish Conference.

Mr. Barry

We raised it with the British Government.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Is the Deputy denying that that is so?

Mr. Barry

We raised it with the British Government and with Mr. Tom King.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Deputy had better sort it out with the Taoiseach——

Mr. Barry

I intend to.

Tomás Mac Giolla

——because he has the records and there is no record of the Coalition Government ever having raised this matter.

Having failed to raise this issue while they were in office Fine Gael are now critical of the failure of the present Administration to do anything to achieve a devolved Government. That is a conversion and perhaps Deputy Dukes has a stronger commitment to this issue than the previous occupant of his office. I hope this is an indication of the total conversion of Fine Gael on the matter because as well as not having done anything on the issue of a devolved government over a period of 18 months, they actually supported the SDLP boycott which sabotaged the Northern Ireland Assembly. As I said it was a British Minister who made it clear to us that the issue had not been raised under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

A couple of years ago the British Government said that devolution of power on an agreed basis to a government in Northern Ireland was their first priority. I presume they have not changed their position and that they want to devolve power on a government in Northern Ireland on an agreed basis. The Fine Gael Party have expressed their support for a devolved government and I believe the Labour Party are of the same opinion. I am not so sure about the Labour Party position today, but I hope they are of the same opinion. The Fianna Fáil Party are, apparently, not of that opinion.

Why was the question never raised under the structure of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Was it because John Hume said no? Is it not a fact that neither the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party nor the Labour Party, can take any initiative on Northern Ireland unless they have the imprimatur of John Hume? The Government well understand that John Hume does not want devolved Government at the moment. He is the man who is listened to in London, in Dublin, in Washington and in Brussels. I do not think he is going to relinquish that great power to a devolved Government of which he would not be chief executive. He says he will talk to anybody but he keeps putting obstacles in the way of Unionists to prevent them entering into serious dialogue. At the same time, our Taoiseach continues to say that his door is always open for the Unionists to walk in ignoring the point that a door is open for two purposes, for somebody to walk in and for somebody to walk out. He has never considered walking out the door to meet the Unionists; that would be too serious a matter.

Changes of leadership in both Unionists and Nationalist parties would be a great help in Northern Ireland because Molyneaux and Paisley have not learned how to say the word "yes". If there was a change of leadership enormous progress could be made by the successors who have already established that they have a more liberal and flexible approach than Molyneaux and Paisley. I hope that the Fine Gael Party are now definitely committed to devolved Government and that they will pursue it at home and abroad, North and South, and help to remove whatever obstacles there are to dialogue and discussion. It is my belief that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is still an obstacle. The Official Unionist Party have clearly stated that they are in favour of devolved Government while the Democratic Unionist Party have indicated that they are in favour of devolved government, but both have indicated that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is the greatest obstacle in their path. Perhaps some face saving is needed here but certainly our Government should be endeavouring to find some way to set that obstacle aside or make an opening in that obstacle to allow the Unionist parties to come through.

We have suggested suspension of the agreement for a short time but, of course, the greatest obstacle to political progress and the development of democracy in Northern Ireland is the campaign being waged by the Provisional IRA against the Protestant people and the sectarian response to that campaign by the UVF and the UDA. It is a campaign which has been responsible for the high walls, of which there are 13 measuring 25 feet in height, between Protestant and Catholics in the streets of Belfast; it is responsible for the gradual breakdown in contact and travel between the people of Belfast and Dublin and, of course, it is responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 people. It is my hope that following this debate new efforts will be made by all parties in the House to open up dialogue for peace and reconciliation. The Taoiseach said that we must be careful that we do not make mistakes but the biggest mistake we are making is doing nothing.

Mr. D. Ahern

At the outset I should like to congratulate the Acting Chairman. I should also like to congratulate the Labour Party on their stance on the Fine Gael motion. They have adopted a realistic and well thought out attitude to this matter. I have no doubt that many people outside the House are keeping an eye on what is going on here today. They will be taking soundings from the attitudes adopted and the statements made by the parties. We have often heard the adage in Irish history, divide and conquer and in my view a House divided would be easily conquered. It is slightly reprehensible that an attempt was made to divide the House on this important issue. I have no doubt that there will be delight in some quarters at the fact that the House divided on this issue.

It might be a signal to others that political progress may not be possible. It is for that reason that I express the view that the approach adopted by the Labour Party, and the Government, is the correct one. Deputy Quinn asked about the prospect of a cross-Border programme. I should like to remind him that the Taoiseach delat with that topic in the course of his speech. He told the House that a cross-Border programme would be brought forward using EC Structural Funds. It is to be hoped that there will be involvement from both sides of the Border. I would welcome such a programme.

This debate on Anglo-Irish affairs is coming at a time when horrific events are an almost daily occurrence. No news bulletin can be broadcast without us learning of a tragic event. That is why we on this side of the Border should not leave any stone unturned in our efforts to secure political progress. In my opinion the source of all our problems on this island emanates from the imposition of the Border as a solution to the Irish problem. Ultimately, I am certain that there will be no peace or stability on the island as a whole until we are unified as a nation not only in a physical sense but unified on how the two distinct identities on the island can live together.

It is because we must strive towards this end that the efforts to entice Unionist political leaders into dialogue is vital for progress. The Taoiseach has on numerous occassions and again last week and today, made attempts to initiate such discussions with the Unionist leaders without preconditions and in parallel to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is only by that type of dialogue that we will allay each other's fears and understand each other's aspirations properly. For instance, in a recent discussion with a leading Unionist politician I was astounded to learn that he was still under the impression that the special position of the Catholic Church remained enshrined in our Constitution. I had difficulty convincing him that a referendum some years ago overwhelmingly agreed to delete that Article from our Constitution. I mention that to illustrate how vitally important it is that dialogue continues at all levels.

One avenue which will be explored with more frequency in the coming years will be the impact of 1992 on the island. I understand that we are the envy of some of the leaders in the North in the amount of Structural Fund assistance we have obtained. Had they been at one with us in our application to the European Commission I have no doubt that they would have fared much better than being attached to the UK application.

The Anglo-Irish Review, which reaffirmed the resolve of the two Governments to the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, laid great emphasis on North-South economic and social co-operation. Areas such as transport, communications, tourism, industry, agriculture, energy and health provide scope for co-operation. For instance, in view of the continuing disruption of the North-South rail link, it is vital that there is co-operation to ensure the continuance of that link to keep the economic life of the North and the South intact.

I should like to refer to a topic mentioned by Deputy Quinn, the need for a conference on the Irish Sea. I agree that that should be looked at and that we should have a body like the Nordic Council. That is something the Anglo-Irish Conference should look at. The Anglo-Irish Agreement has played a major part in smoothing in some way the turbulent seas of Anglo-Irish relations. It has reduced the need for megaphone diplomacy. If there are any problems in recent times, they have been mainly on the British side rather than ours. There were times when our side could have responded to outlandish public statements from the far side of the Irish Sea but quite rightly they declined to do so and instead used the mechanism of the Anglo-Irish Conference to counter these outbursts. The Anglo-Irish Secretariat is well established and works well on a practical level. However, I have put forward a number of problems to the Anglo-Irish Secretariat which are meeting with a blank wall, despite constant pressure.

It has been suggested by Deputy Dukes that the Irish Government, the British Government and the Northern political parties, in particular the SDLP, are not pushing for devolution. Since Deputy Dukes made that statement nothing much has been heard from him on it, apart from today. I have no doubt that this is due to the adverse response to his outburst which had, in my opinion, more to do with the desire to bash the Irish Government than to be constructive — it is what we call the new Fine Gael or the post-Tallaght Fine Gael.

Deputy Dukes inferred that Fianna Fáil and the SDLP had not the courage to take steps towards the establishment of a devolved Government in Northern Ireland. Let us ask what his Government did from 1982 to 1987. As far as I am aware there was little or no reference anywhere to progress on devolution during that time. From the signing of the Agreement until his Government's defeat in 1987, absolutely nothing was done in this regard. Deputy Dukes knows quite well why there was and is no progress on the question of devolution. Article 4 of the Agreement and paragraph 7 of the review document recognised that:

Achievement of devolution depends on the co-operation of the constitutional representatives of both traditions within Northern Ireland.

At present there is no such co-operation nor has there been since the signing of the agreement. For Deputy Dukes to try to force the issue on devolution is to say the least mischievous and unhelpful. Should the Irish Government put forward an initiative along those lines, I have no doubt that the Unionists would not consider it because it had come from the Republic of Ireland. Initiatives which are not well thought out and have not resulted from an input by both sides in Northern Ireland could be counterproductive — at best destabilising the situation or at worst it could lead to bloodshed. The Government's view on devolution, with which I thoroughly agree, is enunciated in the Taoiseach's reply to a parliamentary question on 19 July 1989:

It continues to be the British Government's policy, supported by the Irish Government, to encourage progress towards the devolution of responsibility for certain powers to elected representatives in Northern Ireland as set out in Article 4 of the agreement. Both sides recognise that achievement of devolution depends on the co-operation of constitutional representatives of both traditions within Northern Ireland.

Deputy Dukes did a disservice to the SDLP in their efforts to break the deadlock while at the same time endeavouring to represent properly the majority of Nationalist opinion in Northern Ireland. Their task is difficult enough without being criticised by someone very much removed from the coalface.

It is of grave concern to us that the UDR are not accompanied by the police in all instances. We were given a commitment at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and since then that this would be the case, but unfortunately progress has been very slow. It was announced recently that plastic bullets would be issued to the UDR. While the British side may have a case to suggest that the UDR may need to use plastic bullets in riots, the UDR were not to be in this position and the fact that they would be accompanied by the RUC would obviate the necessity for them to use plastic bullets. We are also very worried about the recent well documented cases of collusion between the paramilitaries and the security forces. Cross-Border security is a major concern to my constituents and to their neighbours on the far side of the Border. The south Armagh-south Down area is virtually a military zone. People are unbelievably inconvenienced when going about their daily routine, but they put up with this in the interests of preventing further violence. The issue of the numerous checkpoints should be handled sensitively. The closing off of roads is a major issue which we should take up with the British side to ascertain whether each and every closure is necessary, as at most times the closure is counterproductive and causes resentment among the locals.

The recent statement by Mr. Peter Brooke on holding talks with Sinn Féin should be welcomed. The situation is far too serious for any of us put our heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away. Sinn Féin represent a sizeable proportion of the Nationalist community in the North and the British, in particular, should not rule them out of the equation. Mr. Brooke's statement was refreshing coming from the British side and showed a willingness to investigate all options. While Mr. John Hume and Mr. Gerry Adams were having talks over a year ago, Irish people of all shades of opinion held their breath in the hope that something positive would come out of those discussions. It is only by this type of dialogue that the situation can be reversed. In my opinion, Mr. Brooke's position is an extension of that. Are his critics suggesting that should the possibility arise where the Provos were to call a ceasefire he should not explore this avenue? The British side would be irresponsible if they did not. We owe it to all the dead and injured to explore every avenue if it would lead to all paramilitaries downing arms.

We have heard a lot in recent days about safe havens. I agree entirely with the Taoiseach when he said we know of no safe havens. If anyone knows of such safe havens they should come forward with the facts. The Garda have my full confidence and the confidence of almost the entire Irish nation. The same cannot be said for the security forces in the North. This is one of the reasons terrorists are difficult to apprehend. While military saturation may be of benefit in the short term, it has an undoubted down-side in making for poor relationships with the public. Relationships between the security forces and the public living on the other side of the Border from my county are at an all time low. It will be difficult to address this problem but the British must be made aware how the average person is adversely affected. Everyone can do this by using the Anglo-Irish process, particularly the Anglo-Irish Secretariat.

We should not close off avenues by making rigid, dogmatic statements. We should state our position clearly but at the same time be prepared to be flexible. Only by doing this will we be in a position to bring forward proper alternatives to the present unsatisfactory impasse. I listened attentively to Deputy Mac Giolla's contribution. He berated Fine Gael for changing their position throughout their history. I think Deputy Mac Giolla — who is not present in the Chamber — would want to be careful that we do not delve too far back into history or it might be very embarrassing for The Workers' Party, as they are now known.

I welcome the fact that time has been made available to debate this issue. For someone like me who has daily contacts from the far side of the Border, it is vitally important that we make our position known so that we can show the people we represent on both sides of the Border how we feel on aspects relating to the Six Counties.

Mr. Harte

I want to comment on Deputy Ahern's chastisement of Deputy Mac Giolla. I think we should not go back too far in history because in all parties there are things that we cannot be too proud of. If the failure of the Irish nation can be placed at the door of any group, it is at the door of the Catholic majority in Ireland. Deputy Ahern said that all our troubles stem from Partition but, he forgets that between 1920 and 1930, Partition was only a line on a map of Ireland and there was free movement of traffic across the Border. There were no restrictions on the free movement of goods across the Border. It was the economic war which led to divisions between North and South. This resulted in the Catholics in Northern Ireland now not wanting to join with us for economic reasons and the Protestants not wanting to join with us for political and economic reasons. We have compounded the problem. Partition may be part of the problem but it is not the problem. It was the Fianna Fáil Party who compounded it through their bad economic policies by starting the economic war which we lost.

In a very early conversation which I had with the Rev. Ian Paisley he said to me: "This is about Catholic and Protestant and the sooner we realise that the better". I did not take the man seriously but during the years I have come to the conclusion that it is about Catholic and Protestant. The whole world sees it that way, but we invent little names such as Nationalist, Republican, Unionist and Loyalist just to accommodate the bigotry of some on both sides. Deputy Mac Giolla referred to the walls which divide the Catholic and Protestant communities in Belfast, while Deputy Ahern said that there was no confidence in the security forces in Northern Ireland simply because their membership is mostly Protestant. He said the Catholics will not join because it is a Protestant force.

The British look on the Irish as both friend and foe. They see the Protestants as being their friends and the Catholics as being their foes. The Protestants do not shoot British soldiers. Occasionally they do but they do not as a rule, while the Catholics do. A few weeks ago Gerry Adams accused the Catholic hierarchy of being anti-Republican and Bishop Cathal Daly of being anti-Republican and pro-British. If he was trying to find a hierarchy which is anti-Republican why did he not take a look at the Protestant hierarchy who make no apology for being anti-Republican? Why did he not single out a Protestant Bishop and say he was anti-Republican and pro-British, as they all are? Subconsciously, Gerry Adams was saying to us that because we are Catholics we should be on his side. His subconscious was showing us the way he was thinking. It is Catholic and Protestant which his subconscious really sees. It is along those lines that I propose to approach this debate.

We should remember when the Anglo-Irish Agreement is discussed in this House that it is not the first agreement entered into by the British and Irish Governments in an effort to get the British out of Ireland. Over two hundred years ago, in 1780, in what was known as Grattan's Parliament, Grattan's thoughts were along the lines of economic union, free trade and a common currency, with political separation from Westminster. No Irishman, whether he was Catholic or Protestant, wanted in those days to be governed by English people and a Protestant parliament in Westminster. That is still the case today, even among the Paisleyites and Official Unionists. They do not want to be governed by the Westminster Parliament; they want the right to govern themselves. When they say they want Stormont back again, that is really what they are saying. Of course we do not have to state our position.

Between 1780 and 1800 we had Grattan's Parliament. For 20 years Ireland had it's own Parliament. It was going to work but the big mistake was when Britain brought in the Act of Union in 1800. It was not long after that when the British discovered that they had made a terrible error. Gladstone tried to introduce a Home Rule Bill in April 1886 and again in January 1893. Whatever arguments there may have been about the Home Rule Bill, whether it was going to be good or bad for Ireland, there is no doubt that it was aimed at getting Britain to disengage from Ireland but it failed. Asquith again tried to introduce Home Rule in 1912. Whatever else we can say about his Bill it was aimed at getting Britain to disengage from Ireland. Whatever arguments we may have had about the Treaty — whether we are pro-or anti-Treaty — the one vital ingredient was its aim to get Britain to disengage from Ireland. Whatever our opposition to the setting up of the Stormont Parliament may have been it was about disengagement of Britain from Ireland. How many times do the British Government have to tell us or how many times do the British people have to spell out that they want to be out of this country? If that is not evidence of their desire to leave, then I do not know what I am talking about.

What was inherent in the Sunningdale Agreement? It stated that when Irish people north of the Border want to joint with the rest of the island of Ireland the British Government will introduce laws to make that possible. Whatever arguments there may have been for or against that, it was aimed at the disengagement of Britain from Ireland. That is the clear message being expressed. The same arguments can be put forward about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At last the British Parliament see, as Asquith, Gladstone and the British Parliament of 150 to 200 years ago saw, that Britain has no role to play in Ireland and no advantage to gain by seeing one group as a friend and the other as a foe, and that all they are doing is compounding the difficulties for themselves and for us. The British people want to be out. There is more talk in the Unionist Headquarters, in Glengall Street, about union with Britain than there is at No. 10 Downing Street.

The only people talking about union with Britain nowadays are the Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland. The sooner the Protestant community in the North see that the British Government are some day going to find a way of getting out of Ireland, when they have to negotiate their own future, the better. The challenge facing the Government and the leaders of the Opposition parties is to try to communicate with the leaders of the Protestant community in the North and ask them to come to the table. If they fail to do this then they must bring their propaganda, for the want of a better word, to the Protestant people in Northern Ireland who are yearning for a settlement of this dispute and who are no longer following their leaders as the events of the past few weeks show.

In spite of this we keep chipping away at each other in this House — megaphone diplomacy. My own party are as guilty as Fianna Fáil. We do not have clean hands. We all have to share the blame for what has happened. I see no reason why we should set up a secretariat so that British and Irish politicians can talk about the problem and so that we can do away with this megaphone diplomacy between Britain and Ireland while we behave in a different way in the Republic. I do not want to go into that in great detail but whoever the cap fits, let that person put it on.

I have been arguing in this House since I first became interested in Northern Ireland that the attempts at finding solutions to the Irish problem must start in this House. If we cannot get one off the ground in Dáil Éireann we should not be Members of this parliament. If we are not adult enough to talk to each other we should not be leaders of parties or Taoisigh of Governments.

The arguments for and against devolution have been set out. What in fact is meant by devolution? There are words in the English language which are described as being obstructive or blocking words.

"Divorce" is one such word. I do not want to go through the list but "devolution" is also such a word.

Mr. McGahon

It is a release.

Mr. Harte

What do we mean when we use the word devolution? At one time the terms "power sharing" or "shared responsibility" were used. What we are saying to the Northern Protestants is: "Look, treat Catholics up there well, bring them into a political system in which they will feel happy to be productive rather than destructive. If you do not force them into a system they do not want, we will not force you into a system you do not want and then together let us work out the future". That is what we mean when we speak about devolution, power sharing, shared responsibility or whatever. Our subconscious is saying to the Protestant community in the North to settle their differences and talk. There is a big obligation on the leaders of the Protestant community in the North, being the majority group, to give a lead in that direction, just as there is a major obligation on us on this side of the Border, being the majority group, to give a lead.

If the Protestant leaders in the North do not listen to the Catholic leaders of the South there is a moral obligation on them to lead and communicate with their Catholic people in Northern Ireland. Protestant leaders cannot have it both ways. The British look at the Irish as friends and foes. I championed this type of debate while being a member of the Interparliamentary Union. Incidentally, I would like to take a little credit that in the early days of my membership of the Interparliamentary Union I suggested to the leader of my party, then Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, that there should be an Anglo-Irish Committee within the IPU, because all over the world there are little groups of countries forming inter-parliamentary unions with sub-committees. I was disappointed that the leader did not put me on such a committee but that was a matter for him to decide.

In dealing with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the way the British look at us, I would like the new Parliamentary committee of the British-Irish group to grasp the message that the British should not look at the Irish as being either friends or foes, at the Protestants as being friends and the Catholics as being foes. We are all Irish and we are only anti-British to the extent that the British pursue bad policies in Northern Ireland. To that extent I plead guilty to being anti-British Government policy. I do not like British policies in Northern Ireland but that does not classify me as an enemy of Britain. Tens of thousands of Irish people from the community from which I have come have joined the British Army, Navy and Air Force, fought their wars and died for Britain. Enemies do not do things like that, so whatever else we are we are not enemies. Hundreds of thousands of Irish people have gone to Britain and have married spouses there and brought up law-abiding families and have become more British than the British themselves. Enemies do not do things like that and that clear message should be got across to the British politicians. We are not enemies of Britain; we just oppose their Northern Ireland policies and we would like them to be neutral in their dealing with Ireland.

In looking at who are Britain's friends, I say the Protestant people of Northern Ireland who call themselves Unionists are not really Unionists. They agree with the British Government policies in Northern Ireland because the policies suit them. If the British Government were to change their policies drastically to preach Irish reunification, would the Protestant leaders in Northern Ireland continue to be friends of Britain and continue to say that they were Unionists? Would Ian Paisley be saying that he was pro-British? If the British Government took a clear position to unite Ireland would Gerry Adams be anti or pro-British? The clear message is that we are all Irish just as the people in Scotland are Scottish and the people who live in England are English and the people who live in Wales are Welsh.

From reading history from Grattan forward I can see that we have made no progress. I had the very unpleasant experience of visiting a school friend in hospital in this city a couple of hours before he died of cancer. This man had tricked the doctor into telling him what his family had known for some time, that he was dying from cancer. I went to see this man in a state of high emotion, with his family standing outside in the corridor. This man was a personal friend, though not a member of my party, who voted for me because of our friendship. This man never liked the way I spoke on Northern Ireland issues and often advised me that if I stopped making speeches on Northern Ireland in Donegal I would get far more votes. When I visited that young man a few hours before he died I started by asking "where do I start this conversation" and he said that he would start it for me. He had read where I had been speaking again on Northern Ireland and he had come to realise that this country was not ready for unity, and he said, "If it was ready for unity the Protestants would want to join with us". Those were the thoughts of a man almost dead and was he not telling the truth? Why can we not see things as clearly as that?

There will be no settlement in Ireland until we come to terms with the real problems which are not political but sectarian problems which find their roots in education. Who is responsible for education here? It is not only the politicians. Let us be blunt about it. It is the churches and they carry a heavy responsibility for what has happened in the last 200 years. I refer to the churches both Catholic and Protestant. The sooner they get their act together the better because they are losing touch with the people fast.

I am not blaming the church leaders of today or the politicians of today. We were all born into this. I am blaming the successive generations of Irish people for the last 200 years. Some of the politicians talked about some form of self-government for Ireland while others wanted total political separation. We could contrast what Grattan was thinking 200 years ago with our entry into the Common Market. In becoming members of the Common Market we wanted political separation from Brussels. We did not want to be governed by Brussels but we wanted to share in the economic prosperity——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Jacob)

The Deputy has less than three minutes left.

Mr. Harte

——and in the free trade of the Common Market and we wanted a common currency. Grattan had that worked out 200 years ago as the solution to the Irish-British problem, but it was rejected by Britain. That is what Stormont was about — free trade, a common currency, economic union and political separation. The mistake was that Stormont did not make the Catholics part of it. If they had, Northern Ireland would have been a different place in which to live.

I do not know what role I have to play but my commitment to peace between the traditions of Irish people is total. I will play whatever role I must and will speak frankly and courageously when I have to. It is claimed that there will be no peace in Ireland until the British go. I do not disagree with that. The problem is that they will not go until there is peace and it is up to the Irish to establish peace. If that conclusion is right, who is keeping the British in Ireland at the moment? I say it is those who generate violence, the Provisional IRA. If the Provisional IRA were to leave down their guns and come into the constitutional political arena there would be no reason not to talk.

Let me come to a point I almost overlooked. The Unionists claim they were never consulted about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In the parliamentary democracy we accept in Britain and Ireland it is the Cabinets which govern, not parliaments, much to the disappointment of the people outside. I was told yesterday that Deputy Haughey, as leader of Fianna Fáil in Opposition, was not consulted on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I take it Fianna Fáil in Opposition in this House were not consulted. I, as a backbencher on the Government side, was not consulted. The Cabinet governed. They took the decisions and called us into Government offices the day before it was announced and we were told what the position was. I can imagine Mrs. Thatcher doing the same thing in Britain. I cannot imagine her consulting the Labour Party about what the British Government were deciding, or consulting her own back benchers. Surely the Protestant politicians in the North, the Unionist grouping, understand the type of parliamentary democracy of which they are part and that this is the way things are done. What special right did they have to be consulted in those circumstances? Personally I say they should have been consulted and that Deputy Haughey should have been consulted. The contents of the agreements, the 1921 Treaty, the Sunningdale Agreement and, now, the Anglo-Irish Agreement have always been a closely guarded secret until they were announced, and that was a mistake. There should be open consultation when serious matters like that are being negotiated so that the end product will be ours and not theirs and ours.

Mr. McCreevy

Deputy Harte is right in saying that everybody on this island has been nurtured on particular views about the whole Irish-British situation, and perhaps we are all prisoners of that. I do not profess to be a fountain of knowledge on solutions to the Northern Ireland problem; if words could have solved this matter it would have been solved hundreds of years ago but I do have a particular viewpoint on the whole Anglo-Irish question which I do not think is reiterated on my side of the House as often now as it was in the past.

I agree with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and with the Secretariat for the fundamental reason that they are a recognition at long last that the Government on this side of the Border have a legitimate interest in the affairs of the Six Counties. This new situation gives opportunity to Ministers on this side of the Border to deal in a rational manner with problems that may arise. When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was announced the Nationalist population of the Six Counties felt they had at last got something they never had before.

The Irish and British Governments have contrasting perspectives of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was heralded with great trumpeting from all sides but the British undoubtedly have a different view of what the Anglo-Irish Agreement is about. I think the British Prime Minister and the British Cabinet see the Agreement as something that will be there for ever more, to do with security, an opportunity for the security forces on both sides of the Border to co-operate in bringing an end to violence. That is not the view of this Government nor was it the view of the previous Government. We see it as part of a long-term process. I am sad to note that no progress has been made by the British on other outstanding aspects which were to come about as a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As a result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement the then Government under Dr. FitzGerald went ahead with a new extradition agreement and we kept our part of the bargain in that regard; but it was also understood, at least by me, that there would be changes in regard to the Ulster Defence Regiment. However, in the past couple of months, the British Secretary of State has more or less announced there will be no changes at all. There have been meetings between our Foreign Minister and the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom. The Ministers of this Government came back after many hours of talking and, no matter how well they glossed over it, they really had nothing to say other than that the British were not going to do anything about the Ulster Defence Regiment. I hope that is not the situation but it is the impression I got. The Unionist leadership are saying they are not prepared to do anything whatsoever or engage in any form of dialogue unless the agreement is suspended. I am not in favour of suspending the agreement on those terms. Neither would I be against finding a form of words which would allow the Unionist leadership to get out of the dilemma they are in at the moment.

I know that nowadays it is not cricket, even on the Fianna Fáil side, to refer to past history; but a couple of things must be said. The Unionist leadership have long believed that if they dig in their heels nothing is ever going to change. History has shown us that. In the twenties the late Mr. W. T. Cosgrave commented, at the time when Craig, the Northern Ireland Permier, refused to appoint a representative to the Boundary Commission, that the Ulster Unionists and Protestants were the spoiled children of politics who had been so long accustomed to getting their own way by sheer obstinacy that they had become quite incapable of making concessions. Fianna Fáil speakers do not generally quote Mr. W. T. Cosgrave.

Mr. McGahon

No, they quote Wolfe Tone.

Mr. McCreevy

What W.T. Cosgrave said then is as true today as it was when he said it. Since the sixties there have been developments in the Six Counties resulting now in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and previously the Sunningdale Agreement. Unionist leaders have had to be dragged screaming into modern democratic politics. Deputy Austin Currie, who is a very welcome addition to this House, will remember as the leading campaigner at the time on issues such as the housing situation, gerrymandering, one-man one vote and the whole civil rights area that these things were not got by normal politics. The Unionist leaders had to be forced by the British Government into making any concessions at all.

Irish people on both sides of the Border have very long memories. We can go back to what happened hundreds of years ago regarding oppression but that is the nature of people. We cannot wipe out 800 years of history by saying those things never happened. The Nationalist community in the Six Counties for the past 60 years — and for 100 years before that — have seen that the Unionist dominated politics of the North have meant that they have wrung concessions from them only late in the day and that leaves a legacy of resentment on the Nationalist side.

I like to think that my views about most aspects of Irish politics, economics and social issues on this side of the Border can be termed moderate. Unfortunately — or fortunately — my views regarding the Northern Ireland question are those I was brought up as a child to believe in. They may not be as popular now even on my side of the House as they once were but facts are always facts. As long as there is partition there will always and ever be violence. It was an artificial solution to a problem and as long as it remains there may be periods when there will be no violence but the last 70 years teach us that there never has been a decade when there has not been some form of violence. As long as partition remains some group, some number, small maybe at times, of Irish people will take up arms.

If I want to solve a problem I seek the basic cause of that problem. In my opinion all the difficulties in Anglo-Irish relations, all the violence in the North, go back to partition. That is and will continue to be the cause of violence. The violence may cease for a couple of years but a sufficient number of Irish people believe the island of Ireland is one nation and they will not accept the unnatural partition of that island. As long as partition remains there cannot be normal relations with states such as the UK even though we are neighbours and separated by just a very narrow channel. The cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six together with the natural distrust of Irish people of British justice also lead to violence.

Why this continuous violence? Unless politics can be seen to be working people will engage in violence. People have changed their views down the years. The party Deputy De Rossa now leads were involved not so long ago in violence. They believed in a violent solution to the problem of the Six Counties. I am glad to see their views have changed. If you go back far enough to the twenties, you will find the Fianna Fáil Party of which I am a member changed their attitude. We all learn, but unless politics is seen to be working, unless politicians and governments are seen to work, the problem will remain.

It may not be quite the best thing to ask in the hallowed Chambers of this House, but would we have had any Anglo-Irish Agreement or any progress at all but for the violence that has continued since the sixties? The IRA will continue to exist and to get support from enough people on both sides of the Border for as long as politicians, the Unionists and the British and Irish Governments do not seem to be making any progress. Always it has been the case that when the British were involved in any part of the world in which there was violent conflict, they talked eventually to the men of violence after solutions had been found. The same applies here. The British would be rid of the Six Counties problem if they could, but there is a long history of violence in the whole Irish cause.

Members on both sides of the House have been nurtured in the belief that if it were not for the activities of 1916 and the violence that followed we would not have got our independence at all. That is not in the new revisionist theory of Irish history. You should not really refer to those things. It is not really cricket to speak of Irish unity. It is not right to speak of the history of past oppressions from the British and it is certainly not right to speak about the violence from 1916 to 1920. That is not on the cards anymore. We should forget all these things. However, we have all been brought up to believe that you do not wring concessions from the British except by violence, and that is the sad thing about it. If I remember rightly, Liam Lynch said in the twenties: "It is a pity that the soldiers must hew for politicians to follow". Unfortunately for as long as partition remains this attitude will remain for some Irish people.

What has never been tried has been, what was official Fianna Fáil policy back in 1975. We used to favour British withdrawal from the country and our being left to sort out the matter ourselves.

Everything else has been tried but has not worked and never will work as long as there is partition and the unnatural division of this island. Politicians and Governments should try to make progress but this festering sore will remain as long as partition remains.

I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Irish Government to act in some specific cases regarding the treatment of Irish prisoners in British jails. In respect of the case now known as the Winchester Three, a chap by the name of Finbar Cullen, who is a constituent of mine, with McCann and Shanahan, received a 25 year sentence on the general "catch-all" charge of conspiring with persons unknown to murder persons unknown. Thank God at least the Guildford Four have been released. It is the belief of most people on both sides of the Irish Sea that the Birmingham Six are innocent as well. I do not believe that sending cases back to courts of criminal appeal and so on will achieve anything, but the Home Secretary, who is the political head of the security forces there, can act in the matter. We had an appeal some time ago which achieved absolutely nothing. It was a total waste of time as will be any attempt at sending the case of the Birmingham Six back to the courts but the Home Secretary can act. I would like to make sure that the Irish Ministers at their meetings with their British counterparts will press home this matter.

A 63 year old man, Joseph McKenney, is serving 16 years in a British prison. I understand he is in a very bad state of health and I would like to ask that our Ministers at their next meeting with their British counterparts consider at least the possibility of moving this kind of prisoner back to Northern Ireland to serve the remainder of their sentences. This would be on compassionate grounds.

Another matter that concerns me greatly is that an extradition case is at present before the courts, that of James Pius Clarke. Mr. Clarke's return to Northern Ireland is sought. A Member of this House, Deputy James McDaid, has sworn an affidavit that on the night this person was supposed to be involved in the offence in Northern Ireland he was in his company. As I understand law there is no way the Supreme Court can look at that matter except in relation to the extradition warrants or whatever. Surely when such evidence comes before the court — and there are other grave doubts as to whether Clarke is guilty of the offence with which he is charged — there is a process to refer that kind of case and not extradite a person.

I cannot honestly say that in the next ten years there will be any great change. There has not been any great change over the past 20 years but that must not stop us from continuing our efforts. If politicians and governments could be seen to be making progress then the people who support the men of violence would also cease their activities.

Mr. Durkan

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak here on this important issue. I listened with interest to the remarks of my constituency colleague, Deputy McCreevy. While I understand and appreciate many of the things he said — he merely underpinned and underscored some of the things which have happened around us — I would like to say that violence, without a doubt, is a legacy of this country and of Anglo-Irish relations which have been inherited from our past. This is a situation which, unfortunately, has been allowed to continue. There is a number of reasons for this which I will deal with later.

Violence begets violence. Murder, bombing killing and maiming begets a similar reaction from opposing sides. Every time an atrocity is committed on one side or the other and for whatever cause there will be a retaliation of equal ferocity on the other side. Consequently, the unfortunate show goes on. It is useful to reflect on the past 20 years or more of violence in the North of Ireland and to reflect also on Anglo-Irish relations over the past 20 years and ask ourselves whether all the avenues that could have been followed and pursued have been ventilated over that period.

Let us look for example, at the Anglo-Irish Conference, at how it has been used and at whether it has achieved its objectives. Let us point out that the Anglo-Irish Agreement or the Anglo-Irish Conference were never regarded — as I have often said before — as an end in themselves but merely a means to an end, that is, bringing the respective parties closer together in order to allow them to recognise each other's position and, perhaps, achieve some common ground. However, there are areas where the Anglo-Irish Conference could be used to a much greater extent, for example, where Irish people are convicted or are on trial in respect of political offences in the UK, instead of adopting a policy of megaphone diplomacy, instead of making public statements through the media, instead of howling at each other across the Irish Sea, would it not be far better to ensure that those issues were readily and regularly ventilated at Anglo-Irish Conference level? Surely, there is an avenue there for bringing to the attention of both the British and Irish Governments, on whichever side the fault may be, the need to recognise the position of the other side, the need to recognise that politics applies on both sides of the Irish sea. The ultimate objective of both sides should be to eliminate the kind of stalemate that has existed for the past 20 years. Within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Conference it should be possible to talk in terms of the strengths of the conference and how it could be expanded to cover the areas that have caused so much friction in Anglo-Irish relations over the past number of years.

Unfortunately, the weaknesses have been that speculation prior to a meeting of the conference has usually led to an outburst on one side or the other of the Irish sea. Ultimately, when the conference meet relations are strained. That is not what the Anglo-Irish Conference was set up to achieve. It was set up to establish a platform whereby both sides could achieve some common ground, exchange their views and protest to each other behind closed doors as a result of which they would be in a position to do something useful, worthwhile and constructive for their respective communities. Much more could and should be achieved in that area. I call on the Government to ensure at the next meeting of the conference that the issues that have been raised in this House today, including the question of extradition, be covered more meticulously at that conference.

In relation to extradition I should like to point out that that is a two way process, hence the importance of being able to discuss such issues at the conference. I am sure nobody in this House would suggest that we should not seek to extradite somebody wanted for a possible kidnapping or maiming of a person in this country but who sought to hide in another jurisdiction, say, in the UK. For that reason, the Anglo-Irish Conference has a lot more to offer. Its advantages have not been fully explored yet. That is why I suggest something be done in that area.

The forthcoming interparliamentary tier which is likely to be set up in the new year is another area in which I would have particular confidence. I think it will achieve great things provided it is allowed to do the job it should do. Many people in this House have called on the British to do one thing or the other, to pull out of Northern Ireland, to wash their hands of it, to move away and let the people of this country sort out their problems but they have not said how the problem would then be sorted out or whether the people's hands on either side would be clean of bloodshed after the so-called sorting out. I suggest that at that parliamentary conference level it will be found that many middle-ranking British politicians of all parties are well and strongly disposed towards trying to sort out some of the problems that exist in regard to Anglo-Irish relations and in regard to Northern Ireland.

Any time I have met UK politicians abroad they have always made it their business to establish contact with us, their counterparts here, and ask if there was anything we could do. They readily recognise the problems and clearly express, without reservation, their anxiety to do anything they can towards resolving those problems. I have no hesitation in predicting that when the inter-parliamentary tier get under way the politicians here will find out very quickly that there is, out there, a large number of people in public life who are anxious to assist and to put an end to the bloodshed. They readily accept that when two opposing foes meet, both cannot win, that there must be compromise and that somebody somewhere must back down and must be prepared to do so with dignity.

I listened with great interest to the contribution of my colleague, Deputy Harte, who is probably more experienced in that area than most others by virtue of living close to the problem for a long time. I am sorry I have not had the opportunity of listening to my other colleague, Deputy Currie, who is well versed in the particular problems which are the subject matter of this debate. Ironically, as in the case of Deputy Harte, one very often looks backwards. People say we should not look backwards and history should have taught us that. However, to determine what is likely to happen in the future it is no harm to look back. Deputy Harte's remarks about the evolution of Anglo-Irish relations, Nationalism and Unionism are true.

In certain quarters the previous Coalition Government were ridiculed and blamed for not involving the Unionist community in the run-up to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Do not forget that the New Ireland Forum was the forerunner of the agreement and that the Unionist community were invited to participate in it. Unofficially, some of them took up the offer but the majority spurned it. That does not surprise me because a group in any society, whether on social, economic or religious grounds, who are in the ascendancy will not readily give up their position without a struggle. Very often they will see their best bet in remaining aloof from the arena, by not getting involved in any way and saying that they want to wash their hands of the whole situation, thereby extricating themselves from any responsibility.

I do not accept that. The quotation of the late W. T. Cosgrave mentioned by Deputy McCreevy was very apt then and still is because, without the use of violence, there must still be a means whereby elected parliamentarians have a right to get together, have a forum and be able to "will" one another to come to some kind of compromise. I can understand how that is difficult for the Unionist community, particularly when their leaders advocate a stance other than what seems to be the one called for within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is understandable, it would be difficult for politicians in this House to follow a road other than that advocated by their party or leader at a given time. However, the time will come — it has happened in Eastern Europe and elsewhere — when hardline politicians, in some cases those who are barely politicians, but very close to the non-constitutional path, will be ousted by the people who will force intransigent politicians to move with the times and to make changes. It is not wrong or unusual to consider the possible devolution of power in Northern Ireland.

Other speakers suggested this morning that Fine Gael had had a change of mind. Politics is about changes to meet the requirements of the times. It has also been suggested that Fianna Fáil had a change of heart over the past couple of years in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and what it entailed. If that is so, I welcome it because they are doing the correct thing and moving in the right direction. They might not have achieved all that we would have liked but they are doing the right thing. For the first two years of the operation of the Agreement most of the energy — some on this side of the Border and a great deal on the part of the Unionist community on the other side of the Border — was expended in total opposition to the Agreement. Attempts were made to sabotage its meetings, to disrupt it and to do everything possible to ensure that it never functioned. Well, at least it has been established and there is a strong intention on both sides of the Irish Sea to ensure that it remains in place. It is not unnatural to expect that, as a progression of that, we should move towards what the Agreement sought to do initially, to bring about at some stage a system of devolved government. This would mean that constitutional Unionists and constitutional Nationalists could sit across the table from each other and express their views in a way which repudiates violence.

I do not live in a Border country, nor do I represent one, but I have a great number of close relatives of both religious and political persuasions in the North. For that reason I can express a useful view. Constitutional Nationalists and constitutional Unionists should be prepared within some framework in Northern Ireland to sit across the table from each other and decide that they will supersede the people who resort to violence, the bomb, the bullet and the gun. The constitutional Nationalist community are quite clear in regard to what they want but, I am sorry to say, the constitutional Unionists have equivocated because they have been taken over by hardline leaders who are only interested in self-preservation. As long as that remains, progress will be limited. Nonetheless, politicians should be seen to give responsibility to those who come forward as leaders on both sides. They could then put forward their views in opposition to those who advocate holding power by the barrel of a gun.

Those who have expressed opposition in the past — and who still express opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement — should balance that against what prevailed before it was established. I can well understand the reluctance of Unionists to share power; an attempt was made to do this through the medium of the Sunningdale Agreement but it failed, for a variety of reasons, into which I will not go now. The last 20 years, which charted an awful chapter in the history of Anglo-Irish relations and particularly in relation to Northern Ireland, should have taught everybody over 20 years of age the futility of the pursuit of violence to achieve objectives in such a situation. Does anybody realistically want this country to degenerate to the same extent as Beirut? Anybody looking at television over the last two or three years must ask themselves that question. I honestly believe that it could. Unless elected politicians take account of their overriding responsibilities to constitutional solutions and the need to achieve objectives by peaceful means, they will be contributing to their own undoing and they will assist those whose objectives are to achieve power by other means.

I might refer to another area in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement could be usefully deployed, that is, having a frank, free exchange of views as to how, for instance, political prisoners are treated in the United Kingdom. From my experience having visited prisoners there, I would have to say that their treatment is reasonably good. In regard to trials I might refer to a neighbour of mine, Finbar Cullen — he is also a constituent. I visited him in prison on a couple of occasions and, with his co-accused, he was convicted and sentenced to 25 years for an alleged conspiracy to murder, etc. It is generally accepted that there was no coercion in terms of forced confessions, false forensic evidence or anything like that; I readily accept that. However, it is also generally accepted that media speculation, around, before and at the time of the trial was of a nature that would give quite a slant to any trial taking place in any country. If it occurred here undoubtedly there would be strong protests, with allegations of contempt of court and so on. That trial area is one in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement can be availed of by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take up such issues with his counterpart. When the appeal with regard to the Winchester Three — which hopefully will be in the not to distant future — takes place, I hope the Minister will use his influence by way of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to ensure that that appeal will take place in a climate conducive to a fair result. I do not wish to comment at all on guilt or innocence other than to make the point that everybody should be given a fair chance.

I shall conclude now, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, lest I run foul of your ire today. I apologise for any inconvenience I might have caused in the House last evening. Although there is much more one could say on this issue, I am delighted to have had an opportunity of participating in the debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Since Deputy Durkan referred to last evening I should say the Chair was happy to realise that the Deputy was human after all.

Minister for the Marine (Mr. Wilson)

I was interested in the remarks of Deputy Durkan about constitutional Nationalists and Unionists sitting around a table together. I might recall very briefly that this took place at one particular time, when a very good administration was formed. We then witnessed, to my mind, the greatest betrayal of democracy in my lifetime; that betrayal was a betrayal by the British Government.

I should also like to comment on Deputy Durkan's remarks with regard to the Winchester Three. I hope, as Deputy Durkan does, that the appeal will be concluded in a proper manner and that no Government Minister will comment on it while it is in progress.

In the almost 70 years which have passed since the foundation of this State few issues have dominated the concerns of successive Governments as consistently as that being debated by this House today. That this is so has to do primarily with the unresolved conflict in the North and its impact on Anglo-Irish relations. It is right that this House should regularly take time to reflect on these fundamental concerns of ours. I welcome this debate as part of that process. The Taoiseach has frequently made the point that, as long as the conflict in the North remains unresolved, Anglo-Irish relations will not be normal. That is a valid and honest observation. Moreover, nobody looking at the history of relations between the two islands over the centuries could reasonably declare it a happy story. Rather it has been a troubled and difficult one. It is undeniably true that centuries of British rule in one form or another left a legacy here, as in other places, mostly of bitterness and resentment.

Of course much has changed in the seven decades since independence. Our growth and development, in every facet of the life of an independent nation, have bred a sense of self-confidence, self-reliance and maturity that would have been unthinkable a century ago. For instance, could Parnell have dreamed in 1889, two years before his death, that a century later Ireland would be about to assume the leadership of a Community of European States which included Germany, France and Britain? His refusal to determine an A-plus ultra was far more prophetic than he could ever have dreamed of.

Clearly our growth as a nation has had a profound impact on the nature of our relations with Britain. The process of change has not been easy nor could it have been expected to be so. Old ways and old patterns die hard. During those early decades there was more than one example of British difficulty in grasping in real, as distinct from notional, terms that the colonial relationship was a thing of the past. Gradually the new relationship began to work itself out, undoubtedly helped by our common membership of international fora such as the United Nations and, in particular, the EC. The process whereby we have had to work side by side with Britain as equal partners in Brussels, New York and elsewhere has undoubtedly made a major contribution to the changed nature of Anglo-Irish relations.

The expansion of our trade links with Europe, particularly since our entry into the EC and further afield have introduced a healthier balance and equality into our economic ties with Britain, something many people desire very strongly. As 1992 approaches this process will expand, develop further and can only contribute positively to Anglo-Irish relations. The eighties have been particularly significant and have seen particularly significant advances in our relationship with Britain. The Taoiseach's initiative in 1980, in obtaining the agreement of the British Prime Minister to broaden the definition and scope of relations between our two nations, paved the way for a strengthening of the Anglo-Irish process leading to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985.

Therefore, in many ways we have come a long way in 70 years towards establishing the kind of close, mutually beneficial relationship with Britain that one would expect between two near neighbours. But the one great impediment to full normality remains in place and continues to dominate our central concerns. The resolution of the conflict in the North and the establishment of a lasting peace in this island have remained stubbornly elusive and, while this continues to be so, the shadow which that conflict casts on Anglo-Irish relations cannot and will not be lifted. It is not difficult to understand why this should be so. The treatment of the Nationalist community in the North during the decades of Stormont rule was nothing short of scandalous. Who could be surprised that this would have a deep and negative impact on Anglo-Irish relations? Much has changed for the better in terms of the Nationalist position in recent years. This we fully and readily acknowledge. Nonetheless major difficulties remain. We were provided with a recent reminder of these with the most disturbing revelations and allegations about collusion between the security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries in targeting Nationalists for murder. The implications of the affair for confidence in the system of justice in the North are enormous. I think it was Daniel Webster who said that justice is the ligament which holds civilised beings and nations together. Those who seek to minimise the potential seriousness of the collusion and controversy would do well to remember that.

The appalling campaign of violence by paramilitary organisations has served to maintain tensions at a heightened level. The fact is that, in many British eyes, the IRA are perceived as representing Irish nationalism. They are not helped in their attempt to form balanced judgments by the appallingly low standards of their newspapers — even of some of their allegedly serious newspapers — when reporting on Irish affairs. The standards of nineteenth century Punch cartoons and caricatures of the Irish prevail in many present day British publications. IRA violence and UDA violence are equally abhorrent to the vast majority of Irish people. Actions speak louder than words in this regard. Our actions are there for all to see if they look with an unjaundiced and unprejudiced eye.

Where do we go from there? Clearly the urgent priority for Anglo-Irish relations is progress towards a resolution of the conflict in the North. The need for dialogue between the two traditions in Ireland has never been greater because if the last 20 years have proved anything it is that violence is no solution. In recent months there have been some signs that the day of such dialogue may be drawing closer.

Much has been said about recent developments in Eastern Europe and their implications for the North. At the simplest level there is one clear message from Berlin and beyond, that is, nothing is immutable and change will eventually come even to the seemingly most intractable of situations. If change in Northern Ireland is inevitable, as it patently is surely it behoves us all to bring it about sooner rather than later especially since the continued non-resolution of the conflict is literally a matter of life and death given the deafness of the IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries to all calls for a cessation of their campaigns of violence.

As Minister for Transport I had the opportunity of visiting Hoff in West Germany near the borders with Czechoslovakia and East Germany, where there is a wall — the Berlin Wall is not the only wall. Mr. Jurgen Warnke, the then Minister for Transport took us along the wall. A photographer from East Germany took pictures of us through a hole in the wall as we passed. The Minister Jurgen Warnke, informally addressed a small open air meeting which included the Ministers of Transport of the European Community. I was very impressed by what he said and the circumstances in which he said it, right beside the wall which split a village in two. He was as strong about the reunification of Germany as he was in his rejection of violence to achieve it, and there was provocation within a few yards of where he was speaking. This was a strong example to us in this country to remain dedicated to unity and also to abjuring violence. If we watched what happened in East Europe during the past few weeks we will have seen that lighted candles have achieved more than loaded guns, and we should keep that lesson in mind.

To say that change is inevitable does not imply that its achievement will be easy, far from it, but I can say with conviction that the Government are working along the right lines. We are availing of the machinery of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, consolidated by the recent review, to ensure steady progress on a broad range of issues of vital concern to the people of Northern Ireland. We are also actively working with the British authorities on issues of mutual cross-Border interest and benefit.

I now turn to a subject in which I have a particular interest, namely, the International Fund for Ireland. The fund was established under Article 10 of the Agreement to promote the economic and social development of those areas of both parts of Ireland which have suffered most severely from the consequences of the instability of recent years. When I was Minister for Tourism I became aware, and was impressed, by the degree and spirit of co-operation between the tourism bodies North and South. I was particularly impressed by the co-operation between the bodies in relation to the International Fund for Ireland. This spirit of co-operation has enabled the two tourist boards to combine, with fund support, in a number of joint marketing schemes abroad — believe it or not one at the great tourism fair in Berlin — aimed at the encouragement of visitors to this country and the promotion of Ireland as a tourist location on an all-Ireland basis. I am very encouraged by the early results from this scheme and I am very pleased to have been involved in the development of this venture at the early stages. I must admit that the fund is perhaps the vehicle which has been singularly responsible for enabling this new and very welcome spirit of co-operation to come about.

Since I became Minister for the Marine I know that the various inland waterway bodies, North and South, have co-operated in improving inland fisheries and angling facilities primarily in the principal cross-Border river catchments of the River Foyle and Louths Erne and Melvin. This level of co-operation is evident in all other areas of the fund's activities and it provides tangible proof of what can be achieved in terms of practical collaboration. It has convinced me of the correctness of our decision to give priority to the improvement of cross-Border co-operation across the broad spectrum of economic, social, educational and cultural affairs. The development of closer links in these areas can only lead to greater benefits for all the people of this island North and South. In the course of its review last year the board also agreed to encourage the development of a number of imaginative flagship projects which would in the course of time stand as lasting monuments to the fund — there is an element of symbolism here which is also important — our donors and those involved in their inception.

Two ambitious and significant projects have been assisted to date. The Eabhánn Mhaca, Navan Fort, project near Armagh is perhaps the most important historical and archaeological site in Ireland — I say that as a Northerner. With assistance from the fund a heritage centre will be built there which can be developed as a major facility for tourism, education and heritage awareness and can be expected to attract considerable international interest. The Ballinamore-Ballyconnel Canal is an ambitious and particularly symbolic scheme to restore the long disused canal which will connect the two most important Irish waterway systems, the Erne in the North and the Shannon in the South and as far south as Waterford through the canal link. The restoration of the canal will provide access to a unique system of waterways and create for the people of Fermanagh, Leitrim, Cavan, and the whole of Ireland, a facility unrivalled anywhere in Europe. Furthermore the infrastructural development which will inevitably accompany such a major undertaking will have the most positive impact on the economies of the region.

I may mention here that while walls are being pulled down in Berlin a bridge at Belturbet on a national primary route which was blown up by the British and has not been restored. The result is that this national primary route which leads into Fermanagh has not been used for a number of years. The Anglo-Irish Agreement should cater for a strong effort to open that bridge. If the Berlin Wall can come down I do not see why we cannot link Cavan and Fermanagh whose economies are intertwined. I am delighted to say that the Government have included the restoration of the canal in the development plan which was submitted to Brussels. They are actively pursuing with the Commission of the European Communities the question of treating it as a priority flagship project for assistance under the Structural Funds.

Important as such co-operation and progress at this practical level are, it is in the political area that the most fundamental changes will have to take place. We the Government are doing everything in our power to bring about the conditions which will make change possible. The Taoiseach has reiterated his invitation to Unionists to engage in dialogue. I was particularly interested today to hear him inviting the three MEPs from the Six Counties to come to see him as he is about to take over the Presidency of the Council where, through co-operation, some things may be achieved for my native province. Regrettably so far they have been unable to accept this invitation but it remains sincerely and unconditionally on the table.

We have been accused by Fine Gael of not doing enough under the terms of the Agreement to bring about devolution in the North. Our response to this has been eloquently and forcefully articulated by the Taoiseach and my other colleagues, and I do not wish to dwell unduly on it but without cross-community support for devolution no advances can be made.

Change will come in the North and all our efforts are dedicated to ensuring that it comes sooner rather than later. We shall continue with our work at the practical level of cross-Border co-operation and with our efforts to initiate the kind of broad dialogue between the two traditions on the island which we believe is essential to real and lasting progress. Of course, we remain deeply conscious of our special relationship with the Nationalist community in the North and of our obligations to them.

Whatever happens, we are determined there will be no return to the bad old days I have mentioned already. At the same time we shall avail of every opportunity to ease away the barriers which exist between the Unionists and ourselves. I recognise that this will not be an easy task. Our job is to convince the Unionists that dialogue with us can only be of benefit to all the people of this island.

Of course, change cannot and will not be confined to Northern Ireland alone. What we do in the South and how we conduct and order our affairs, our economy, the nature of our society, are matters of crucial importance to progress on the island as a whole. Seventy years on we are entitled to take some pride in what has been achieved here but there is no room for complacency and much remains to be done. The economic transformation brought about in the past two and a half years demonstrates what can be achieved with the right leadership, vision and commitment.

The Taoiseach referred to the ESRI report, the very buoyant and bullish report which was issued this morning, in this context. I said at the beginning that the story of our relations with Britain historically has not been a happy one. I outlined how we have gone about putting that right and there is no doubt but that our efforts had begun in some little way to bear fruit. However, the single largest impediment continues stubbornly in place. We should rededicate our efforts to lifting that impediment. A lasting peace in Ireland can only be of benefit not just to the people of this island but to Britain and to Europe and, most certainly to relations between the two countries.

Mr. Kavanagh

I am pleased to have the opportunity of participating in this debate. In the course of my contribution I intend to concentrate on areas of common ground that affect all on this island rather than on the divisions that continue to bedevil us. It is all too easy to list the problems that have arisen in our relations both with the British Government and on our island. It would be too easy to get bogged down in the issues that have caused such divisions and distrust between the communities and to dwell too long on the faults and failings of the management of them. I do not have any wish to deny the importance of those issues. Indeed, it would be impossible to do so. The lack of confidence in the security forces, the leaking of sensitive and confidential documents, the scandals surrounding the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases, are issues that form an integral part of the background to this debate.

However, there must be another part to that background; there must be some way in which we can point to a hopeful future. It must be possible for us who have witnessed in the course of one week the destruction of the Berlin Wall and watched with wonder the flowering of democracy throughout Eastern Europe, developments many of us never thought we would see in our lifetime, to believe again in hope. The hope lies in the people of Northern Ireland. It lies in the belief and in the conviction that the unity of Northern Ireland means nothing unless it includes the unity of all the people of Ireland. It lies in the fact that there are as many areas that unite us as there are areas that divide us. I will dwell on those areas in my contribution.

There is one important Article of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that has been seldom mentioned. Indeed, it was only touched on briefly by the Taoiseach in his speech and was occasionally referred to by other Members. I am referring to Article 10, a short Article, which reads as follows:

(a) The two Governments shall co-operate to promote the economic and social development of those areas of both parts of Ireland which have suffered most severely from the consequences of the instability of recent years, and shall consider the possibility of securing international support for this work.

(b) If it should prove impossible to achieve and sustain devolution on a basis which secures widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland, the Conference shall be a framework for the promotion of co-operation between the two parts of Ireland concerning cross-border aspects of economic, social and cultural matters in relation to which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to exercise authority.

(c) If responsibility is devolved in respect of certain matters in the economic, social or cultural areas currently within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, machinery will need to be established by the responsible authorities in the North and South for practical co-operation in respect of cross-border aspects of these issues.

That Article is of fundamental importance to the entire agreement because the Border is not simply a political Border, it is an economic Border and, indeed, it could be said to be a cultural Border. There is no doubt that it is a fiscal and financial Border. I was proud to attend the first meeting of the Inter-governmental Conference established under the Anglo-Irish Agreement in my capacity as Minister for the Environment. Under Article 10 of the agreement, on the agenda for the meeting was a proposal that we hold a preliminary discussion on the subject of Euro Route 1, the highway between Belfast and Rosslare. The meeting was also attended by Mr. Chris Patton, now Secretary of State for the Environment on the British side. That project was discussed in detail at the first meeting of the conference.

Needless to say the project was surrounded by issues of money and politics. I can recall being very struck as the discussion on the project continued over many months by the partitionist mentality of many of the Unionist representatives who saw that road as a Trojan horse to break down their Border. I do not need to add that agreement on the project has yet to be reached but I wish to point out that from day one of the operation of the Agreement we saw it as concerning a multitude of subjects rather than just the issue of security. Subsequently, my colleague in Government, former Deputy Desmond, who was Minister for Health, had meetings with his Northern Ireland counterpart, under the auspices of that Agreement. Like me, he discovered that there were areas of common ground within that brief.

Since the agreement was signed there have been 27 meetings of the Conference between November 1985 and May 1989. There were 12 meetings during 1988. It is a considerable mark of failure that the vast majority of those meetings, particularly in recent years, have been concerned exclusively with security to the virtual exclusion of consideration of Article 10. Indeed, I cannot remember the last occasion an Irish Government Minister concerned with economic or social matters took part in a meeting of the conference. I doubt if that happened under the last Government or has happened under the present. Those of us who follow affairs in Northern Ireland very closely are aware that it appears that the same Ministers have been involved in all meetings, Deputy Collins as Minister for Justice in the last administration and a Minister for Foreign Affairs in this Government, and Deputy Burke.

If I am wrong I hope I will be corrected by Government speakers. Subsequent Government speakers can point out the number of occasions when economic matters, such as agriculture and food, transport, forestry or tourism, were dealt with for any length of time at any of the plenary sessions of the Conference. It is important that we bring this aspect of the Agreement to the notice of members during this debate. I believe that had some movement been made in these areas, we would have seen greater progress during debates on security or justice problems. My local authority, Wicklow County Council felt it useful to send a deputation in September to the Mourne and North Down local authority — I may have to be corrected on the name of the local authority. We met at Stormont Castle to discuss tourism, marinas — as the Minister is well aware — and such mundane things as the organisation of refuse collection in that area and compared notes on how we could improve this service in County Wicklow.

Mr. Currie

The correct name is Newry and Mourne——

Mr. Kavanagh

Thank you very much Deputy. Politics entered into it and on that occasion, the DUP members refused to turn up and be part of the discussion, but those who were present in Stormont Castle gave us a very warm welcome and chided us a little on not having seen us for many years.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 23 Nov 1989

Anglo-Irish Relations: Statements.

Deputies

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Nov 1989