Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Feb 1996

Vol. 461 No. 6

Northern Ireland Peace Process: Statements (Resumed).

Last evening I paid tribute to the Nationalist politicians in the North, those occupying the middle ground there and to the consensus in this House. I asked if it was possible to analyse what the parties hoped to gain from the peace process. It would be simple to do. I may be naive, but I would like straight answers to basic questions. Such an analysis and explanation would be helpful to let us know what the IRA and Sinn Féin expect? Surely they do not expect a 32-county Ireland — none of us expect it immediately. It is an aspiration for us all but achievable only with the agreement of the majority in the North. I paid tribute to John Hume, among others. What will happen when John Hume and his like retire from politics? Those people have gone through hell and high water for 25 years. What will happen when such magnificent leadership goes? The lack of such leadership could leave a great vacuum.

I wish to make a point which may be a little delicate for the British but we cannot afford to be too sensitive on such issues. The British Government's representative in Northern Ireland is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There have been good, bad and indifferent Secretaries of State. One of John Major's most serious mistakes was to replace Peter Brooke as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Peter Brooke appeared initially to many of us to be a "fuddy-duddy". However, he was appreciated and recognised ultimately as the most outstanding Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since 1972-73. His removal caused great problems; it was an unwise decision.

Mr. Brooke was replaced by Sir Patrick Mayhew who would be regarded by many as being on the right wing of the Conservative Party. His attitude and sympathy towards the Unionist cause was not helpful before and during the peace process. The British Government has much to answer for with regard to the breakdown of the ceasefire through its appointments and by listening to Unionist die-hards who have no intention of compromising. Their ambition is to see the IRA surrender and the restoration of Stormont. That is how I read it. If any person has seen anything else in print or heard anything else on radio or television which suggests otherwise, I would like to hear it. If the peace process is to succeed, there must be compromise and people must be prepared to stand up to those who have taken entrenched positions.

Successive Governments have never given an inch to the IRA in its murderous and ruthless campaign. There has been no similar activity on the other side. There must be give and take between the two sides and they must come together, but this is not happening.

In recent weeks the British Prime Minister, who has dismissed the Mitchell report, has been promoting the idea of an election, I presume along the lines of the Sunningdale Agreement. That would not create any difficulties for me because it worked well until it was brought down by the Unionists by their militant strike. The British Government under Sir Harold Wilson should not have caved in. This was a typical example of the way the British Government gave way to the Unionists and it set us back 20 years.

I can see the problem of the SDLP and that of other middle ground parties, such as the Alliance Party. An election would only polarise the two communities in the North with the extremists doing well and the moderates suffering. This would not be of any help and would lead to people taking up entrenched positions.

Last night I praised Gerry Adams and make no apology for doing so. Like John Hume, he has played a major role in the peace process to date. It has been clearly illustrated in the past six days that he was not aware of the IRA's proposal to resume military operations. This defeats the idea promoted by the British Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the IRA and Sinn Féin are synonymous, although they are linked.

Mr. Adams has played a pivotal role. His high international profile has aroused tremendous jealousy within the Unionist community whose politicians have shown no ability to compromise, rather they appear to be competing with one another to see which one of them can be more insulting to individuals within the Government and politicians in general in this State.

We must recognise those who have made a generous contribution, in the process putting their own lives at risk. There are elements within the Nationalist community and the IRA who would like to get rid of those who are seen to be moderate, such as Mr. Adams, who has been shown to be so during the past 16 to 18 months.

We should expose the bigots for what they are. Invariably, bigotry and intransigence are all I have seen from people such as Mr. Trimble, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Paisley. Their policy is no surrender, no compromise and not an inch. We cannot hope to succeed with such an attitude.

Successive Governments have been very much to blame for not taking on the British Government on certain civil rights issues. The British Government has shown a degree of vindictiveness which is unacceptable. I clearly heard the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs say some months before Christmas that the attitude of the British authorities towards IRA or republican prisoners in British jails hardened following the announcement of the ceasefire and the initiation of the peace process. To add to the suffering of republican prisoners even though they had committed atrocious crimes and already suffering under a tough regime — one cannot blame the authorities for placing them in top security prisons — was at variance with the spirit of the peace process.

If the British Government continues to be intransigent and support the hard-line attitude adopted by the Unionists, the Government should at every opportunity bring the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. What did we do for the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Maguire family who were treated outrageously by the supposedly fair-minded British system of justice? They were treated abominably and we did nothing to defend or vindicate their rights. Whenever there is a breach of human rights it should not be left to the families concerned or small groups to fight the case.

We have a duty to ensure that Irish people, from north or south of the Border, are treated properly and not victimised. By insisting on the protection of civil rights and the introduction of anti-discrimination measures Irish people have drawn a reaction from the British Government which borders on hysteria. It sees itself as having been humiliated in the eyes of the world and its reaction has not been to seek reconciliation, but to show vindictiveness. It may appear that I am adopting a hard-line, but to get justice you must stand on your own two feet, be fair and firm and make no apology for doing so.

I fully endorse the sentiments of Deputy Deasy. While the process has run into difficulty, if people continue to be reminded of that set of principles it will succeed, although there are times when one has to be firm tough and critical.

The Deputies I met in the corridors of Leinster House in the past few days indicated it was unfortunate that no notice was given. Those who have been following the peace process during the past six months were not surprised when it came under pressure. Each time Sinn Féin mentioned this it was accused of threatening violence and using blackmail tactics. It was also accused when something did happen. This goes to show that politicians seldom win. If we make a courageous decision and it succeeds we may get a little thanks, otherwise we are criticised.

I am delighted this debate is taking place. This House unanimously endorsed the Downing Street Declaration, the Framework Document and the statements on the cessation of violence and, perhaps, it should carry out an audit every three months on the progress or otherwise of such matters. The Framework Document appears to have been buried since its publication last February, it has not been heard of since. People North, South and elsewhere, are asking what happened, why the peace process went wrong and how can it be put back together again. This debate must address those questions and come up with answers.

This is not a party political issue, it is a national one. Consequently, there are political brownie points only for those who fully support the peace process, which all Members do. My party expressed its support for the process on a number of occasions. Earlier this week Deputy Bertie Ahern said he would not criticise the Government for moving forward in a positive way and doing whatever needs be done. He said Government members would not have to look over their shoulders as far as he was concerned.

We are all travelling in the same direction on a journey for justice and following a path to peace. Suggestions and contributions designed only to be helpful to the achievement of the final objectives of the peace process should never be criticised, irrespective of their origin. All Members subscribe to the objective of peace, though there are elements elsewhere who do not want to bring about peace and maintain it, but that will not be easy. The physical force tradition has never been converted in the history of the State nor has the wider republican-Nationalist family ever been brought together with one objective in mind, to achieve consensus on peace.

When people talk of a pan-Nationalist consensus they fail to understand what we are following through on. Peace is the first objective, talks will follow and that will take some time. What broke down along the way? During the past 17 months all people on the island enjoyed the benefits of peace. Based on past averages, approximately 140 more people would have been killed and hundreds, if not thousands, maimed or injured in Northern Ireland if the troubles had continued. Many more have been spared all types of injury and have begun to taste what peace can mean to the lives of ordinary people.

Peace made people sit up and think about the black hole to which they were consigned for 25 years. Any one who suggests that there was not peace should ask those on the Shankill Road, the Falls Road or the Ardoyne area whether their lives changed in the past 17 months. Their answers will be direct. A few days ago on a radio programme Joe Duffy telephoned a man from the Shankill Road and asked him for his feelings on what happened. His answer was simple, he welcomed the peace process and the ceasefire and said people were told 18 months ago that talks would take place in the following three or four months. He wondered why those talks did not take place. He said the people wanted talks and they should have taken place 15 months ago. He could not understand what politicians were doing for the past 15 months and made a request to them to get down to business and listen to those whom they represent who do not want a return to violence. They want the peace to last and politicians, irrespective of how many, to sit down and talk, but not undermine the continuance of the peace process. A short time after the ceasefire people began to take peace for granted and they will not let it go easily at this stage. Much as I condemn the bombing in London last Friday, I do not regard the process as a failure.

It was with the Irish Government I led, not the British Government, that the Provisional IRA made a peace accord in August 1994. Whatever legitimate criticisms can be made, the record will show that we fulfilled to the best of our ability the obligations on the Irish Government to the Nationalist and republican communities in the North and sought by and large to act in concert with them. As the person who sealed the peace accord with Gerry Adams and John Hume on 6 September 1994 in Government Buildings I was naturally anxious, and indeed entitled, to meet Gerry Adams and hear him explain why the peace accord had been broken and why those who had taken risks had been let down. I wanted to hear that from him. When I asked him if the bombing in London was the appropriate response to delays, frustrations and so on his reply was unequivocal. He said it would not be his choice or the choice of his party. That is the answer I expected from him. It is easy to criticise people who do not know what others, whether John Hume or Gerry Adams, have gone through. How long will it take Northern society to produce another John Hume or Gerry Adams if we do not make full use of what they can contribute at this stage?

John Hume spent half of his life trying to bring peace to Northern society. Gerry Adams has been working behind the scenes for a long time to try to win the argument to leave behind the physical force tradition, to produce an alternative strategy and to show that the 25 years of violence was futile. The bombing in London last Friday was similarly futile. It was not only politically silly and stupid but there was no morality attached to it. One cannot justify the taking away of innocent human life as a response to what should have happened but did not.

A recent statement from UVF prisoners called on the Unionist people not to support those in Unionist leadership who gloated over the deaths of two British citizens. I am sure all Members felt as sick as I when they witnessed the body language and the facial expressions following the death of two innocent British citizens. Nobody is entitled to take human life. It is the saving of human life that is at stake, not political requirements.

We delivered as far as possible during our time in Government. People are asking why the ceasefire broke down. They can make their own judgments on what went wrong, but it was inevitable that the activities or non-activities of the past nine months would bring pressure within the republican movement on those who reluctantly went along with a decision to choose the political route on the road to democracy. That was bound to happen.

We are all political realists in this House. We can understand that when John Major got into trouble and his leadership was undermined, he needed time and space to work out his position. We also recognise that the Unionists were heading into a leadership contest with four candidates in the field, each trying to be more hard-line than the other to secure the leadership. We recognised that for what it was, but it was reasonable to expect that when John Major's position was consolidated, and the Unionist leadership contest was out of the way, things would start to happen. Unfortunately, the process went into reverse.

Some people high up in the Tory Party foolishly advised John Major that the ceasefire would hold, that the IRA would not or could not return to violence and that he need not do anything, but he did worse than doing nothing. He used the decommissioning issue as a delaying tactic. Everybody associated with the Downing Street Declaration knows decomissioning was not a precondition. The Northern Ireland Office accepted on 24 June last year that it was not a precondition before the ceasefires, and in this House the Taoiseach, reporting on his first meeting with John Major, said it was not the policy of the Irish or the British Government to have decommissioning as a precondition to talks.

Those who study and understand the psychology of what we had to deal with will understand that we faced difficulties not only with the IRA but also in the trenchant opposition of the loyalist paramilitaries. People did not seem to understand that this would be the biggest contributing factor to wrecking the peace process.

Speaking on the Dimbleby programme a few days ago a loyalist paramilitary told how he carried his injured wife from a building that had been bombed by the IRA, yet he was man enough to tell John Taylor, who was also on the programme to get on with talks and put the issue of decommissioning on the back boiler or else it would wreck the peace process. We all know what decommissioning represented to both sides. The prospect of decommissioning aroused fear on the Unionist side among loyalist paramilitaries, and on the Nationalist side among the IRA. How were we to square those two circles? Did anybody stand back from this issue and ask why both sides were against it? It was neither acceptable nor obainable at that time. Many spokespersons in the South, including me, frequently pointed that out and that if the peace process was not fed, it would starve and when something drastic happened, we would all sit back and ask how it happened and why we did not see it coming and why we did not do something about it. Everybody was cosy in their own positions. They all thought the ceasefire would hold, not recognising the tensions that had existed for years between those in the republican movement who wanted to go the political route and those who wanted to carry on the physical force tradition. Whatever those of the physical force tradition may think about the success of the operation last Friday, it certainly played into the hands of the people who gloated afterwards and said, "we told you so". This country is full of hindsight decision-makers and cynics, but nobody should put any priority before that of saving human life. Archbishop Robin Eames said to me in my office that the greatest personal satisfaction for anybody in political life should be to be in a position to contribute to saving human life.

People wrote to me and spoke to me on the streets of Northern Ireland, Dublin and elsewhere and asked me how I could support a policy of releasing people from prison sooner than they should be released. There is an analogy between that argument and what happened last Friday. I could only tell them that nobody can change what happened yesterday and that no matter what I or anybody says or does, in Government or elsewhere, it will not restore the life of a father, mother, brother, sister or other relation lost but that if we can bring ourselves to change our mindset, we can ensure that in future no family loses its father, mother, brother or sister. The same applies to where we go from here after the events of last Friday.

Many people can give reasons for the breakdown of the ceasefire. It has happened, can we learn from the problems that occurred in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia or South Africa when difficulties arose in the peace process as in those countries? When difficulties arose, all political and community leaders intensified their efforts to ensure there would not be a further breakdown.

Early on in the peace process the Government faced that dilemma and a difficult choice had to be made, but it made that decision on its best judgment. Nobody would deny a Government, British or Irish, the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens as its first priority. I do not subscribe to the view that paramilitary organisations can ever defeat a Government.

Shortly after the peace process was up and running, we had a raid on a post office in Newry during which a postman was tragically shot. That was a difficult call for our Government. My colleagues in Government, who were aware how tough I had been at different stages with the republican movement, knew it was not easy for me to send for Gerry Adams to hear from him the reason the peace process had gone off the rails so soon. When I heard his explanations about discipline not being imposed in various units, I made it quite clear that if we had a repeat of such violence, I would not listen to that excuse again and the door would not be open to him to explain what had occurred, recognising that in managing organisations and units whose mindsets have been closed for the past 25 years and who followed only the physical force tradition, difficulties will inevitably arise.

We cannot throw away the success we have achieved. We cannot waste the great historic opportunity being handed to us. Physical force has been our tradition for centuries but, if we keep our nerve, we now have an historic opportunity to leave that behind us. I made it clear to Gerry Adams that I wanted him to tell the IRA that I felt as let down as everybody else and that I did not relish the idea of hearing on a foreign television station about a bomb blast in London. It was politically stupid and totally morally wrong. One cannot excuse taking human life, whatever the cost.

For people, particularly those with militant minds in the IRA, to regard the efforts and the successes of people like Gerry Adams and his colleagues as a failure, is nonsense. They have made remarkable strides in promoting the republican and the Nationalist cause. Their honourable efforts should not be regarded as a failure. The Sinn Féin leadership has brought the republican community in the North into the political mainstream for the first time. It gave dignity to the communities it represented. Its achievement was recognised and respected throughout the world. It helped to forge as powerful a political instrument for change as any in our history, that is the Nationalist consensus for peace. They won powerful friends in the United States, including President Clinton. All this is now in danger of being lost. I want to send a clear message to those in the militant wing of the IRA that there is no cause greater in any society than peace and the sooner it recognises this the better.

We needed people like Gerry Adams, Pat Doherty, Martin McGuinness, Rita O'Hare, Mitchel McLaughlin, Tom Hartley and their colleagues to get to where we were. We need them now and we will need them again if we want to get to where the people on the street want us to be. The peace process does not belong to any individual, Government or party. It belongs to the people who have a very clear message for the politicians. To them the issue was simple — the violence had to stop and it had to be replaced by talks. Up to last Friday the violence had stopped for almost 18 months but we are now as far away from the talks as we were before we started.

There are four proposals on the table and the Governments must sit down and work them out. Under the Downing Street Declaration — at times one wonders if Britain would like to discard this document and the Framework Document — both Governments have solemnly declared they will set a definite date for all-party talks. This is what is required to bring about a rapid restoration of the peace process. We all subscribe to the Taoiseach's call to the IRA to stop the violence, hand up their arms and come into the political process. That call has been made repeatedly since the troubles broke out in 1969 and it has never been answered. That is why we need the people who had the influence to bring the process this far. Some of these people openly admit that over the past four or five months they have been losing the argument within the republican movement because of non-political activity.

I said on many occasions that if the peace process was not fed the pressures would return to undermine it. I am not going to say "I told you so" because as a politician I recognise that at times certain situations cannot be resolved. However, I do not accept that there were not issues and policies which could have been dealt with. For example, the British Government's policy in regard to prisoners hardened after the ceasefire and no care was shown for prisoners, although we all know the great influence they had in bringing about the ceasefire. Yet they got a rougher deal after the ceasefire than before it. What is the mentality of a government which refuses to give medical care to a man who has been diagnosed with cancer? Why did it take a consultant from Canada to point out that if he was not looked after he could die before action was taken? I hope this man receives care in time. What effect did this have on the people who spent 25 years cocooned in a military mind-set and who always believed that the only way one could get anything from Britain was through the barrel of a gun? In addition, one obstacle after another was put in the way.

What is wrong is that too few people understand the mind-sets with which we must deal. I have given illustrations of the mind-sets of the IRA and the leaders who are in favour of physical force. I also looked at the mind-sets of the loyalist paramilitaries who made the exact same points as republican paramilitaries about the British Government's prison policy — they did not get a hearing either. They will say why they do not trust the British Government. It is common-sense to sit down with people and to try to work out a new accommodation. If one does this they will outline their principles and what they stand for. As they told me in recent days, the bombing of London will not go unreplied to if it is repeated. Good people on that side are holding the lid on it but they say a bomb in London is an attack on their British ethos and is the same as if it was planted in Belfast. Those are the sort of dangers which must be averted. "Must" is a great master as it has to be done, and we all know what has to be done.

I spent hours working out their mind-set and they can sit down and work out in a practical way a new accommodation which will enable people to live together. They say that when a Catholic looks across a wall or down the road at a Protestant they do not see him as a problem but as a victory to be achieved. The Nationalist community say:

Be very careful about decommissioning. We have been exposed too often. It is easy for people to lecture us from abroad but we have spent 25 years trying to defend ourselves when we were burned out. If you visit Bombay Street or any other small street you will see bullet holes in the walls over children's cots. Until there is confidence in the process watch what you are doing.

These are not the views of militant people who advocate taking a person's life.

These are the mind-sets which have to be changed and Senator George Mitchell put his finger on this faster than anybody I know. He made two statements, the first was about the decommissioning of arms — the British Government did not want to accept this — and the second related to the decommissioning of mind-sets. A spokesperson for the loyalist paramilitaries recently said to me that the Mitchell report would be extremely difficult for Sinn Féin and the IRA to accept and deliver on and equally difficult for the loyalist paramilitaries to accept but that if everyone had rowed in behind it it would have been a blueprint for the end of the war for all time.

That opportunity was thrown aside when the British Prime Minister sidelined the excellent report and replaced it with full support for a Unionist proposal. What effect was this expected to have on the mind-sets of people who do not see things as we see them? It was the straw which broke the camel's back. The decision to back a Unionist proposal to the exclusion of the Irish Government which was a partner with it in peace was the clearest indication yet that Britain was going back to where it had come from, that is to seek a military solution. Having regard to the decision to send more troops to the North, I hope the British Government does not expect the Irish Government to be partners at war. The mentality and mind-sets to which George Mitchell referred have also to be changed in Britain.

The problem is that the British Government sought, and still seek, a military solution although we all know that violence has not paid on either side over the past 25 years. How many times did we hear it said that the IRA is finished and gone for all time? It was this challenge which goaded it into proving it was still in existence. The Mitchell report was a blueprint for the end of the war and no three people grasped the complexities of the problem faster than the men given that responsibility. I am not pointing a finger in any direction but I want a commitment to a date for all-party talks so that we can get back to where we were. Some members of the IRA Army Council have not fully appreciated the progress that has been made by the people I mentioned earlier. I too worked with John Major, and I praised him on many occasions. I will be fair to everybody. He had conviction and courage. On the first night we sat down he said that he and I together would never condemn society in Northern Ireland to another 25 years of violence and that we would do whatever we had to do to avoid that. I say to him today: "you know what you have to do; go and do it". I believe he will get a far better response from the British if he does it than if he does not, because British people equally have an interest in peace. Would anybody seriously suggest that people in east London want to see another bomb there, in Warrington or Guildford or anywhere? Of course they do not. However, we all know the reality of politics.

We are entering the last year before an election. Somebody suggested to me on the day before John Major spoke in the House of Commons that there was a grave likelihood that the 11 Unionists and the 30 Euro sceptics, the right wingers, the hard-liners, would have to be kept on board, because they, not the Unionists, were the greatest danger to the continuance of the Government. Gordon Browne, the shadow Chancellor, more or less confirmed to me a couple of weeks ago in Dublin that there was a real danger that John Major would throw the Mitchell report back at the Americans to satisfy 30 of the hard-line members of parliament from his own party because they would love to hear the British Prime Minister tell the Americans that this was their business, that they make their decisions, and that the Americans should stay out of it.

If such political considerations are to determine the future of the peace process, there is greater need for all of us to speak with one voice. We have won respect around the world for our peace process. I do not expect anybody to accept my assessment of why it broke down. People can make up their own minds on that.

The time allowed is exhausted, but I am sure the House would want to hear out the former Taoiseach. Is the House agreed on that? Agreed.

It was bound to undermine confidence when things that could be done were not done, and that is what happened. We had problems before — on the questions of clarification, permanence, etc. Then we came to the question of decommissioning and, unfortunately, that was allowed to take root, and it did much to undermine confidence.

Then the British Government took its unilateral decision to announce an electoral process with no guarantees that it would lead to talks. It could well be said —and the small parties in the North say —that it could be a recipe to put them out of business because they are an embarrassment to official Unionism. What is happening is a struggle for the soul of official Unionism and that is why David Trimble was elected; they want to win back what Dr. Ian Paisley won from them.

Dr. Paisley has threatened to march and fight for the cause and never let the Union be broken, but if he came down here, would anybody open the door and talk to him? They would be delighted to talk to him. They would not accept or agree with what he propounds, but if he came down, would he not be accepted? We say that everybody should be treated the same because the root cause of the problem in Northern Ireland — let us not look at the symptoms but at the root causes — is that the Nationalist community did not get a fair deal, they were treated as second-class citizens and could not make any progress, and the men of violence took over to try to do it.

The Downing Street Declaration and all our efforts for 17 months was to take away any justification for that agenda and wean the people from violence. We now have to contend with a struggling Unionism on the other side which is equally vicious, because David Trimble is setting out to win back support with the result that two parties are more right-wing than one was previously.

That is why the small parties will continue to speak for themselves. As David Ervine will tell anybody, they were used as cannon fodder in the struggle within Unionism. They will no longer participate in that. They are standing on their own to speak for themselves. They set down the six principles which are enshrined in the Downing Street Declaration because they have a practical approach. They do not trust the British Government and they see what is happening in society. They see all the young Unionist people going to Britain to be educated at third level and not coming back. They see the signals of what that could bring down the line, and they would prefer to work out a new accommodation.

The language has changed to a large extent on one side and not by one iota on the other. Until the language begins to change the process must be slowly nursed along. Unfortunately last Friday gave a fillip to the people who said "I told you so", to the people who said "you cannot trust the IRA".

Father Denis Faul made an interesting comment the other night when he said that it was different this time, that the Protestants were not blaming the Catholics. They are all now beginning to blame the politicians who could not produce a definitive date for talks. They know that talks is the only way to ensure that violence does not start again.

I join everybody in saying that Friday was bad, but let us not make it worse. The people who telephoned me and wrote in the past few days have deep concerns that if violence is allowed to drift back in it will be far more vicious than before. To those down here who say that what happens in Northern Ireland does not matter to us, I say it does matter, because we are all winners or we are all losers. We must change the mind-set in Northern Ireland and convince people that we are not talking about victory or defeat, or domination and superiority of one over the other, but that everybody can win. This is what the last 17 months was beginning to show. We were winning in the context of investments and jobs. The best thing the people in the Shankill who do not have jobs could hear was about investment which would give them a job. The peace process was a fillip for tourism, North and South, in every shape and form. More and more investment and support was coming in from Europe and the United States. Without this we will all be losers, so let nobody sit back and just say that we tried our best and it did not work, because if we do that the choice we are making will be to allow violence to start again, and if it starts we will not see it stopped again in our generation.

I am satisfied that there was no split in the IRA, that there was no split in the Republican leadership. Everything they did during the period of time I worked with them was geared towards ensuring there would be no split. Sometimes people have to accept things they did not want and did not like, but the overriding principle was not to have a split. None of us wants to see a split because it is bad enough trying to contain one organisation without having to contain more than that. We saw that in this country before, and we do not want to see it again.

The undermining of confidence, and the British Government apparently having less and less consultation with the Irish Government, is not acceptable. Neither is it acceptable that one Government in the peace partnership should make unilateral decisions and it should be told that time and time again. We have the same stength of voice in this partnership operation as we have at any of the Council forums around the world, but we are being treated as people who do not have a voice. Are they trying to return to the old position that this is an internal British problem and that nobody has any business interfering? That is the sort of thing we hear from David Trimble only too often. When he was asked if there would be direct talks after the election he said that they could be two years away. What does he think will happen in that two years, and how are we to contain the pressures that are there for two years? The only way to contain them is to start all party talks.

It is important that this House should know that the British Government was asked by Sinn Féin in May 1994 to clarify whether rejecting the Downing Street Declaration or objecting to parts of it would prevent parties from becoming involved in talks. The formal reply of the British Government was that parties "were free to determine their own views on the Declaration" and "to represent those views in future negotiations". Later on it said "acceptance of the Joint Declaration is not a precondition for entering the talks process". They are now, in effect, trying the exact opposite. When people moved towards the goalpost, it was moved again. We saw that when the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major sidelined the Mitchell recommendations and suggested adding a seventh principle. An international commission was appointed and came up with a result that would have brought everybody into talks and would have given the Unionist community and the loyalist paramilitaries the assurances to which they are entitled on decommissioning and how it would be carried out. Decommissioning is their greatest fear and is also the greatest fear on the republican side. The Mitchell report was hard on everybody and if it cannot be resurrected, its dumping will be seen in history as the greatest mistake of all.

There were a great many mistakes, which taken together undermined trust and confidence. When the Nationalists and republicans saw what the British Government was trying to do to the Irish Government they did not have any great confidence in the process.

The obligation on both Governments is to get the process back on track and bring all four proposals to the table. If an outsider is to be involved there is no better man than the former US Senator, George Mitchell because all sides have confidence in him and know that his report was the answer. I am not taking sides on elements of the proposals. All I want is a date for peace and a return to the way things were last Thursday.

I have been looking at notes of my last full meeting as Taoiseach with Gerry Adams and the Sinn Féin delegation in Government Buildings on 21 October 1994. At the end of that meeting Gerry Adams recalled the difficulties he had had with the British Government over the hunger strike. He told me how long it had taken to reach the ceasefire and that since its inception there was no trace of violence by Republicans because the alternative, a political route to talks was on offer. He told me if they failed, the Sinn Féin representatives around the table would get the blame. The alternative needed to be seen to work and if not, the most historic opportunity for peace in our time would have been squandered. The stupidity of it all seems so tragic now.

Everybody must work to rebuild peace however difficult the task may be. I praise the loyalist orgnisations for their restraint to date. Having spoken to their representatives yesterday afternoon I have a good insight into the problems they are having in being restrained. That restraint needs to be reciprocated. I told Gerry Adams that another bomb blast will probably end the peace process for our lifetime. He told me he will take reponsibility for going back to the IRA every time he thinks he can succeed, but the lack of trust makes that difficult. It will take time to rebuild trust. In the meantime like everybody else in this House I do not want to see one more life lost in a cause that is best served by democracy as was demonstrated in the past 18 months.

A leading loyalist described the Mitchell report to me yesterday as the best means of consigning political violence to history. He said it was an act of folly to brush it aside. People did not understand John Hume's emotional response in the House of Commons on 24 January but perhaps they understand it better now. George Mitchell is needed to bridge that gap between the two Governments and all parties.

I belong to a party that was born out of the old IRA. I understand the motives of patriotism that inspire republican activists. That is not to say I support them. I appeal to their patriotism today and ask them to have the courage to recognise that the armed struggle no longer has the purpose it once may have had, to restore and guarantee peace and security to the Irish people and save their people and others from new hardship and suffering and to rejoin the wider republican family and fellow Irish nationalists at home and abroad in the continued political struggle for Irish freedom — in the broadest understanding of that term. That means working out an accommodation with our neighbours in Northern Ireland because this is a small island on which all of us have to live. That was first said not by a republican leader but by Edward Carson who recognised in 1917 that we needed a "Council of Ireland" and brought the suggestion to the Irish Convention. King George V at the opening of the Parliament in Stormont said:

I hope today is a prelude to the day that the people of this country North and South, coming from two parliaments or one, whatever is their choice, that all Irish people living on this island will work together for the benefit of all.

Lord Craigavon the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland said:

This island is too small for us to be kept apart for all time ... change will come but not in my time.

We have an historic opportunity for change. I have taken every opportunity at question and answer sessions in the North to take Unionists back through their history and lay it on the line for them what would have happened if the Government of Ireland Act had been implemented. As I said to John Major the first time we met, he and I would not have needed to talk if the Government of Ireland Act had been implemented.

People wonder why republicans have a total distruct of perfidious Albion from the day partition was pushed on them. They have been betrayed since the 1920 Act, the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and so on. When the chips were down and courage was needed to bring change, they were betrayed by the British Government.

They believed in joining the wider republican family with an Irish Government leading it for the first time and that by gathering international support from America, Australia and Canada they could win the argument on the international stage. It was precisely that alternative strategy Gerry Adams took to the IRA as the basis for the peace accord. That accord has been put back but so too have the measures that could have been taken in advance of all-party talks to start to rebuild confidence.

Ireland is at a crossroads. If we take the wrong turn we will do an injustice to our children and future generations because we will have given away the best opportunity for peace.

No one would have believed 18 months ago that we could broker a ceasefire. Nobody would believe the ceasefire could last. No one believed changes in the use of language would move people slowly towards peace. When one comes up against an intractable problem, one must leave it aside and go on in a different way.

The republican leadership in its militant and political form has a job to do and people can make their own assessment of what went wrong. We cannot undo the damage done last Friday but I have given some ideas why it happened. When people do not keep promises, confidence breaks down but we cannot retreat into self righteous rhetoric and take up an easy and popular position of condemnation. Trying to hang people up on words is not the right way to solve problems. We want the saving of human life and peace.

Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote that politicians should do the things politicians think they cannot do. Many politicians in this country and in Britain turned their backs on the issue and said they could not do anything about it. If this generation of politicians say the same, take the wrong road and make the wrong decisions I do not know when leaders such as John Hume in the Nationalist community and Gerry Adams in the republican community will be able to influence those who do not see it that way. We needed them before, we need them now and we will need them in the future. Can anyone put their hand on their heart and say who will have any influence with the IRA in restoring the position other than those who are there now? We cannot do it nor can the Government. We will join with the Taoiseach and call on them to lay down their arms. We know it will be a futile exercise but we will still do it.

There is some cynicism because we had peace for 18 months and people are asking why politicians do not get their act together and get talks going. Deputy Deasy spoke about open and frank discussions and asked us to look into our hearts to see if we could have done more, why did we do this and not that. Perhaps the House should be given an audit on progress every three months. If that had been done people might not have been as surprised as they were that the pressures won through last Friday. Signals can mean a lot and anyone who listed the signals over the last eight or nine months could not fail to recognise that pressures were building up.

The historical opportunity still exists. We must get to know the different mind-sets and realise that it is about rights and recognition for a minority that was downtrodden for so long on one side. Why would the Unionist tradition not try to maintain the status quo for as long as possible? Such people dispensed power and privilege and the status quo suits them fine. They will try hard to get a Government in Stormont but will not mind if they do not succeed as long as they retain the status quo. However, the status quo is not the answer to maintaining peace and saving human life in the future. Just as with Lord Craigavon, Edward Carson and King George change will come. The greatest instrument for change has been in operation for 18 months. The price must be paid for peace and saving life. We should be courageous, take risks and be prepared to pay the price. History will thank those who take risks even though some may fail. They will not be seen as weak but as visionaries who saw opportunities and knew if they did not take them they would not be given the chance to do so again.

I want this House to unanimously endorse the Downing Street Declaration, the Framework Document, the ceasefire and speak with one voice in ensuring that we get a return to peace and keep it. Above all I want us to be courageous enough to recognise what has to be done and do what must be done to get a return to peace. Then we can go on to work out structures and change mind-sets. It is a terrible indictment to hear parents in Northern Ireland say they will have to change their school children's uniforms because it is too easy to recognise their identity. Young people went out and enjoyed themselves and children played in the streets in the past 18 months. Will we deny them that again? We did it for 25 years and people wonder why they think differently from us. If we lived there for 25 years we would think the same way. The people there believe we deserted them in their hour of need, not in a military way but in not speaking up for them. Some are genuinely afraid that we will drift back to that position again.

I appeal to the IRA leadership, the Government and all parties to give the right signals, do what they can to help to build the confidence that can restore peace. I say to the IRA, "no more; we have had it; we do not want any more; we cannot take any more". The status and good name of Ireland built up by President Robinson and the politicians who go abroad must not be tarnished. There were two Irish good news stories in the past 18 months, we had an island at peace with itself and the best economy in Europe — a marketer's dream as one person said to me in the US. We must maintain that and do whatever is necessary to ensure that no one destroys or sullies it. Empty calls without any action will not deliver the peace or keep it.

I wish to share my time with Deputy McGinley. Last Friday I was at a function in Cork which is a long way from Belfast and London. There were 850 people there, including the Minister for Finance. The feeling when the news of the bombing broke was one of shock, disbelief, shame, anger, sorrow for the victims and condemnation of the IRA. The last time I remember anything approaching that emotion in Cork was when we heard the news of the death of John F. Kennedy in 1963. There was the same feeling of loss, shame and horror at the passing of something which might not return.

Later in the evening when people were speaking about it there was condemnation of the British Government particularly for its response to the Mitchell report and its sudden espousal of elections in Northern Ireland. That was felt to have contributed to, though did not justify, the bombing in London. The resumption of violence is totally unjustified and counterproductive. I very much welcome, as does the Government, the consensus in the House on a general broad approach to the problem. I also welcome the support for the Government from all sides of the House.

It is harder to persevere inch by inch in frustrating negotiations than to flip the lid and attempt to bomb a way to all party talks. Unfortunately, that is what happened last Friday. The trouble with Friday night's bombing is that it played into the hands of those who claim that Sinn Féin/IRA have their own twin track approach — one track following the democratic process and the other the bomb and the bullet.

Irish nationalism in all its shades must discipline itself to work within a peaceful and democratic framework, with all the frustrations which that entails, if we are ever to find an agreed accommodation with our fellow Irishmen in the North and those who share diametrically opposite views. We cannot defeat them or their masters in London and conversely the Northern Irealnd state, supported by the forces of the Crown, has not and will not defeat Irish nationalism. Accordingly, there can be no outright winners or losers and an historic compromise must ultimately be struck.

Whether our generation can bring that about or generations yet unborn that compromise must be found one day. It will not be found unless through painstaking negotiation in an atmosphere of peace and trust far from the threat of bullets and bombs. The tragedy of last Friday is that it inevitably destroyed the fragile beginnings of that trust as well as shattering the peace itself.

However we must not give up. We must all pick up the pieces. There is nothing else to do, no other way to go. The forces of Irish nationalism must unite in a permanently peaceful pact both with ourselves and our adversaries, but those adversaries too must meet us half way and they have not done so to date. The murderous act of last Friday, shamefully perpetrated in the name of Irish nationalism, cannot be justified in any circumstances. Neither can we accept the failure of the British Government and the Unionist parties to commence in earnest the process of reaching the elusive and historic compromise. Sooner or later that compromise must be found if peace, prosperity, cohesion and fairness are to replace the fractured and fundamentally unstable society in the northern part of this island.

The peace process of the past year-and-a-half did not achieve what many hoped it would, but it did achieve a lot. Above all else it gave to a whole generation traumatised by violence, terror, murder and fear a precious insight into what peace itself cold bring. Those who for 18 months have stood in the sunlight of peace will never again accept the darkness of despair. They demand peace, they demand it now and, in the words of President Clinton in this House on 1 December last, they will have it.

Like Deputy Reynolds, I say to the leaders of the IRA, in God's name will you listen to the voices of Irish nationalists, nationalists of all shades? Some of them, and I am not one, offer support to your organisation, some of them go further and regard you as freedom fighters, even as heroes. I find that very difficult to understand, but then I never lost a brother, sister, parent, child, relative or friend in the bloody conflict of the past 25 years, so I can never fully understand the feelings of those who have been seared by such tragedy and tribal bloodshed. While I do not claim to understand all that, I understand very well the yearning for peace of all Irish people, peace in which to bring up their families, free from the knock on the door, the bullet in the night, the terror and the trauma, the funerals, the tears, the hatred, the despair. I implore the leaders of the IRA not to plunge our long suffering people back into that wretched situation but instead to give peace a chance, not for a month, a year or even a decade but forever. While that will not guarantee a final solution acceptable to Sinn Féin-IRA, the realisation of their aims, even in part, has no possibility of attainment except in the climate of a permanent peace. That is the reality, anything else is a delusion and a recipe for chaos, devastation and death.

If the IRA reinstates the peace, as only it can, and do so permanently we in Government and in this Parliament dedicate ourselves to redoubling our efforts to reach the historic compromise. It will not be easy, it will not be quick, it will try our patience; there will be times when some will be close to giving up, but there is no other way, no magic answer, only the slow, deliberate and determined movement towards that elusive formula and compromise which can bring about an agreed solution. That solution must unite the minds and hearts of the people of this island and unlock the rich potential of Catholic, Protestant and dissenter working together for the benefit of all. That is a long way off but it is an ideal worthy of a great nation. We need to kick-start the process which ultimately can lead to the attainment of that ideal. The leaders of the IRA can and must play a lead role in all of that by guaranteeing the peace and participating too as builders rather than destroyers of all our dreams.

Like my colleague, Minister Coveney, I believe certain events leave an indelible impression on people's minds. For example, the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 was an event that will always be remembered. I just listened to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds. I well remember the signing of the Downing Street Declaration in London. I was there that day, as was Deputy McDowell, attending the British-Irish parliamentary body. I remember very well the then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, visiting the Irish Embassy at lunchtime and the great feeling of euphoria that a major step forward had been achieved. I was in the House of Commons that afternoon and witnessed the great hope and optimism at the events unfolding. That was more than two years ago and there have been many ups and downs since then, particularly in relations between Ireland, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland.

There are very few people who do not remember where they were last Friday night when the news broke that the IRA ceasefire had ended and, worse still, that the campaign of violence had recommenced. I was driving in the rain between Killybegs and Glencolumbkille when I heard the news flash on the radio and I listened with disbelief, horror and utter dismay. It is difficult for any reasonable person to accept that the vicious circle of violence could be inflicted on us once again. The unexpected announcement caused a deep and dark shadow of gloom to descend on the country.

I class myself as a Border Deputy who represents a Border constituency. Donegal has the largest land border of any county with Northern Ireland and it is considered by many as part of the North. I have had to explain to many people, not all of them foreigners, that while Donegal is geographically in the north, it is politically in the south. No county in the Republic has been more aware of the campaign of violence in the North in the last 25 years than Donegal and no southern county has suffered more economically, financially and socially from the troubles. Our only natural hinterland is Northern Ireland. To the west the county is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean and its only land connection with the rest of the Republic is a narrow strip at Bundoran. It has been said that if the bridge at Ballyshannon was gone one could reach Donegal only by sea or through Northern Ireland.

The cessation of violence during the last year and a half has brought new vigour, contentment and prosperity to Northern Ireland and Donegal. I am a regular traveller to the North and it was gratifying to see the changes there since the violence ceased. Almost immediately the tension visibly eased as security personnel vanished from the streets, pavements and public places. Body searches remained only as unpleasant memories. Northern Ireland, urban and rural, adopted a new air of normality almost overnight.

During the pleasant hazy days of last summer I spent a few days in that beautiful part of Ulster stretching from the Bann along the north Antrim coast to the glens and into Belfast. One day last August more than 50 per cent of the cars and vehicles parked at the Giant's Causeway bore southern Irish, British or continental Europe registrations. That would not have been the case the previous year. Last summer more was done to create understanding and goodwill between the North and the South and to bring communities closer than in the previous 25 years of violence. All the people of Northern Ireland responded magnificently with their joy and warm welcome for the large influx of people visiting the North. It would be unbearable if there were a reversal of what occurred last summer as a result of the madness of last Friday's bomb in London.

The improvement in Donegal was as dramatic as that in the North. Not since 1968 did that county have such an influx of visitors from the North and the South. Many people ventured North for the first time because of the peace process. In 1995 there was an increase of 56 per cent in the number of visitors to Northern Ireland over 1994. We must maintain that trend at all costs. We can never again return to the dreary years of violence that stunted and blighted the lives of so many people and families. It was distressing last night to watch the broadcast of the deployment of troops throughout the North again. Border security posts were dismantled last year and it would be intolerable if barriers and checkpoints were again set up. Those travelling North and South have had enough long stops, checks and delays.

The way forward is through dialogue and discussion. The contacts and bridges built during the ceasefire must be maintained at all costs. I am glad the Government is continuing dialogue with all relevant groups and parties, including Sinn Féin. That party seems to be our only line of communication with the IRA and its members must do everything possible to persuade the IRA to call off its campaign of violence immediately. We must get all the parties around the same table, as the only way forward is through discussion and open dialogue, nothing less. Violence is not the way forward. We have had 25 years to prove that point. The Irish people want peace for themselves and their children. Life is short, too short to be blighted by terror, violence and the upheaval of families and communities which we have witnessed so often in the recent past in the North.

The southern economy is booming. There is strong international support and commitment for the peace process from the European Union, the United States and many other countries. Yesterday evening I attended the launch of the 1995 annual report of the International Fund for Ireland at which we were told the total investment generated by the fund since 1986 is in the region of £700 million, all of which is targeted at specially disadvantaged Border areas. The fund is financed by international communities, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. The Delors package of £270 million targeted at Border regions was mainly designed to underpin the peace process. We have a major responsibility to ensure peace is immediately restored and violence must be renounced as a vehicle for progress. Talks, discussions and dialogue must continue between all parties. That would lead to a Northern Ireland where all communities can live in peace and harmony and enjoy the benefits of life.

After recovering from the initial shock of hearing of last Friday's announcement and the bombing, the Government and the Taoiseach have reacted responsibly and sensibly. The emphasis is on dialogue, talks and the immediate restoration of peace. We must also welcome and applaud the responsible attitude and supporting role played by the Opposition parties, Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and the Independents. We have shown a solid, united front against the resumption of violence. Northern Ireland and the peace process are too crucial to be made a political football. We cannot play such games with the lives and futures of so many people.

Events this week in the Dáil have clearly illustrated that the resumption of the peace process is an issue that unites all parties. I earnestly hope that this unity of purpose continues until the peace process is firmly re-established, as this is the only way forward for Northern Ireland and the whole island.

Yesterday evening I intended to produce a few notes on what I would say today, but every time I wrote a paragraph the thought process stopped because so many of the sentiments that immediately leap to one's mind in these circumstances sound trite when committed to paper. We are all against violence and deeply shocked and dismayed that the IRA ceasefire broke down. We are all horrified that innocent people in London have been blown to pieces to make a point about Irish politics. We all feel a sense of indignation and frustration that the political process seemed to be so inadequate in the context of the opportunity opened to us by the IRA ceasefire.

I listened with care to Deputy Reynolds and I agree with much of what he said. In the past we have tended to create issues of principle which seemed to be insurmountable when a principle is not of much assistance in reconciling two or more forces in Irish political history, when all claim to have a monopoly of principle on their side.

A number of weeks ago there was a discussion in this House about 1916. In that context I remarked that perhaps we should move on to discuss the Civil War, a somewhat flippant remark. Listening to the debate, it occurred to me that the republican side in the Civil War may have lost the struggle but it won the peace. The arguments put forward then about oaths and so on were issues of principle over which people were willing to shoot each other, but what happened during the succeeding decades proved that the loss of life in that struggle was utterly and completely futile. I speak as somebody whose family was divided by the Civil War. An uncle of mine was shot down on the top of Ben Bulben fighting for the republicans in Sligo. His father sat where the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, sits as a Minister in the Government that was fighting that Civil War.

It is worthwhile taking on board what Deputy Reynolds said about the futility of creating issues of principle through which we drag, force and break each other when what is needed is a view of where we are going. We need a view of the long-term and where the opportunities lie for unity and agreement rather than issues of principle on which we can disagree.

What inspired me to say all that was Vincent Browne's column in The Irish Times yesterday. In one sense his article was depressing as in effect it implied the IRA will not accept the Mitchell principles, it will never declare a ceasefire to be permanent if it is restored and all the formulae we can demand and say are desirable and necessary in the present context will not be forthcoming. If we set down that road again we will have another lengthy debate about words, when what is really needed in this House is some consideration of where we consider the peace process is going.

One of the shortcomings of the Hume-Adams process was its preoccupation with words. Words seemed to be so important to people on the physical force side of Irish politics which is a curious irony. They seemed to be so concerned with words but so unaccustomed to using and relying on them, and the force of persuasion through words, rather than on other methods.

One of the problems with Hume-Adams is it brought us down what I consider to be a rather barren cul de sac in which we all became concerned with the concept of national self-determination. The limitations of that particular exercise were exemplified by Deputy Ahern in his contribution. One can talk about national self-determination until the cows come home and argue about what is and is not legitimate in pursuit of national self-determination but if one transposes any of the rhetoric, theory and political theology we have heard in this benighted country for 25 years about national self-determination to somewhere like Bosnia, you see just how futile and empty are such concepts. Where people are divided on something and both claim to be in the right, national self-determination and principles of international law fall away in dealing with the reality of political and ethic conflicts of a kind.

I want to look forward to what kind of solution is really available at the end of the peace process because if we lift our eyes above the immediate problems that lie in our track and look to what could be achieved with goodwill, we have some inkling of what we should do to achieve it. Like Deputy Ahern, I believe it is not possible to reverse the partition of this country by the use of force; it can only be done by a process of political persuasion because any unity of a political kind on this island can result only from a process in which the political method is the only one adopted.

The principle enshrined in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, i.e. that the future status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom can only change if a majority of the people there so wish, which was registered at the United Nations, is correct and it is the cornerstone of any possible solution. However, that is not to suggest that we are committed to some kind of internal solution in Northern Ireland because it is part of what is termed "the Union", which is a bilateral process. The other side of the Union is the rest of the United Kingdom and it is open to them to say to those who support the Union in Northern Ireland that the terms of continuing the Union are that a society must be created in Northern Ireland which is genuinely open to Unionist and Nationalist aspirations, even-handed as between both and which recognises the validity, status and dignity of each community.

We must now identify the broad outlines of a solution which can stop the struggle in Northern Ireland which from time to time over the past 50 years has broken out in ruthless conflict. These are that we can accept as one principle the view registered in the United Nations that the majority in Northern Ireland will determine whether it remains part of the United Kingdom or joins an all-Ireland state, but we do not accept this means the majority have a licence nor does the principle confer an implicit right for it to run Northern Ireland in the interim as it wishes.

Therefore, the imperative is to create a society in Northern Ireland in which people of whatever tradition feel equally at home and in which in the last analysis the decision as to whether it remains part of the United Kingdom in ten, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 100 years time is one which is made peacefully and by a majority of the people in circumstances which do not threaten anyone.

There is a fundamental failure on the part of the British establishment to confront the reality of Unionist intransigence and we should always bring this to their attention, privately and politely if necessary, and keep it at the top of our agenda. What has been wrong is that people in Northern Ireland have been allowed to get away with the proposition that the Republic of Ireland is a foreign country and the Éire Government, as it is now referred to by some leading Unionists, is a foreign Government which has no legitimate interest or role to play in bringing about a real solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. That proposition is so obviously wrong in practice that the theory behind it must also be wrong.

If at some stage under the Anglo-Irish Agreement some 51 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland voted in a plebiscite to withdraw that part of this island from the United Kingdom and propose to attach it to this State, and then stated to the Unionist minority that being British is a matter of owing allegiance to a foreign state, the British Government is a foreign Government, British links are sundered irrevocably, and British influence, institutions and culture in Northern Ireland are foreign culture, it would be utterly and profoundly wrong. If we are serious about the proposition that a majority in Northern Ireland for the time being maintains the current position in place, the corollary must be that the majority owes it to the minority to treat them now as they would be treated if the 51 per cent voted the other way.

There is, therefore, a political rationale for nationalist Ireland to insist Dublin has a role and nationalist Ireland has an interest in how Northern Ireland evolves as a society. It is not correct to simply say that we will divide a solution into three strands, that on one strand, the internal governance of Northern Ireland, the Nationalists in Northern Ireland are on their own and Dublin's role is confined solely to being a party in negotiations as to how North/South relations evolve. The whole island has an interest in how Northern Ireland evolves as a society, that all of Ireland are in fact historical partners in the great project of creating in Northern Ireland a society which genuinely belongs to both communities there. To me the logic of that is we can have no more of the rhetoric of Taylor and Trimble to the effect that the Republic is a foreign State which is interfering and meddling in their business. We must get the message across, particularly to the Conservative Party in England, that that is not acceptable, that it is just as unacceptable as if at some future date 51 per cent of people in Northern Ireland decided to leave the United Kingdom, after which we could trample down the remaining 49 per cent and say that their connection with the United Kingdom, their British identity, was a matter of allegiance to a foreign State. I see a symmetry here which justifies a completely different approach by the Government in its dealings with the Conservative Party in England.

One of the things Deputy Albert Reynolds said, with which I agree, is that the brush-off to Mitchell by John Major was not directed towards appeasement of the Unionist MPs in Westminster; it was directed towards the 20 Little Englander Euro sceptics who believe that, at the next English election, being sound on the constitutional issue will somehow save the Tories' skin. If, as I believe was the case —and I have every reason to believe it having spoken recently to some members of the Conservative Party — that Major's brush-off of Mitchell was directed towards appeasing, not the Unionists but a motley group of people on his own backbenches who regard macho posturing on Ireland as somehow helpful to their own political interests in England, it was a tragic mistake and misjudgement by John Major.

I am not trying to apportion blame but we are now in a position in which, if we want to create a settlement in Ireland, we must approach it on the basis that words and principles do not obstruct the democratic process. If the IRA reinstates its ceasefire, if a little sticker "permanent" is attached to it, would anybody trust that sticker? Does it really matter exactly how and in what words Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Mitchel McLaughlin deal with the six Mitchell principles and sign on for their substance?

If the settlement in Northern Ireland is one in which it will remain part of the United Kingdom until a majority decides otherwise, in which institutions and laws will be put in place which create a genuine equality of esteem and a partnership society in Northern Ireland — through its assemblies, executives and the rest — if that is the ball park dimension of a solution, why is it necessary to tell a group of people that they must subscribe to a particular formula of words before they sit down at the table and discuss the substance of such a solution? Why is it necessary to tell them to subscribe to a particular set of principles — going back to the Civil War, to take a particular oath — or make a particular electoral declaration before they can sit down and talk about the future of their society?

Therefore, I was driven reluctantly to the conclusion that the proposition set out in Vincent Browne's article is correct, that the primary obligation on the Irish Government now is to drive the political process forward; that it follows from that that getting into knots and tangles about formulae, getting hung-up and broken on so-called principles is wrong. Of course, another thing follows from it, that we can no longer go down the road of pretending that everything is possible in all-party talks.

To a large extent Sinn Féin has been the victim of a lot of mollycoddling verbal appeasement, to the effect that everything is possible if it sits down at the table. That is a falsehood; everything is not possible and its agenda, in terms of a united Ireland, is not on in the context of any settlement we can foresee evolving in the near future.

We must take a flexible approach to the republican movement and ask them why they do not participate in talks about a settlement. We must be realistic about where a settlement will be found: let us stop saying we cannot talk about the terms of a settlement because it could offend Gerry or Martin if we concede in advance that all-party talks will not be about a united Ireland in the next year, five years or whatever. Let us give up the pretence that some people will be invited to participate in a process whose terms are so open-ended as to render it impossible to deliver to them what they are selling to their own hard, right wing men of violence as possible outcomes of these discussions.

As a State and through our Government, I am convinced that we must now set out a view of a Northern Ireland settlement. It is about time the ball park limits to a settlement were stated clearly, in terms which ordinary Unionists and Nationalists can understand; that Sinn Féin should not be excluded from contributing to discussions on that settlement by verbal formulae. However, this House must also push forward politics because its absence, accompanied by wrangling, surrender to the rhetoric of Taylor and Trimble, the perception that this Government is in some sense a foreign one, hostile to the interests of the Unionists must end.

In putting together what was perceived by the Unionists as this pan-Nationalist front, we have created a threat. Therefore, we must now make it clear to Unionists that we understand the terms of a settlement. We must be clear and honest among ourselves as to what it is possible to achieve. If we do that, then all the posturing on principles. formulae, words and all the rest of it will fall away but, if we do not, we face a very troublesome few years.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Seán Kenny.

I am sure that is agreed. Agreed.

I should like to express my sympathy to the families of the dead and injured on behalf of my constituents in Dublin South West. While these words will be scant consolation to them they do not detract from the sincerity with which they are expressed.

As a Labour Party public representative I totally and categorically condemn the outrageous act perpetrated by the IRA at Canary Wharf in London on Friday evening last, a hideous act of depravity and violence, completely at odds with the efforts of all those involved in building a lasting peace in Ireland. No individual or public representative committed to democracy and democratic politics could justify the action of the IRA on Friday last. This violent act should be condemned universally by all self-respecting political representatives.

I urge Sinn Féin to demand that the IRA categorically and unambiguously announces a total cessation of violence. The peace process can only be restarted on the ending of hostilities. There is no place for the bomb and the bullet in politics. By its selfish action on Friday last the IRA betrayed the peace process. Much of the good work undertaken by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, the British Prime Minister, John Major, and the US President Bill Clinton, has been drastically set back by the events of last Friday.

It is incumbent on all politicians not to allow the peace process to wither and die. We must work harder than ever to breathe life back into the process. If we allow it to die we will do a grave disservice to all the people. It is time for public representatives and politicians to show courage in the face of this adversity. I urge mainstream Unionist parties, who have a responsibility in this area, to play their part in resurrecting the peace process. The Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party have a major role to play in the talks process. Their absence deprives the democratic process of the essential element of having all parties involved in debate.

Politicians must seize the initiative. They must not allow the IRA to strangle the process. There is a better way. I urge the Irish and British Governments to ensure the peace process is taken away from the terrorists. We must tell the IRA to stop the killings. It cannot have it both ways. Either it is committed to the peace process or it is not. There are no half measures. That is the reason I urge Sinn Féin to demand that the IRA reinstate a ceasefire. Let us all work together to begin a sincere dialogue, based on the democratic principles and values which we all share. Peace is still the prize we are chasing and we must not allow it to elude us at this stage.

The bomb on "Black Friday", as it is now regarded, shattered the peace process and the hopes of communities North and South. It may result in the resumption of the killings, maimings and destruction. One cannot operate with a bomb in one hand and a ballot paper in the other. It is impossible to be part of the democratic process while being prepared to use force to further political objectives. The democratic way to solve problems is through dialogue, consultation, non-violent confrontation and debate. An essential part of that process is to accept the right of people to change their opinions.

Words are not strong enough to condemn the action of those responsible for the bomb last Friday. A Government cannot allow murder or the threat of murder to set the political agenda. The State is based on democratic principles, we do not use violence and reject its use. We accept that violence in one area of life will open the door to a floodgate of violence in other areas.

Part of the role of Government in a democracy is to protect the people from violence. Despite the bleak outlook, we must attempt to find ways and means to re-establish the peace process. We must work to heal the divisions between people North and South. There will not be a change in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority and acceptance of the legitimate aspiration of the minority. In the absence of violence there will be peace which will produce a climate suitable for reconciliation. We must encourage people of violence into the political process and release them from the futile cul-de-sac in which they now find themselves.

Sinn Féin will have to work to reinstate the ceasefire and wait until it is resumed before being involved in the democratic process. Direct talks cannot take place in the shadow of a bomb. The British Government must make a positive commitment and join the Irish Government to deliver a solution to the tragic problem which has affected our two islands for so long. The Unionist leaders will have to join the Nationalist leadership to find a solution. We owe it to the next generation in the North to produce an environment that will enable them to have a quality of life comparable with that of their counterparts throughout this island, Europe and the rest of the world.

In his contribution the Tánaiste said:

... it is our fervent desire that Sinn Féin be part of negotiations we wish to see in place. All parties represented here have worked closely with Sinn Féin in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation for almost a year and a half. We have all gained from the experience. I appeal to Sinn Féin to make it possible to participate without qualification in the peaceful, democratic process. I call upon the IRA not to stand in the way of allowing Sinn Féin to do so. The people of Ireland are tired of wars. Violence begets violence. We demand peace.

That is the message we send out from here. Peace is essential.

I join Members who have expressed their shock and sadness at the brutal bombing by the IRA of Canary Wharf on Friday last and extend my sympathy to the families and relatives of Inan Bashir and John Jefferies and to those who were injured. A bomb in a crowded area was calculated to create the maximum number of indiscriminate casualties. It reminds us of the many other incidents of terrorism that occurred in these islands on the past 25 years.

It reminded me of the bomb that exploded in Talbot Street, Dublin, in May 1974 on a Friday evening at 5.40 p.m. near where I worked. Some of the innocent victims of that atrocity were street newspaper sellers. The bomb in Canary Wharf shattered the peace process which had endured for 18 months. Responsibility for this atrocity and the damage caused to the peace process rests with the IRA. I support the Government statement in response that there will not be ministerial meetings with Sinn Féin until the IRA campaign is terminated. The approach of this Government and its predecessors has been consistent in this regard.

The past 18 months of peace has allowed unparalleled progress on this island. Many people in the North enjoyed living a normal peaceful life for the first time. In the transformed climate there was peaceful interaction between people North and South. Last year was a boom year for tourism in the North. Increased investment from Europe and the United States created thousands of new jobs throughout the island's economy. Last Friday's bomb has damaged these developments. If the violence resumes these painstaking gains could be eroded. The IRA has shown a contemptuous disregard for the welfare of the Irish people in terms of their hopes and aspirations and their natural right for peace for themselves, their families and society.

It is crucial that we play our part in efforts to draw back from the brink of a renewed spiral of violence. Our approach must be based on continuing repudiation and renunciation of violence, coercion and threat as a means of securing political progress. We must make it clear that admission to dialogue and the right to take part in negotiations has to involve an end to violence.

The establishment of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and the inclusion of Sinn Féin with other democratic parties at the forum was based on a clear commitment to a total cessation of violence. The meetings of the forum have been postponed for a month as a result of last Friday's bombing. As a member of the Labour Party delegation I participated at the forum and I pay tribute to its work over the past 15 months. While the absence of Unionist political representation at the forum was a setback, many organisations and community groups representing the Unionist tradition attended the forum, made valuable submissions and participated in cross-party debate. I pay tribute to the late Senator Gordon Wilson who ably expressed the views and concerns of his tradition.

Like other parties represented at the Forum, the Labour Party made fact-finding missions to Belfast, where we met with all the political parties with the exception of the DUP which did not respond to our invitation. I found those meetings very productive and helpful. For the first time we met with Unionist parties and exchanged views on a wide range of North-South issues. In particular, the meetings with the new loyalist parties, the PUP and the UDP, were important. These parties were vital in bringing about a ceasefire on the loyalist side and are bringing much needed fresh thinking to bear on the peace process from the Unionist side. We also met with the Sinn Féin group on Belfast City Council and could not but be impressed by their dedication and commitment.

At the last meeting of the Forum two weeks ago a paper entitled, Paths to a Political Settlement — Principles and Requirements, was presented. This paper set out basic democratic principles considered necessary to attempt to achieve a political accommodation and settlement on this island. Regrettably, it was not possible to obtain all-party agreement on it as Sinn Féin could not accept the consent principle which was also contained in the Downing Street Declaration. I hope conditions will allow the Forum to reconvene soon and continue with its important tasks.

I welcome the report of the international body chaired by the former US Senator George Mitchell which was produced last month. The main recommendation of the Mitchell commission called on the parties to negotiations to affirm their total and absolute commitment to six principles, namely, to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues; to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and to agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission; to renounce for themselves and to oppose any efforts by others to use force or threaten to use force to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations; to agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree; and, to encourage the end of punishment beatings and killings and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.

The Mitchell commission represented a fair and even-handed approach and went to great lengths to be fair to all viewpoints. It provided a way out of the impasse on decommissioning. The immediate response of John Major and the British Government to the Mitchell report was extremely disappointing and a valuable opportunity to move the peace process forward at a critical time was lost. At the time most people believed that John Major adopted such an approach because of his need for Unionist support in the House of Commons. However, we have been told since that the approach was adopted to satisfy Euro-sceptics in his own party and it is even more regrettable the action was taken for that reason. The statement made by John Major on Monday was positive and, hopefully, the two Governments are now back on the twintrack approach.

The recent personal attacks by the Unionist leaders, David Trimble and John Taylor, on the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, were unwarranted and represented a crude and inept attempt to divide the Irish Government parties. The Unionist leadership would better serve the people it represents if it could develop meaningful policies to address the issues which divide the two traditions in Northern Ireland and on the island as a whole. No political leader as a partner in successive Governments has put so much time and effort into trying to resolve the difficulties in Northern Ireland than the Tánaiste. It is dishonest to accuse him of being a mouthpiece for the IRA.

I welcome the announcement of next week's summit between the Irish and British Governments and, hopefully, the twin-track approach will resume.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I condemn the bomb at Canary Wharf. Killing and maiming is not the way forward; violence is not the answer. My constituents, who are in a Border area, are well aware of the futility of violence and of the fruits of the past 17 months of peace.

It is now everybody's duty to persuade the IRA that the campaign of violence should go no further and the ceasefire should be re-established. The two Governments should not close the door to those with influence. The Taoiseach should have met the Sinn Féin leader, Gerry Adams, on Friday night or Saturday morning last to discuss the situation with him and to find out exactly what was happening. The peace process must be restored. It is unfortunate the British Government sent 500 troops to the Border areas; it is unnecessary at this point and will do nothing to defuse the situation. It is an insensitive knee-jerk reaction.

The ceasefire brought hope of an end to violence. It was seen as an opportunity to build a future on the basis of the Joint Declaration of December 1993. The Joint Declaration laid the basis for a ceasefire. Each Government was committed to remove the causes of conflict and to an agreed framework for peace. Paragraph 4 of the declaration stated the British Government's position as being to "achieve such an agreement which will embrace the totality of relationships" and its role being "to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement...by dialogue and co-operation, with full respect for the rights and identities of both communities". What happened to that commitment? What went wrong?

The lead article of the Irish News of 12 February stated that “from the very first hour of the ceasefire, the isolation of republicans was a central part of British policy”. I cannot disagree with that statement. Too much valuable time was wasted on the definition of words and introducing preconditions. A more pragmatic approach was required. The then Irish Government and Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, within days of the ceasefire met Gerry Adams. They assisted Sinn Féin to change to the democratic approach. Sinn Féin was accommodated at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. However, I have been concerned about the political vacuum created because the British Government did not move with the required speed.

I listened to the South African vice-President, Mr. De Klerk, at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation make two important points which are pertinent to the Irish situation. First, where there had been a difficulty between the National Party and the ANC they moved rapidly to get over the difficulty because they saw the potential problems of a political vacuum. Second, with regard to decommissioning, he said he would have liked to have done more but he recognised that if he had tried to do more South Africa would not be where it is today. They were pertinent points in the Irish context.

In the House of Commons on 13 January 1994, John Major said that if Gerry Adams wished to enter into discussions he knew how he might do so — he could decide to give up violence, after three months enter into exploratory talks and then enter into the democratic talks process itself. Mr. Major said that was the route ahead and the only question that needed to be asked was whether Mr. Adams would stop the violence and enter the democratic process. Why did the British Prime Minister not follow through? Why were promises broken? It is not good enough for a sovereign government to allow itself to be paralysed by a dozen Unionist MPs — that is an abrogation of its responsibility.

In the past 30 years Nationalists on this island have taken a quantum leap forward. When I was growing up the accepted Nationalist view was that no minority on the island had a right to impede a united Ireland. Nowadays, no Nationalist wants to see a united Ireland without the consent of the majority of people in the North. However, in the same period Unionists have not moved an inch. Unionists still do not want to recognise the rights of Nationalists on this island, particularly those in the North. They want elections first.

Is this a delaying tactic? The DUP and the UUP would compete with each other on the hustings to see which one of them could go further into the trench. That is not the kind of mandate required. It is obvious that they are seeking an internal solution within the Six Counties and a return to Stormont. The three strand talks process encompassing the North-South relationship in Strand II, must be on the table.

Paragraph 56 of the Mitchell report contains a loose reference to an elected body. It states that oral and written submissions were received and such a body was mentioned in the communiqué. I condemn the Taoiseach and the Government for this. It also states that it would have to be broadly acceptable and have an appropriate mandate and that the three strand structure should be improved.

Fianna Fáil has been part of the peace process from the beginning. Its party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, played a leading role and his analysis since Friday has been an important contribution. On Saturday he made the excellent suggestion that George Mitchell should be invited to be a peace envoy.

The decision of the British Government to sideline the Mitchell report was disastrous. In this context, the Government could have done more in the past 12 months.

I am concerned about the divergence of opinion among the three party leaders. On a number of occasions statements issued by the Minister for Social Welfare were at variance with statements made by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. The Taoiseach was wrong to refuse to meet John Hume and Gerry Adams as he must be seen as the leader of the Nationalist consensus and the three party leaders must speak with one voice. The IRA must call a further ceasefire, the two Governments must agree a joint approach and the Nationalist consensus must be re-established.

Many proposals merit consideration, including the proposal made by my party leader that George Mitchell whose report should be implemented immediately should be invited to act as a peace envoy. John Hume has proposed that a referendum should be held on both parts of the island while the Taoiseach suggested proximity talks.

It is essential that all-party talks take place immediately and even the children on the street know that all parties which have a role to play, including Sinn Féin and the political representatives of the loyalist paramilitaries, should be invited to attend. In this way we can put the peace process back on track and, I hope, move forward to find a solution to the problems on this island.

I listened carefully to two deeply committed and passionate women from Northern Ireland, one from Andersonstown and the other from the Shankill Road, on a late night television programme last night as they said time and again that the peace should belong to the people and that there should be dialogue, not death.

We also have two powerful women in this country who represent their respective countries here which have been actively, centrally and crucially involved in the peace process. I am pleased that one of these women — the American Ambassador, Jean Kennedy Smith — considered the matter so serious that she should be present at the commencement of this debate on Tuesday. Her Government, particularly President Clinton and Senator Mitchell, has played a pivotal and extremely valuable and important role which must not be diminished, but strengthened, in the weeks, months and years ahead.

For the past 17 months we have had the best opportunity since the foundation of the State to achieve a just and lasting solution to the political problems on this island. No one ever said that the process would be easy and that we would achieve anything without taking risks. I was present in Downing Street on 15 December 1993 with the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, when the Downing Street Declaration was signed. This was not agreed without risk taking and much pushing and prodding along the way.

When the British Prime Minister took office he knew very little about this island and even less about the problems of Northern Ireland, but he was prepared to sit down with Deputy Reynolds and learn about the history of this country and that risk taking was necessary to achieve what had been unattainable up to then. Where is he now? Has he gone into an underground bunker? What has he been doing for the past 17 months, other than ensuring his own personal political survival?

Where has Sir Patrick Mayhew been for the same period? I can recall clearly that on a number of occasions in the past he was unhelpful when we were trying to push forward to seek solutions. For the past 17 months he has put forward obstacle after obstacle to a just and lasting solution to the problems on this island.

The Downing Street Declaration was followed by the announcement of the ceasefires which, in turn, were followed by talks, the Joint Framework Document and then the obstacles. After it was stated that there would be no talks the British Government got caught on the hook of decommissioning. It later presented the Washington Three proposal which was followed by the on-off September summit and the Mitchell report prepared by a man who had a deep understanding of and commitment to the resolution of the problems on this island. What happened to this marvellous document It was put in the bin by the British Government which called instead for elections. I am glad the Government said no.

I cannot absolve the leader of the main opposition party in the United Kingdom, Mr. Tony Blair, from blame. Those who aspire to leadership of their country must above all show vision which at present requires courage and risk taking. There has not been much evidence of this across the water during the past 17 months.

The response to what happened last weekend, which none of us can condone and all of us condemn, has been to step up security. It would appear that the only answer the United Kingdom authorities have to the problems on this island is to move on the security front. One of the consequences of the years of strife has been the strong security measures which have had to be taken north and south of the Border, many of which are obtrusive, as Deputy O'Hanlon who lives near the Border is well aware.

These measures include the look out posts which are a blight on the landscape, the closure of Border roads and the blowing up of bridges, leaving craters on the roads. When Minister for Justice, I visited all these posts and I am aware of the inconvenience and major difficulties they caused for honest, ordinary, decent citizens, Catholic and Protestant, in the North, some of whom had to take a round trip of 25 to 30 miles to get from one point of their farm to another. The entrance to one house on the Border was in Northern Ireland and the back door in the South.

We have to learn the lessons and make sure that decommissioning is not made a precondition for anything, not just talks, although everyone agrees that this has to take place. We have spent £2.4 billion of hard earned taxpayers' money on security measures on this side of the Border and we will not go down that road again. That money is needed to deal with criminals in this society and must be used more productively.

Senator Michell did the job he was asked to do with great courage and understanding. In paragraph 35 of his report he gave the British Government an opportunity to get off the hook. It states:

In addition, the approach offers the parties on opportunity to use the process of decommissioning to build confidence one step at a time during negotiations. As progress is made on political issues, even modest, mutual steps on decommissioning could help create the atmosphere needed for further steps in a progressive pattern of mounting trust and confidence.

It is extraordinary that any democratically elected political leader of a sovereign Government would put into a shredder a fundamental document that was the basic foundation for working towards change on this island. The women on television last night called for dialogue, not death. We have not had dialogue for the past 17 months.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste need to do some tough talking. The approach of all British Governments in the past has been to divide and conquer the Irish. I assure the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste that the Opposition will support them in their efforts to continue to unite the Nationalist community on this island. Let us ensure that irrespective of what obstacle the British Government puts in the way that unity is not split. Let us ensure that difference in emphasis between Government leaders here does not allow a British Government to push in and create a bigger crater. We do not want that. We want the obstacles removed and tough talking with the Prime Minister, John Major, and the Secretary of State, Patrick Mayhew. We want them to realise that the Irish Government means business and that we will not allow this glorious window of opportunity we have had for the past 17 months to be frittered away for lack of courage and risk taking. Any member of the British Government or Prime Minister who has the courage to take personal and political risks to resolve, peacefully and politically, Britain's biggest conflict and drain on its economy will be commended.

Many people have shown courage. I have already acknowledged the courage of John Major. John Hume and Gerry Adams also showed courage and Deputy Reynolds, in particular, showed great courage and took personal risks. We should not shut out those who took risks, particularly those on the republican side, whether Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Rita O'Hare, Mitchel McLaughlin, Pat Doherty or any of the others who convinced the IRA to keep their guns silent and that there was hope through the political process. We should not shut them out. Let us continue to have dialogue, not death. There should be no "mights" or "maybes" about talks, a definite date is crucial. That is the core issue as far as our party is concerned. We need Senator Mitchell as a peace envoy. He is the core issue as far as our party is concerned. We need Senator Mitchell as a peace envoy. He is an international and independent figure and understands the problem more than anyone. We want all the people on the island to live together side by side, to build trust, seek reconciliation and reach agreement on our future. We must set a definite date for all-party talks.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Flanagan.

Acting Chairman

I am sure that is agreed.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and hope our contributions make some impression on those listening. All of us felt a profound sense of depression at the news last night that 500 extra UK troops are being sent to Northern Ireland. During the past 18 months there had been a steady reduction in the number of troops in Northern Ireland. Their absence from the streets — like the gradual withdrawal of our security forces from the Border — was one of the tangible signs of peace which brought great joy to people all over the world. Those who planted the bomb last Friday bear full responsibility for putting 500 troops back on the streets of Northern Ireland. I hope that is borne in mind the next time a person takes up a can of graffiti paint to scrawl "troups out" on a wall in the North. The British Government is slow to respond to various initiatives in recent months and we all felt the same deep sense of frustration at the tortuous pace of progress. However, the frustration felt then is nothing to that felt now.

It is a tribute to the resilience of democracy that neither the Irish nor the British Governments permitted themselves to be diverted from the search for peace by the atrocity last Friday night. We must be clear about one matter. The renewed efforts in recent days to find a route out of the impasse are despite, not because, of the IRA's actions. I am hopeful that the peace process will be put back on course. I am also cautiously hopeful that those in the republican movement who recognise the futility of violence will be able to persuade last Friday night's bombers to restore the ceasefire. That is the immediate task facing all democrats on this and the neighbouring island.

In the long-term, however, we must confront the historical nature of violence on this island and those who resort to it. Deputies have referred to the schizophrenia with which we view the so-called physical force tradition. This was evident in some of the contributions last night as there appeared to be some confusion as to whether the British Government or the IRA was responsible for last Friday's bomb. The term "physical force tradition" is a euphemism we use to conceal our discomfort. Physical force sounds far more innocent than plain common language such as violence, murder or slaughter. All Members must face up to that because the majority of us are politically descendent from that ambivalent tradition.

When we look at the IRA and the bewildered faces of English families who have lost a loved one we are looking into the mirror of our history. It is not a pleasant sight but we can learn from it. In this regard I speak from experience. Some Members of my party and the parties from which we originated had their roots in the physical force tradition. I understand the difficulties associated with abandoning the certainties of physical force for the uncertainties of the democratic process. After all, the will of the people is never predictable.

Having witnessed that journey at first hand I assure those trying desperately to make the same journey that it is worthwhile. Having controlled and dominated people's lives for 25 years it is not easy to give back that control to the people. This is about allowing people to live their lives in the manner in which they want to live them, however much we may disagree with that. This is about teaching people to relinquish that control. While we do that every day in other areas, the difficulty in this case is that the people who refuse to relinquish control can kill people.

Violence has its own impetus. After a number of months or years it becomes a way of life which is extremely difficult to abandon. That is one of the reasons the punishment beatings continued in Northern Ireland during the 17 months of the ceasefire. It is about control and determining how others live their lives. Violent acts may be planned by a group and committed in the name of a collective concept, in this case, the Irish nation; that is what fills us with such deep shame. We must not forget that those acts of violence are committed by individuals who ultimately must take responsibility for their actions. The individuals who used frustration as an excuse to murder two men and injure 100 more had been conditioned by a culture that has glorified violence. That culture must be challenged and, as individuals and collectively, we must ensure that challenge is successful.

In the short-term the democratic politicians must, through dialogue and compromise, create the conditions for a lasting peace. In the long-term, however, as a society we must confront the physical force tradition and all that it means and has meant in the past. That will not be easy. It will mean confronting the icons of our own popular mythology, examining them and rejecting many of them as inappropriate. Surely our future, and that of our children, is worth the sacrifice of a few faded remnants of history.

I thank Deputy Lynch for sharing her time with me. It is ironic that while politicians have said they will not waver in the storm of a resumption of violence, it took the exploding of a bomb in London to initiate this Dáil debate. Business has been suspended for the week to allow us, as elected representatives of the people, express our opinion on the peace process. This debate should have taken place some months ago when matters that have frustrated Members of the House on all sides could have been brought to the fore rather than it being precipitated by the events of last Friday.

There is no doubt that the vile actions of the IRA on Friday last resulted in an overwhelming wave of sadness throughout the country. That feeling was not one of anger or outrage which, unfortunately, has been the reaction so often in the past, but utter sadness and almost despair at the slaughter of innocents and the fact that so much potential seems to have been destroyed by a single mindless act of terrorism.

As a constitutional politician I deplore the actions of the IRA and I repeat the sentiment expressed by the Taoiseach and others that the use of violence is never acceptable as a method of delivering a political message. Democratic politics is about compromise, conflict and finding a resolution to problems in the interests of what we, as elected representatives, determine to be the common good.

Like most members of the Fine Gael Party, I have been strongly criticial of the republican movement in the past, abhorring its reign of intimidation, terror and death not only in Ireland but in Britain and in Europe over many years Nevertheless, the cessation of violence in August 1994 utterly revolutionised the political landscape in such a way as to renew hope in the prospect of a lasting settlement after a quarter of a century of mayhem, destruction and death. Most Members of this House were prepared to give Sinn Féin the benefit of the doubt by trusting the sincerity of its sea change in the autumn of 1994.

Last Friday confirmed our worst fears. The act of faith had been thrown back in the face of the Irish Government and John Hume. The natural option as a result of Friday's events would be to close all doors and regress to a pre-ceasefire position but, even in the aftermath of Canary Wharf, doors must be left open and channels of communication in some form be kept in place if a full scale resumption of violence is to be avoided and if Sinn Féin can again be trusted to deliver on the restoration of a cessation of violence. Tomorrow's meeting between officials of the Irish Government and Sinn Féin is, therefore, welcome and I hope it will produce some form of positive dividend.

The ceasefire of August 1994 opened up so many windows of opportunity not only for political structures but also in areas of economic activity, trade, tourism and engendered an overall feeling of well-being not experienced on this island for generations. This positive feeling was no better exemplified than on the faces of the smiling and positive Irish people in Belfast, Derry and Dublin during the visit of President Clinton. We all remember the innocent face of the ten year old girl whose smiling, happy countenance was shown around the world on satellite television.

I refuse to accept that all that can be shattered by the events of Friday last. I cannot avoid forming an opinion, however, that over the past 18 months there has been a lack of commitment on the part of the British Government on the Irish question. The words "generosity" and "imagination" were used freely by John Major when asked about a possible ceasefire in the run up to 31 August 1994. The response has fallen far short of those sentiments.

It must be remembered that in the first instance the ceasefire was far from being an end in itself but a means towards achieving a lasting understanding and settlement. This understanding would not be contained in any specific timeframe but rather an arrangement where solid progress could and should have been reported over a period of years. Not only do Nationalists feel let down, but those citizens longing to live in a peaceful environment, free of the daily threat of bombs and bullets, feel shattered and despondent following last Friday's events. It is a source of regret that so many obstacles were evident to any realistic basis for talks. Those obstacles fuelled a sense a frustration within the Nationalist community, a frustration directed at the British Government.

Since August 1994 we experienced wrangle after wrangle on the permanence of the ceasefire, the principle of consent, the issue of decommissioning, the sudden sidelining of the Mitchell report before its ink was dry and, more recently, the insistence by the British on elections prior to any talks. It was against this atmosphere of obstacle after obstacle that the camel's back broke and the men of violence were allowed take stage. We cannot say Gerry Adams did not warn of such a scenario — he did so on many occasions — but the British refused to accept the fragile nature of the peace process.

Over recent months I have expressed a specific interest in the prisoner issue believing that as in the resolution of all major international conflict, the prisoners should take pride of place. Progress on the prisoner issue has been far short of that expected and must be unfavourably compared to the resolution of major international conflicts. One can contrast the treatment of republican prisoners in the UK with that of Private Lee Clegg which speaks for itself and need not be elaborated upon.

Recategorisation, repatriation and review in relation to the prisoner issue has been minimal over the period of the ceasefire. This sense of frustration is all too real for the prisoners and their families, all of whom embraced the ceasefire which was brokered in the first instance by many of them. Are they now to be the losers on the resumption of violence? Where now stands Paddy Kelly, treated in a most inhumane manner while in a British jail? What use is his support for the ceasefire as he awaits death from cancer in Belfast, far away from family and friends? Where now stands the transfer of sentenced prisoners under the European Convention and the improvement of conditions for those in British jails, or will they be the pawns condemned indefinitely in the fallout of the resumption of violence?

I venture to suggest that the British, particularly John Major and Michael Howard, took the ceasefire for granted and over that period let Nationalists down. If I criticise the British Government for so doing, I am equally critical of the British Labour Party which is equally culpable.

If the path to negotiations between the parties is to advance, Sinn Féin must convince the militants to restore the ceasefire without doubt and without condition and that must be done with immediate effect. In addition, the British Prime Minister must demonstrate that he is not a prisoner of unionism and clear evidence must be shown on his part that the arithmetic in the House of Commons will not be a further stumbling block to progress. Just as the Taoiseach signed an act of faith in Sinn Féin, John Major, in an atmosphere of a restored cessation, must act in the spirit of generosity he promised as far back as August 1994.

This decade has seen remarkable progress on conflicts of immense difficulty in eastern Europe, South Africa and the Middle East. It is not asking too much that representatives of a people longing for peace should be prepared at least to proceed to a talks table without the use of bombs or bullets to further their aims and without saying "no" to everything and "not an inch" to any form of progress. The British politicians in particular must show that they possess the necessary courage and will to advance matters further and in this regard a restoration of the cessation of violence, followed immediately by a date for talks, is absolutely essential.

I propose to share time with my colleagues, Deputies Ó Cuív. Moffatt and another Deputy.

Acting Chairman

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

I join previous speakers in extending my sympathy to the families and relatives of the two people killed and those who were injured in last Friday nights's atrocity in London. I add my voice to the condemnation of that atrocity.

I laud the great people who achieved this great peace prize for us one and a half years ago. John Hume, Gerry Adams and Deputy Albert Reynolds put much work into bringing about the ceasefire at great personal and political risk to themselves. Who can forget the great work done by the then Taoiseach. Deputy Albert Reynolds, in exhorting all concerned to come into the process which led to one a half years of peace, no bloodshed and prosperous times for the entire island, particularly the North? Who can forget his repeated taunt: "who is afraid of peace"? People listened to him and the peace prize was put in place. God bless the people involved in bringing about peace.

We should condemn the atrocities but should not condemn people or look into their backgrounds. In recent days Gerry Adams has been condemned in this House and elsewhere. He should be taken at his word and on the basis of his track record in recent years. He was part of the process which led to peace. When I think of Gerry Adams I say Deo gratias, thank God for his attitude, skills and ability to act as a conduit between the men of violence and the political process. Where would we be without him?

We can condemn its atrocities, way of life and aspirations but the IRA is a fact of life. The might of the British Army and nation, with the assistance of the Irish security forces, have not been able to put a dent in its armour. The people whom I lauded achieved what the might, muscle and fire power of mighty nations could not achieve. We should give Gerry Adams the credibility he deserves. In his magnificent speech my party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, called on the IRA to restore the authority of its political leadership. I endorse that call and ask everyone both inside and outside the House to do everything possible to ensure that the credibility and authority of the leadership of Gerry Adams and his colleagues in Sinn Féin are assured.

The British Government has much to answer for and the levers of procrastination used by it over the past 18 months must be condemned. The main players must deal with this issue in a sensitive way but these levers must be condemned. I am referring to the decision to home in on the word "permanent"— the significance given to this word lost us many months — the demand for decommissioning outside the context of any agreement and the diabolical and totally unacceptable treatment of the Mitchell report.

I wish the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and all those involved in next week's summit well. I add my voice to that of Deputy Bertie Ahern in pledging the support of Fianna Fáil for their efforts. I wish the blessing of God on that meeting which may be the most important one in which the main players will ever be involved.

Is ioma rud gur mhaith liom a rá ar an gceist seo agus tá óráid bhreá déanta amach agam. Mar dhuine a bhí thar a bheith gníomhach le bliain i gceist na síochána agus a d'oibrigh go dícheallach don síocháin ba mhaith liom rudaí a rá leis an Dáil faoi. Cúis íontais agus díomá dom tar éis a bhfuil ráite faoin gá le caint le cúpla lá anuas, nach raibh an Rialtas sásta dóthain ama a thabhairt do Theachtaí Dála len a dtuairimí a chur in iúl faoi phróiséas na síochána. Ní dóigh liomsa go bhfuil sé ceart nó daonlathach nach bhfuil againn ach cúig nóiméad an Teachta len ar dtuairimí a chur in iúl. Má tá ceacht amháin foghlaimthe againn in Éirinn le seachtain anuas is é sin ná an tábhacht atá le caint.

I put much work and thought into writing my speech. Over the past 12 months I have devoted much time to working for peace in my own way. I believe in dialogue but not in violence. It is a tragic irony during a week when we have heard much reference to the importance of dialogue that Opposition Deputies are confined to five minute contributions in this debate.

It is true. The Government should have allocated adequate time for the debate so that every Deputy who wanted to make a 20 minute contribution could do so.

The time for the debate was agreed by the Whips.

Let us have no interruptions as time is limited.

The Fianna Fáil Whip made a case for more time and the Government agreed to an extra day but this was not enough. The Government Whip should be flexible when making arrangements for debates and ensure that all Deputies who wish to make a full contribution can do so. I cannot say all I want to say in five minutes and I do not intend to butcher my speech. I will not destroy it but will distribute it to members of the media if they are interested.

The blame for this tragic impasse in the peace process could be laid at many doors but condemnation or blame never solved anything. Efforts to force people to say things they do not want to say never solved problems but this has been the history of the past 16 months. Building bridges solves problems.

I hope that instead of retreating into our shells, we will redouble our efforts to bring peace to this country. I hope those people who have become complacent in the past 18 months will remember that until we arrive at a soluntion to which all the people on this island can subscribe, the nightmare of the partition of this country will not have been resolved.

What happened last Friday is a tragedy. Let us stop apportioning blame. I wish the British Government would condemn and blame, and look into their own hearts. I will continue to look into my heart to see if there is anything I have not done during the past year, to see if there was more I could have done to try to convince those people who have seen no other way out of their situation other than violence during the last 25 years that, despite what we have seen in terms of lack of democracy in this House today, democracy really does work.

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on the Northern Ireland question and the collapse of the peace process. Would that I was here to eulogise the peace process and its progress to date but, alas, black Friday changed all that. I offer my sympathy to the families who have been bereaved and wish a speedy recovery to all those who were injured.

Let us be grateful for the peace breakthrough after 25 years of war in the North, and give due recognition to all those who participated in its inauguration. It took courage to put the peace process together. Many politicians and non-politicians took personal and political risks in putting the package together but, as Deputy Albert Reynolds, said, who is afraid of peace? Now, who should be afraid of talks and negotiations to get the peace process back on the rails?

Mistakes were made along the way. Despite 17 months of peace, little progress was made in getting all-party talks and negotiations under way. John Major had difficulty at home in regard to his leadership, etc. Nevertheless, he gave certain commitments, as did our Government, to Sinn Féin and the SDLP but he, with the Northern Ireland office, failed to keep the momentum going, perhaps for political reasons. The Labour Party in England did not help either as it tied itself too closely to the Conservative Party and did not heed the warnings of Kevin McNamara, a man who knows Ireland well and has a great interest in this country.

Sinn Féin, particularly Gerry Adams. Martin McGuinness, Pat Doherty and Mitchel McLaughlin, did their best to uphold their new direction in the democratic process of persuading the IRA to give peace a chance and accept commitments given them by our Government. The SDLP and Sinn Féin were needed then, are needed now, and will be needed in the future to get the peace process back on the rails again.

We should remember that no great progress was made on the Nationalist side until John Hume and the SDLP took risks by taking Sinn Féin into their confidence and thereby presenting a united front for the Nationalist aspirations. Thankfully we had a leader down here in Deputy Albert Reynolds who aided them in every way possible and pointed the direction forward.

We must once again all become persuaders. The parties in the Republic, the SDLP and Sinn Féin must again get the Nationalists behind the process. We ask the British Government to be the persuaders of the Unionists. This process is too important to leave on the long finger. There must be no more procrastination. We must get the peace process back on track immediately before there are any more atrocities.

It is with great regret I learned that the IRA issued a press release in the past few minutes indicating that the cessation of violence is definitely over. I am a relatively young man, in my 30s and, at a very early age, I started to learn and to read that this small island had its problems. I grew up hearing and learning about the needless conflict and the turbulence of the Northern situation. It is with emotion and pain that I recall RTE news flashes of tragedy, bombings, killings, sadness, abusive police forces — the nightmares that reflect 25 years of violence. Professor C.L. Carter once said that prosperity in Ireland would have to await a united Ireland. I do not believe that. I believe prosperity in Ireland only has to await peace, and we saw the start of that prosperity in the past 17 months.

I placed many questions on the Order Paper and I have made many submissions on the Northern situation. I was asked to withdraw some questions and I did so. In early 1994 I tabled a question which I left on the Order Paper. When I received a call from the Taoiseach at the time, Deputy Albert Reynolds, asking me to remove the question, to which I agreed, it was a clear signal that something big was happening. The Fianna Fáil-led administration and the Taoiseach were not just going over old ground but exploring new ground and travelling the extra mile. Little did I realise how much was happening. Doors were being opened, talks were under way, hard bargains were being teased out. These involved high risks and courage. Out of all that the Irish peace process of 17 months was born.

In the early days of the peace process Deputy Albert Reynolds was criticised for moving too fast, but he was one of the architects of the process and was determined in the best national interest to give all it took.

Within a few months our partners in Government, the Labour Party, were looking for a head over the relevance of the Duggan case to the Smyth case, official A in the Attorney General's Office and the appointment of the Chief Justice and, of course, there was the Labour Party Leader's personal pride as the high king of Ireland. He was quoted as saying at the time that the peace process was bigger than any single individual, but he made it clear that his pride was more important than the peace process.

At the time of the break-up of Government the peace process did not matter. There was a demand for a head on a plate at all costs, and none of us should lose sight of what happened at the time. I honestly believe, as most people in the country do, that if Deputy Albert Reynolds's Fianna Fáil-led administration were still in power the peace process, while it would have had its difficulties, would have retained the consistency we saw in its early months.

I do not blame just the Labour Party or the Government. John Major and the British Government mishandled the peace process particularly since the Framework Document was issued in February last. They continually created new obstacles to progress and sought to treat the Republican movement as a defeated people with whom they were not required to keep faith. John Major and Sir Patrick Mayhew forgot that the progress they had made was the result of listening to——

The Deputy should conclude. I cannot erode the time of other Deputies.

Progress was the result of listening to and trusting the judgement of the Irish Government. John Major claimed in the House of Commons this week that no one took more risks for peace than his Government in the past two years. I wish that had been true; but if he believes that, he is now contemplating the wreckage of his claim to political achievement.

In the past few days I have come across the latest example of the British Government trying to move the goal posts as it did over decommissioning. John Major has now suggested that a seventh principle be added to the six Mitchell principles as an essential basis for talks.

I must now call another Deputy.

Please do not close doors, start talks and think that will stop the violence. There is a great deal more I would like to say but I regret I do not have the time.

It is regrettable that the ceasefire was broken. I sympathise with the families and friends of the two unfortunate men who died when the IRA detonated a bomb in London on Friday last. In all probability they did not know where Ireland is or understand the problems arising from the history of the relationship between Great Britain and Ireland.

I empathize with the people of the six north eastern counties. Are people who tolerated violence for the past 25 years to be subjected to the same again? It is terrible to subject people to the threat of such violence for the rest of their lives. People under 30 years of age hardly remember when there was peace in their part of the country before the ceasefire.

Members can emphasise to the Government the absolute necessity of restoring peace. The Government must urge the IRA to renounce violence while at the same time urging the British Government to see the value of all party talks. Economic advantages have accrued from tourism and industrial transfers as a result of the 17 months of peace. The economic advantage is trivial compared to the people's new found peace of mind. One can see plainly the contentment on people's faces. I never thought one could read such expression in a person's face but I recall that poem by Goldsmith: "They came to recognise the days disaster in his morning face". During the past 17 months you could see the radiance return to the faces of the people of the North. It would be disastrous if that was taken from them.

Were we responsible in any way for the breakdown of peace? Did we take peace for granted? Did we monitor the progress of peace? If we did, we did not do it sufficiently well. If we were monitoring the progress we would have recognised the chinks in the armour. Nationalists were telling me more than six months ago that peace could not last because they maintained they got nothing out of it. I know that is not true but they maintained they got nothing but broken promises. They were promised all party talks after three months of the ceasefire. That three months came and went and there were no all party talks. Words such as "permanent" became a precondition, then arms had to be handed in before they could take part in talks. The handing in of arms later became the decommissioning of arms, a red herring that is still with us. The communiqué of 24 November signed by the Prime Minister, John Major, and the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, proposed that all party talks would most certainly take place by the end of February 1996. We see what has become of that.

The former US Senator, George Mitchell, chaired an international commission on Northern Ireland. One of the main planks of his report was that decommissioning could take place in tandem with all party talks. That appeared to be acceptable to everyone until Prime Minister, John Major, made his speech in the House of Commons. He devoted six lines of his 20 page speech to the Mitchell report, discarding it completely. What did he replace it with? He proposed the holding of elections. What would elections in the North prove at this stage? Whatever neighbourliness has grown up between communities in the North would be dissipated completely if elections are to be held. Once the campaigning starts all parties will return to their own corner and come out fighting for their point of view. That will polarise the communities further.

Our objective should be all party talks and the renunciation of violence. We should pressurise our Government — I know we are pushing an open door — to impress on the British the importance of agreeing to all party talks while impressing on Sinn Féin and Provisional IRA the necessity to renounce violence.

The Government holds the view that all party talks should take place in Northern Ireland and I fully agree with that but we do not appear to be putting that into practice in the Twenty-six Counties in that the Government will not speak to Gerry Adams. We should speak to Gerry Adams.

I am sure the collective opinion of Government can be relied on but I agree with resuming talks with Gerry Adams.

The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation has been adjourned for four weeks, a decision with which I disagree. I understand why it has been adjourned but it should have continued its meetings. Some people contend that there would be bitter encounters but I do not think that would be the case with a good chairman. We should concentrate on the best way to achieve our objectives. I congratulate those who brought about peace including politicians of all hues, Nationalists, Unionists and those who do not belong to any party. I hope they will give a good chance to peace in the future as they did in the past.

My generation did not know peace in Northern Ireland until 17 months ago when the ceasefire was declared. In every news bulletin until then we heard horrific reports of violence and the deaths of innocent people. Usually a bishop or politician strongly condemned each of these acts of violence and rightly so, but it did not stop the killing. It was only when John Hume initiated dialogue with the terrorists, despite strong criticism at the time, that any real progress was made.

The Canary Whaft bombing was a callous and cowardly act. Innocent people were injured and killed. How anyone can condone such an act and live with themselves is beyond me. The sad fact is that such acts have been done for 27 or 28 years. John Major's rejection of the Mitchell report was a blow to the peace process. The report was a lifeline to the process and John Major should have considered it a little more favourably.

Whether one likes or dislikes Gerry Adams, he has played a major role in the peace process. The ceasefire would not have been possible without him. At this sensitive and crucial stage I put it to the Taoiseach that we should not refuse to meet him, even at ministerial level, if that is what is required to establish peace. We should bend over backwards to do what we can to end this madness.

For 28 years the policy of successive Governments has been to condemn violence and to refuse to speak to those who condoned it. It is very easy to condemn violence. It is not so easy to understand why people feel it is necessary to use it as a means to achieve something. Perhaps that is where we should start from.

Understandably, people North and South are disappointed and saddened by the Canary Wharf bombing but we must move forward. It was a despicable act and a setback to the peace process. We have learned in the past 17 months what it is like to have peace in Northern Ireland. People want peace and, as politicians, we must do whatever it takes and talk to whoever it is necessary to talk to at whatever level is required to achieve peace again.

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid am a roinnt leis an Theachta Gregory. It is vital that we do not forget the victims of the breakdown in the ceasefire. People need not have died. It was an anti-British and anti-Irish act of violence. It condemns the Irish people to further instability and flies in the face of international opinion. The area bombed was built by Canadians and that is ironic when one considers the make-up of the Mitchell Commission. Responsibility for that act must be borne by the IRA. If We look for responsibility in other areas, our prisons would be empty as prisoners would say they were the victims of some circumstance or other that led them to commit crime. The winners are the arms trade and criminals who will be free to commit crime as security forces are redirected in the fight against terrorism.

The Sinn Féin leadership is also a victim. Its credibility has been damaged. History will judge those who took part in the peace process, those who broke promises and said things could happen. My party strongly disagrees with Sinn Féin policy. However, Sinn Féin is also a victim, and far from being frozen out it should be brought into the peace process in an effort to repair it. The Forum can be a vital part of restarting the peace process. It is not to meet for the next four weeks but it is important that bilateral talks continue.

We support the proposal by John Hume to hold a plebiscite in the North and South. It is time to put to rest the IRA claim that it has a mandate from the 1918 election.

The Green Party has four main proposals. There should be a new twin-track approach where all the parties able to come together should do so at a multilateral forum while bilaterial meetings should be held with Sinn Féin, the Unionist parties and others. The international panel for decommissioning, proposed in the Mitchell report, must be set up now. Sinn Féin must be urged to sign up to the proposals in the Mitchell report as must the British Government. That report was drawn up to bring both sides together and if all sides are not prepared to trust an internationally renowned and respected body set up for this purpose, we will be despondent.

The Taoiseach's statement that elections would throw petrol on the flames is valid in the context of the elections that have been spoken about. If elections are to be held somewhere along the line, let us talk about what kind of election would accommodate the diversity of opinion and the smaller parties that have been crucial in the process — I am talking of the Unionist parties — and those that must be represented if there is to be consensus to bring about peace. At present there is gerrymandering in many Northern Ireland constituencies. We must consider a list system. Whenever it is decided to hold an election we must look at securing the widest possible representation and non-majoritarian structures.

Deputy Gregory rose.

I regret the time is exhausted.

Will the Chair consider allowing Deputy Gregory to contribute?

I share the Minister's sympathy for the Deputy but it would erode the time of other Members. However, I will allow him to contribute for one minute.

There is one aspect of the discussion to which attention may not have been drawn and that is the early release of prisoners. It is a grave mistake to break agreements on the release of prisoners. I am particularly concerned that IRSP prisoners in Portlaoise who were due to be released following commitments given at a meeting in the Department of Justice on 18 December and whose organisation has not breached the ceasefire are now victims of recent events. Two of them were due for release in the last few weeks. Their organisation has maintained the ceasefire and has not been involved in violence. It is a great mistake on the parts of the Irish and British Governments to use prisoners as pawns and hostages. I ask the Government to give a lead on this and, where commitments were made, to bring about the early release of specific prisoners from Portlaoise prisons. Those releases should proceed. Mr. Adams was one of the architects of the peace process and it is a great mistake, and will be seen as such in the future, for the Government not to continue to talk to him. I hope it changes that policy.

The last day of August 1994 and 13 October 1994 were truly historic days. They were the days of republican and loyalist ceasefires were announced. Those decisions were warmly welcomed in this House, in the 32 counties and indeed throughout the world. We believed that the tragic chapter of 25 years of violence was over and fervently hoped there would never be political violence on this island again. The dreadful and horrific atrocity in London last Friday night has been rightly condemned by every Member of the House and by every sane person in the country.

I heard of the London bomb as I left home to travel to a Fianna Fáil cumann meeting in Swanlinbar, a town on the Cavan-Fermanagh border in which bombs were planted on a number of occasions and which was devastated by the violence. The people attending that meeting, among them a few people from County Fermanagh, were absolutely appalled and outraged. They were shocked that once again the freedom of the previous 17 months might be taken from them. A number of Border roads leading to that small town have been reopened. By and large people going about their daily business could travel through the nearby permanent vehicle checkpoint without being stopped or harassed, as they had been for the previous 25 years. They never wanted to see again the terrible loss of life witnessed by every parish in the North.

The Downing Street Declaration, the cessation of violence and the publication of the Framework Document are important milestones in our history. We have enjoyed peace because of the political abilities and single-mindedness of Deputy Reynolds, John Hume and others. In their work before the cessation of violence they were vilified by a large section of the Irish media, but they never lost the commitment and courage necessary to bring about peace. They made it clear that in order to advance, consolidate and underpin peace there had to be meaningful progress in addressing the issues concerning those who had come into the democratic mainstream. The peace dividend had to be meaningful and visible to every sector of society.

The introduction by the British of preconditions following the announcement of the ceasefire was an act of betrayal in the trust established between the two Governments in their successful negotiation of the Downing Street Declaration. Our party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, referred to that matter in his excellent contribution last Tuesday. He gave quotation after quotation from the British Prime Minister and his senior Government colleagues that the renunciation of violence would provide the route for Sinn Féin to democratic talks.

A commitment was made in the Framework Document that all-party talks would commence as soon as possible. Once again the British Government did not deliver, nor it appears did it make an effort to deliver on those solemn commitments. The one constant in British policy towards Ireland is the reneging on commitments by that Government, always at crunch times in our history. Instead of talks, new obstacles and road blocks were put in the path of progress. Every individual who has spoken to me about the North since last Friday believes that the British Government exposed the peace process to huge risks and that a new veto was handed to the Unionists.

Earlier this week BBC Northern Ireland conducted a telephone poll in which 66 per cent of respondents stated that all-party talks are needed now. Why was greater urgency not shown throughout 1995 in getting all parties to the negotiating table? Why did it take President Clinton's visit here last November to force the late night flight to London and the subsequent communiqué to talk only of a firm aim of all-party negotiations by the end of February?

The British Government disregarded the Mitchell report. The proposal within hours of an elected body demonstrated clearly the conscious decision of the British Government not to act in good faith. Is it any wonder John Hume was so enraged in the House of Commons? The provocative action of the British in bringing back troops is to be deplored. It is the Royal Irish Regiment, the full time UDR personnel who are being sent to the province of Ulster, including my neighbouring county of Fermanagh. I have spoken to people in that county in recent days and they are absolutely appalled that harassment, permanent vehicle checkpoints and mobile checkpoints could become a feature of their lives again. The present predicament is blamed on Mr. Major and the British Government. Likewise, our Government is blamed for failing to maintain the momentum generated by Deputy Reynolds and Fianna Fáil in Government.

The attitude of the British Government and establishment was signalled by the outlandish remarks of Mr. Mates, M.P., at the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body meeting in Cardiff last September to the effect that the Irish and British Governments might have to contemplate a short-term return to violence. At that meeting I asked whether Mr. Mates was representing the British Government's views, as he did so often in the past.

I thank Deputy Smith for sharing his time with me. Considering the constituency he represents, he has a voice of authority in dealing with the question in hand. In time to come the question, "where were you at 7 p.m. on 9 February 1996?" will be constantly raised. That was the time we heard the news that the IRA ceasefire had ended and, within a few minutes, that a massive bomb had exploded in London. People checked to see whether they had heard correctly. There was a sense of disbelief, numbness, dismay and consternation. There was a feeling of outrage at what had happened. There is no need for each of us to stand up and say how much we condemn that atrocity, but it is with a great sense of outrage that we do so.

Out of that has been born a very strong determination that in these days and the days ahead a very clear and consistent line must be taken by all sides to ensure the peace process is reconstructed, renewed and brought back on course. In that process Fianna Fáil intends to take a very central role, as we have done since Deputy Reynolds brokered the peace process. Of course there is a democratic role for Opposition, but on this question, through our former leader, Deputy Reynolds, we have played a huge role and continue to play a role through our present leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern. There is recognition on all sides of his grasp of the problems, the contacts he has made and the course he wishes to follow.

In a time of great crisis, Abraham Lincoln said to his fellow Americans, "we must think anew and act anew". That is a very appropriate quotation in present circumstances. There is no longer respect for old slogans or for entrenchment and solemn reiteration of views held for years. Neither is there acceptance that one should close one's mind and heart to talks with anybody. I am strongly convinced that, regardless of the position of Governments and Opposition in recent years, the main participants in this whole process should be met again and again.

Gerry Adams and his colleagues played a central role in achieving the peace process. Is it not puerile to demand that they condemn this outrage while insisting that they demand of the IRA, as we do, a renewal of the ceasefire. The issue is not as simplistic as ritualistically calling people to condemn this outrage. I openly condemn violence as do the people of Ireland but we live in a complex society. While recognising that the Government has the right to say it will not formally meet Sinn Féin I urge on it frequent liaisons, meetings and talks with anyone who can help save the peace process. This is not about saving face, it is about saving lives. I strongly commend to the Government Mary Holland's article in The Irish Times today and her equally interesting trenchant article last Saturday. I have no time for old ways if new ways will bring about change. There is no need to cling to precedents if by meeting people we can bring the peace process back on track.

While John Major was dilatory and disregarded the warnings he is not to blame for what happened. A distinction must be drawn between what happened, and the careless, dilatory and pandering way the British Prime Minister dealt with the issue. He signed documents with Deputies Reynolds and Bruton and a communiqué with Deputy John Bruton on the basis of trust, and engaged in the process of getting Senator George Mitchell involved, but all that was to be cast aside for the appreciation of the baying Conservative backbenchers who whooped with delight when he spurned the Mitchell report and opted for elections.

At the best of times elections are inflammatory. They are occasions of triumphalism or despair for the vanquished. The words, "to fight an election", carry echoes of argument and a good deal more than that in the northern context. Whatever the Nationalist parties wish will determine our stance, but elections, as we know them are extremely divisive and will draw the worst out of all concerned. That should not happen.

I was interested in the document outlining the process of proximity talks in detail circulated to all Members by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and I thank him and his office for it. While the idea was not popular initially, it has grown on us. If that process can be successful in getting parties together — I do not care if members of the various parties are in one or ten buildings as long as they debate the issues — we should consider it.

I would be concerned about holding traditional elections in the context of Northern Ireland. An election campaign would involve loud voices in heated arguments and major rallies at which messages of hatred and entrenchment would ultimately give rise to violence. They would not be a good idea, but perhaps nationalists parties can work out and agree a formula for an acceptable election process. However, my experience of "normal elections" here is that they do not breed an atmosphere of serenity or give rise to peaceful debates.

What is needed is a calm clear commitment to the reconstruction of the peace process. The alarming mood swings and position switches in which the Taoiseach indulged on Saturday night when he said holding of elections would be like pouring oil on a burning fire, and the next day when he said perhaps the elective process should be given some thought, do not serve the cause in which we are all engaged. Such random and capricious public comments by the leader of this country, to whom people look for single-mindedness in dealing with this business, reflect inconsistency of thought. Such inconsistency does not engender clam, or give the impression that a firm hand is on the tiller. Those inconsistencies are noted with interest, commented upon and influence the manner in which we are viewed by other Governments.

We should recommit ourselves to reconstructing the peace process, to actively endorsing the Mitchell report and to continuing to press the US for a more emphatic central role in the peace process for Senator George Mitchell. We must all become persuaders and minds and hearts must be kept open to all ideas, persons and organisations. Why should we exclude people like Gerry Adams who were central to the peace process? Their exclusion is not right. It is no time for saving face, it is a time to save people. If we must move away from entrenched positions held by Governments for 60 to 70 years, so be it. That is the way we must go. We have a matter of days to put a coherent shape on the proposals to move forward. The peace was never meant to be passive. It was welcomed but it was meant to be active, lively, developmental and linked to political progress. I strongly recommend intensity of purpose and co-operation between all concerned in the peace process so that we can rescue and reconstruct it.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share