I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time with the Taoiseach.
British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill, 1999: Second Stage.
That is very generous of the Minister of State.
That is agreed.
This is a three section Bill to amend the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999 of 22 March 1999. It is a technical amendment to that Act, designed to ensure the change in the status of the follow-up programme to the current PEACE programme does not inhibit the Special EU Programmes Body carrying out the functions envisaged for it in the original legislation.
It will be recalled that the Act made provision, inter alia, in relation to the Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland establishing the North-South Implementation Bodies. The annex to that Agreement sets out the function of each of the six implementation bodies to be established under the Agreement, while part 4 of Annex 1 sets out the functions of the Special EU Programmes Body and parts 4 and 7 of Annex 2 set out the arrangements to apply to the body. This body's functions, include, inter alia, functions that relate to both the current PEACE programme, which is a Community initiative, and to its successor, which is also categorised as a Community initiative in the Agreement and in the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999.
Following the EU European Council in Berlin in March, it was decided, in the context of reducing the overall number of EU Community initiatives, that the PEACE programme would henceforth be categorised as mainstream Structural Funding. Legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General and from the British-Northern Ireland legal advisers is that unless remedial action is taken, this could result in making the envisaged role of the Special EU Programmes Body in regard to the PEACE programme, post-1999, ultra vires.
To ensure legal certainty and as proof against possible legal challenge, the Irish and British Governments have agreed to effect a technical supplementary Agreement, which will represent an interpretative statement on the previous Agreement. This has been effected through the exchange of letters between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as detailed in the Schedule to the Bill now being presented – the British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill, 1999. The Agreement is intended to be a subsequent Agreement regarding the interpretation of the treaty for the purposes of Article 31 (3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The supplementary Agreement will ensure that, despite the decision of the Berlin European Council that the successor to the PEACE programme will not be a Community initiative, the original intention of both Governments that the Special EU Programmes Body will cover the successor programme will be put into effect.
It is considered legally appropriate to bring forward primary rather than secondary legislation, as the provision for making regulations in section 5 of the British-Irish Agreement Act, 1999, relates to facilitating implementation of the existing Agreement, and could not safely be used to give effect in domestic law to a new technical amending Agreement.
In order that the Special EU Programmes Body can function concurrently with other implementation bodies as soon as the British-Irish Agreement comes into force, it is necessary to have the amending legislation enacted prior to that date. Parallel legislation is being enacted on the UK side.
I would like to briefly refer to the functions envisaged for the Special EU Programmes Body. The EU programmes involved in the present round of Structural Funding are the current Ireland-Northern Ireland INTERREG programme and the Special EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The programmes support a wide range of socio-economic activities in Northern Ireland and the Border counties. The programmes are jointly managed by the Department of Finance and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel. A range of functions carried out at present by the two Finance Departments, including the management and monitoring of the programmes, will be transferred to the body.
The body will have significant functions in relation to post-1999 Structural Funding. It will advise the North-South Ministerial Council and the Finance Departments on the negotiation of the post-1999 Community initiatives. It will prepare for the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council detailed programme proposals under the new Community initiatives and the successor to PEACE and will be involved in the negotiations on the new programmes with the European Commission. It will also be responsible for grant-making and other managerial functions in respect of INTERREG III, the cross-Border elements of other initiatives and the successor to the PEACE programme.
The body will also be directly responsible for a new proactive approach to the support and encouragement of an ever increasing range of North-South co-operative actions along the lines set out in the common chapter of the respective national plans. The body will provide a unique focus point to ensure maximum complementarity and added value in the delivery of cross-Border programmes. It will facilitate the drafting of cross-Border EU initiatives in such a way that will ensure a coherent, cohesive, integrated and effective response to the problems and the challenges posed by the peace process. EU funding in respect of the successor to the PEACE programme is expected to be some 500 million euro, of which one hundred million euro would be in respect of the southern Border counties. In addition, Ireland's share in the next round of Community initiatives is expected to be 150 million euro.
There are two elements in the current process to copperfasten the function of the Special EU Programmes Body in relation to the successor to the current PEACE programme. The first is the exchange of letters between the two Governments agreeing the interpretation of the Agreement. The text of these letters is included in a Schedule to the current Bill. Section 1 provides for a definition of the Principal Act as the British Irish Agreement Act, 1999. Section 2 (a) provides for the insertion of an additional definition in the Principal Act of the Supplementary Agreement, being the letters exchanged between the two Governments and included as a Schedule to the current Bill. Section 2(b) provides for an addition to section 23 of the Principal Act which ensures that the references to the functions of the special EU programmes body be construed in accordance with the Supplementary Agreement, that is, that they include the successor to the current peace programme. Section 3 gives the short Title and collective citation, and provides for commencement.
This proposed legislative amendment would ensure legal certainty in the new round of Structural Funds to guard against legal challenge, and along with the corresponding British statutory provision, would underpin the technical Supplementary Agreement. I commend this Bill to the House.
I will use this occasion to say a few words as we enter the final days of negotiation up to 30 June. Time is running short. If the Agreement is to work, we need to make it work now. There is nothing to be gained by further delay or procrastination. There are real risks on all sides if we and all the parties do not move soon to fulfil the will of the people. Allowing a political vacuum to develop is not a responsible option for anyone. The large amount of progress represented by the Agreement has to be followed through and copperfastened.
I appeal to all with influence to show the goodwill necessary to clear the impasse and to give not just the Agreement, but peace, reconciliation and democracy the chance they deserve. No one has the right, either through their actions or by their failure to act, to frustrate the prospect of a peaceful future for the people of Northern Ireland. The opportunity should be grasped while it is still available.
People should not refuse to go beyond the minimum required of them. They need to accept that there may be more than one possible interpretation of the Agreement. There are many genuine and legitimate causes of grievance on all sides, even since the Good Friday Agreement. Anyone can put forward plausible reasons in abundance – why it is others who should move, why it is others who are responsible for creating the impasse or for letting it develop. These arguments have gone round and round in circles, and could go on ad infinitum. As an overriding goal, each of us should assume our own responsibility for making the Agreement work.
If progress is to be made, it is first essential to establish the institutions. This would have to be on the clear understanding that all major commitments under the Agreement would be fulfilled in good faith within the timescales set out in the Agreement. All the indications are that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, however desirable as a confidence building measure on its own merits, will not take place in advance of the establishment of the institutions. However, it is equally clear that the institutions will only be sustainable if confidence and trust are built and developed through the fulfilment of commitments under the Agreement.
The delays in implementing different parts of the Agreement are unfortunately mutually reinforcing and we are coming close to the point where, without progress on institutions, the May 2000 target for achieving the decommissioning of paramilitary arms will soon cease to be credible. Realistically, it is only in the context of a confidence in functioning democratic institutions that it will be possible to persuade the different groups involved to permanently dispose of their weapons.
Unionism owes it to itself to dispel the persistent doubts about its real willingness to enter into the inclusive partnership and other arrangements it signed up to under the Agreement, especially given the growing loyalist dissident attacks on Catholics which are obviously designed to bring about the collapse of the Agreement.
However, notwithstanding the severe pressure that some sections of the Nationalist community have been put under, republicans can also do more to assist this situation. The Irish Government acknowledges the inestimable benefits that all the continuing ceasefires have brought. The pledge of office taken by ministers precludes any use or threat of violence and entry into govern ment by Sinn Féin would itself send the most powerful signal that the war is over, as far as republicans are concerned. All armed groups should acknowledge that they also have an inescapable contribution to make to democracy and demilitarisation in Northern Ireland by the permanent removal of weapons from the political scene. The Good Friday Agreement cannot work on the basis that there will not be decommissioning. It will only work if the institutions are established now and if confidence is created that a process of decommissioning will be achieved under the aegis of General de Chastelain and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
Historic responsibilities have been placed on the political leaders of this generation. We have a duty to shoulder and not shirk those responsibilities and not place vetoes in the hands of opponents of the Agreement. There are many ways forward available that would be seen as reasonable by most people and that will protect the important principles involved for each party. However, they would also allow the people of Northern Ireland and the island as a whole to enjoy the peace and stability for which they have waited so long.
It is very important in politics to mean what one says and say what one means. The Taoiseach was asked here last week what would happen if agreement was not reached on or before 30 June as regards the outstanding issues relating to the formation of an executive and the removal of weapons. He said "On 1 July we will move this process forward or we will have to look for another way forward". I asked him what this meant. He said it meant the Agreement as it stands would be effectively set aside. On 15 April last the Taoiseach gave a speech in Britain entitled "Ireland and Britain – a new relationship for the new millennium" and said of all the relationships between Britain and Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement is the bedrock. It would be very serious if that bedrock was set aside. We should reflect, perhaps a great deal more than the House and public opinion has done, on the gravity of what the Taoiseach said last week – if agreement is not reached, the Good Friday Agreement will be set aside.
I was a little worried the Taoiseach may have been stating the issue in an unduly stark manner. It is important to understand there is an interplay of issues working on the political parties in Northern Ireland. The looming confrontation at Drumcree is casting its shadow backwards into this month and is making manoeuvre more difficult for the political parties. It is important to understand the historic context of Drumcree and Portadown. There has been confrontation because of marches in that part of the country for the past 200 years. The first known case was in 1788 when a group of Irish volunteers, mostly Protestant, were marching to a service in Arm agh's Protestant Cathedral. The volunteers decided they would celebrate this by playing The Boyne Water and The Protestant Boys. They were stoned by local Catholics and there was a subsequent affray in which people lost their lives. Parades have been at the heart of conflict in Northern Ireland since then. There was a similar conflict at Dolly's Brae in 1849 where again local residents were offended by a parade. In the subsequent row, about 30 people, mostly Catholic, were killed.
The killing of people, in association with conflicts about parades is, tragically, nothing new in Northern Ireland. It creates a political problem for all those who are trying to make compromises. It is fair to say that people in Ulster, on both sides of the political divide, have a stubborn streak. If they are told "Agree to this by 30 June, or else", there is always the risk that the "or else" will eventuate because of people's resentment at having their options closed off by someone else.
I hope the approach that is being taken is right. I share the sense of urgency expressed by the Taoiseach. I agree with him that prolonged delay or procrastination does not necessarily make the situation better and can make it worse. I agree with the concern he has expressed about the beleaguered Nationalist community in the vicinity of Portadown who feel unsettled, as do Catholic worshippers in Harryville in south Antrim. However, at the same time, we should bear in mind that the issues of weaponry, decommissioning, policing and power sharing are extremely difficult.
I hope the British Prime Minister is not applying the same logic in his dealings with Northern parties as was applied at Rambouillet, where the participants were asked, as I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, would wish to know, to accept the agreement dictated by Madeleine Albright in full, or else. After a long period of bombing, those who dictated those terms at Rambouillet may feel they have been vindicated. However, I am not sure that approach of dictating the terms of peace, which Prime Minister Blair may feel was successfully applied at Rambouillet and in the subsequent discussions following the outbreak of war in Yugoslavia, will necessarily work in Ireland.
I hope the Taoiseach, who I believe has handled this matter with proper caution, subtlety and a clear understanding of principle, will not allow himself to be pushed by the British Prime Minister into taking a position which is unduly incautious in regard to this deadline. As I said, I was surprised he would say that the Agreement will be set aside on 1 July if the deadline is not reached. It was not the sort of black and white statement I expected from him. I suspect the post bellum euphoria being felt in 10 Downing Street may be influencing this approach. I hope that is not necessarily how we will approach this problem.
I understand the difficulty the republican movement has in commencing decommissioning. It sees putting weapons out of commission as saying, in a sense, that its war was not justified. Most people on these islands would be of the opinion that its war was never justified. That does not make it any easier for those who believe it was justified to concede to a demand or request that is being made by the majority.
However, the truth of the matter is that the Good Friday Agreement has created a new political reality in which all the issues about who was right and who was wrong in the past can be set aside with honour by everybody. It does not now matter very much whether the IRA was right or wrong in 1970. That matter should now be left, with comfort, to historians to argue; it is not a matter for practical politicians today.
I do not believe the republican movement needs to retain its large arsenals of Semtex to defend beleaguered Catholics in the Garvaghy Road. Semtex has no defensive purpose and is a purely aggressive weapon. I do not understand why, if Sinn Féin and the republican movement accept that the Good Friday Agreement is a new departure and that there is now a new political reality on this island and between this island and its neighbour, they cannot commence the process of decommissioning.
It is important to understand but to also be constructively critical of the approach being adopted by the Ulster Unionists. The idea that a gesture of decommissioning in itself changes anything is meaningless. If the IRA wishes to be cynical – and it is extremely cynical in many of its activities – it could comply with this request for a gesture. The notion that, somehow or other, making a gesture of getting rid of two or three kalashnikovs or boring a hole in some weaponry and displaying them in a public place would change the political context and that everything would suddenly be all right as far as Unionists are concerned, does not make any sense. If it made sense for Unionists to agree to the Good Friday Agreement at all, a gesture of that nature does not change anything.
What is clearly necessary is the creation of a political context in which, on one hand, people can begin to believe that Unionists are willing to share power indefinitely with Sinn Féin in good faith, regardless of temporary set backs and disagreements, and that Unionists accept republicans have a place in decision making in Northern Ireland and, on the other hand, in which republicans go to the trouble of convincing the Unionist community that weapons will never be used again.
It is hard, gesture or no gesture, for that to be done when three people have been killed by the IRA in the past three months. They may have been, in the eyes of the IRA, drug barons, people who were not paying the donations they should have been to the cause or people who gave information about crime in the past and had gone to another country under a witness protection programme. However, that does not really matter. They were people and the IRA, which is on ceasefire, had no right to kill or attempt to kill them. If the republican movement is asking us to accept that there is no intention of using weapons again, that we do not need decommissioning and that we have peace, how is that consistent with the fact that the IRA has apparently killed three people and maimed another in the recent past?
I would not be as hard as some have been on the IRA over the graves issue. It is possible that after this length of time they have forgotten the precise locations. It is possible that the records within the IRA are not as good as they should be. It may be that this information was volunteered entirely in good faith. However, there is no way that one can adopt an understanding view of the IRA in regard to the killing of three people in the past two months. That is not consistent with being on ceasefire. Killing retired informers or current criminals is not consistent with being on ceasefire.
The quality of democracy in this jurisdiction is also at stake. While canvassing in Dublin in the recent local elections, I met a lady who said she had been intimidated to prevent her giving evidence as a witness in a serious case involving crime in this city. She was living in fear of her life and wanted me to approach Dublin Corporation to see whether she could be rehoused away from the paramilitaries operating in this city who had threatened her and her children because of her willingness to testify in this case.
The idea that such intimidation is not being conducted by paramilitaries in this State is wrong. The Taoiseach should understand, as I know he does, that on the issue of the long-term intent in regard to the use of IRA weapons or putting them out of harm's way, we are facing a crisis of confidence in regard to the nature of democracy in this jurisdiction. Do political parties with armed wings have a place in our democracy? I believe they do not have a place in Government at local or national level here as long as they continue to arrogate to themselves the right to be associated with an organisation that has used and is still willing to use guns. There is a fundamental issue here concerning the quality of our democracy. Is it a half-armed democracy or is it a democracy that relies solely on political means to persuade people to change their opinions? Is there a place for paramilitaries in this jurisdiction? That is an issue we must face even if Northern Ireland and the Northern issue did not exist. It is fundamental. Paramilitarism has no place in the domestic politics of this State. The issue of deciding whether the arms issue should be dealt with is not something we in this democratic assembly, the fifth oldest continuous democracy in western Europe, can sub-contract to David Trimble. It is not for us as democrats to say that whatever is satisfactory to David Trimble will be satisfactory to us and that if he is prepared to accept that people who continue to arrogate to themselves the right to hold guns indefinitely can participate with him that we will not cause any difficulties. That is not sufficient. We in this House have a vested interest in guaranteeing the quality of our democracy, which is longer standing and more robust than any form of democracy that has existed in this century in north-east Ulster. Our democracy predates that and has always been genuinely pluralist. Guns have not been part of our democracy at any stage since the State's foundation. That was one of the fundamental achievements of W. T. Cosgrave and Éamon de Valera. I hope the issue of parties that are associated with armed organisations which continue to kill people, even while on ceasefire, will not be put aside in order to reach the deadline of 30 June.
This agreement and legislation concerning the British-Irish Council and the North-South Council is very important. I welcome the changes that are being made. I hope that in our prosperity we will not forget an earlier generation of Irish people who emigrated to Britain. One of the saddest sights I have ever seen was in a pub in north London frequented by older Irish people. I have seen people sitting around with faded photographs of Leitrim and Louth teams of the 1950s, teams that nobody heard very much about but that mean something to the people who frequent the Spotted Dog in Cricklewood. One sees elderly men sitting there nursing one pint for a whole day. That is all they can afford. It is the only place they can go and be at home with other Irish people. They are extremely lonely. Their families have no interest in them. They cannot afford to go home, even with current relatively cheap air fares. They are cut off from Ireland and the community in Britain. They are alienated from everybody. The level of desperation, illness and suicide among older Irish people is quite serious. In many British cities a disproportionate number of the elderly living alone are Irish. Their community is not being renewed because young Irish people are not emigrating to Coventry, Birmingham or Manchester. These people are completely isolated.
I have appealed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Government financial support for the establishment of a free phone service in Britain so that such people can talk to other Irish people in Britain who would provide a service similar to that given by an organisation to help the elderly which is located in Summerhill in my constituency and serves the whole country. Older people can telephone and talk about things they do not want to bother their daughter-in-laws with, worries about health, medication, their children and grandchildren, wills and all the things that prey on their minds. At home they can talk about their problems even if their families are far away from them. Older Irish people living in Britain, many of whom never married, have no one to talk to. Often they have no children and their relatives, if they have any, may be living elsewhere. Human contact should not be underestimated. I hope that as part of the implementation of the British-Irish Agreement, which hopefully will materialise and will not be held up by the decommissioning issue, the Irish Government will make provision for some assistance to be given for a service that will relieve the loneliness felt by older Irish people living in Britain. Clearly their social welfare entitlements are looked after by the British authorities. However, their spiritual and psychological needs are ones for which we have a continuing responsibility.
We are the lucky generation. The Irish generation who emigrated in the fifties and in the fifties of the last century are among the most unlucky generations to have inhabited this island. We have a responsibility to the less fortunate generations. I hope that we will not fail to take the opportunity to do something more than we are doing for the older Irish in Britain.
I want to make some remarks on what Deputy Bruton said about Sinn Féin in the capital city. Commentators who have examined and in some cases misrepresented the vote which Sinn Féin achieved in the Dublin area are missing the point. A colleague of mine explained it succinctly. He said that if he went out to organise a march against drugs in his area, he would be lucky to find half a dozen people to walk with him. If a Sinn Féin activist in the same area organised a march against drugs, he would probably be accompanied by 600 people. He explained that the reason for this was simple. The people marching behind the Sinn Féin activist feel a sense of security from the shadow of the gunman which hangs over that party, security from the drug barons who operate in these communities.
That is an aspect of the activities of Sinn Féin which must be examined seriously and addressed by the authorities. I am not talking about clamping down on Sinn Féin or on anti-drug activity, I am talking about ensuring that the police force, an excellent force in many ways, is geared to deal with the drug problem in these areas which lose children on a daily basis to the scourge of drugs. It must also be ensured that the services which these families need to cope with drug addiction are available. Unless we deal with the drugs issue effectively through prevention, we will not fully appreciate the problem until we have grown a monster in our midst.
In listening to the Taoiseach's speech, I was somewhat alarmed by what he said. I am alarmed because I detect a shift in the position of the Government on decommissioning. In his speech the Taoiseach said that it is first essential to establish the institutions, that all major commitments under the Agreement would be fulfilled in good faith within the timescales set out in the Agreement and that decommissioning will not take place in advance of the establishment of the institutions. He continued that it is equally clear that the institutions will only be sustainable if confidence and trust are built and developed through the fulfilment of commitments under the Agreement. The Taoiseach then said that the pledge of office taken by Ministers precludes the use or threat of violence and entry into Government by Sinn Féin would itself send the most powerful signal that the war is over as far as republicans are concerned.
I would like reassurance from the Taoiseach that the speech is either badly written or I am misreading what he said. It seems that he is saying that Sinn Féin should have places on the Executive before there is any gesture on decommissioning. The Taoiseach is now looking for a commitment from Sinn Féin that decommissioning, which may not take place before the institutions are established, will be completed within the timeframe set out in the Agreement. That will put the Ulster Unionist Party in an untenable position. Before this debate is concluded, by way of coming back into the House or by public statement, the Taoiseach should give a reassurance that the position of the Government has not changed on decommissioning. I am concerned that statement, as it was delivered here, will be interpreted by the Ulster Unionist Party as a shift in the Government position.
The harsh reality is that unless progress is made within the next ten days in overcoming the very serious obstacles to the establishment of an Executive and the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, the Bill we are now debating will be totally irrelevant as the whole process may collapse, sweeping away the cross-Border bodies agreed by the two Governments and approved in legislation in the Oireachtas and Westminster.
The nature of this process from its earliest days has been that it has faced crisis after crisis, gone to the brink on numerous occasions, seemed every few months to have run into a dead end, but always, often at the last minute, compromise was found, concessions were made and momentum was maintained. No one should underestimate, however, the seriousness of the situation we now face. The process has been stuck in the sand for several months. The patience of the two Governments and the people, North and South, is close to exhaustion. The deadline of 30 June is a serious one. Unless progress is made before then, the situation for the people of Northern Ireland is bleak, particularly with the unresolved issue of Drumcree looming in the background. In these circumstances one can only fully endorse the call by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for one last enormous effort to find agreement. I do not believe that it is beyond the capacity of the two Governments and the political parties which, against all the odds, successfully negotiated the Good Friday Agreement to find a way forward. Time is running out.
Despite the euphoria surrounding the Good Friday Agreement and the decisive endorsement of it by the people, North and South, it was evident that the Agreement in itself was not a solution to all the problems of Northern Ireland. The Agreement provided a framework on which the politicians of Northern Ireland could build the edifice of a lasting political structure which would deliver a lasting peace. It is disappointing that in the 14 months since the Agreement was concluded more progress has not been made. It is disappointing but perhaps not surprising, given the history of the Northern Ireland state and the legacy of 30 years of appalling military violence.
Even as we face into these crucial ten days we should not lose sight of what has been achieved since the Agreement was signed. The paramilitary ceasefires have largely held and while there has been sporadic violence, many more would have died had the Agreement not been concluded. There were positive referendum results in both jurisdictions. There were the assembly elections, followed by the initial meetings of that body, which were held with fewer problems than many had anticipated. There has been a reduction in troop levels, the reopening of Border roads and the establishment of a commission on policing. Hundreds of prisoners have been freed. There are no Provisional IRA prisoners left in jail in Britain and only a handful in jail in the Republic. Agreement has been reached between the two Governments on cross-Border bodies, and European Union money to support the reconciliation process has been guaranteed.
The question facing all those parties participating in the talks, principally Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party, is, having come so far, will they allow all of this to be jeopardised by a failure to go the last mile? The Ulster Unionist Party must ask itself if it will risk the collapse of the Agreement only to have it replaced by the reinstatement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which it opposed for so long. Sinn Féin must ask itself if it will risk the collapse of the Agreement and with it the all-Ireland dimension recognised through the North-South bodies.
The single issue which has presented so many problems since the process began, and which again threatens to undermine all the progress which has been made, is decommissioning. Arguments that decommissioning is unimportant because decommissioned weapons or explosives can be replaced are missing the point. Decommissioning is about building trust and demonstrating absolute commitment to exclusively democratic means of pursuing political belief. Without trust and an absolute commitment to democracy, that process may well founder.
There is little doubt that there is still widespread distrust of the republican movement among the broader Unionist community, a distrust which is not surprising given the events of the past 30 years. Ways have to be found to overcome that distrust. Some movement in the area of decommissioning is essential. The fact is that virtually everyone has compromised on the issue of decommissioning other than the paramilitary organisations. The two Governments softened their positions on a number of occasions to ensure the process was kept afloat. It is often for gotten that the Mitchell report, published in 1996, recommended that there be some decommissioning while the talks took place, but that did not happen. The original position of the Ulster Unionist Party was that it would not take part in talks with Sinn Féin until there was some decommissioning; it compromised on that position.
The paramilitaries, and their political representatives, alone have refused to make an movement on this issue. They have done so despite the motion agreed by all parties to the Stormont talks in September 1997 that the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation. Under the terms of the Agreement all parties are required to work constructively and in good faith with the independent commission and to use any influence they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons within two years following endorsement in referendums. It is true no date was set for the start of decommissioning but no date was specified either for the start of the release of prisoners, yet that process is now almost complete.
The failure to offer any movement together with unconfirmed reports of involvement of the republican movement in three recent murders in Northern Ireland all continue to raise legitimate questions about the democratic credentials of Sinn Féin. One cannot be half a democrat. The commitment to exclusively democratic means of all those parties whose members will hold ministerial office in an executive must be absolute and beyond question. If the republican movement is committed to the Good Friday Agreement, which includes a commitment to the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by May of next year – only 11 months away – why can it not make some movement, some small gesture, which will break the logjam and allow the full implementation of the Agreement which we all want to see? If it cannot bring itself, for whatever reason, to the actual handing over of arms or explosives, then it is up to it to come up with an alternative strategy to reassure not only Unionists, but all democrats in Northern Ireland of their commitment to the democratic process.
It must recognise that without the continued support and involvement of the Ulster Unionist Party, the process has no future. It must recognise that of all the political leaders in Northern Ireland, David Trimble is the one who is politically least secure. Does it really relish the prospect of David Trimble being forced out of office by its intransigence and having to negotiate with an Ulster Unionist Party led by somebody with a more inflexible and rigid position? The Ulster Unionist Party must, in turn, accept that if it sets the bar at an unrealistic level and makes it impossible, for whatever reason, for the republican movement to deliver, then all will be lost. The sensible and practical solution seems to be simultaneous movement on both sides. To use a phrase used before, Gerry Adams and David Trimble should jump together.
Despite all the problems which have been encountered, opinion polls show a continuing level of support consistent with that won in the referendum. Again, in the recent European elections, some 70 per cent of the people voted for pro-Agreement parties. The people of Northern Ireland will take a harsh view of anyone whose intransigence or refusal to move will scupper the Agreement. Regardless of what happens over the next ten days, we must ensure continued funding for the European Union's special support programme for peace and reconciliation which has been supporting practical steps designed to remove the barriers which have thwarted social relationships on both sides of the Border. They have tried to do this in a number of ways: one, by encouraging community development, which is consciously inclusive – the Programme for Peace and Reconciliation has been to the forefront in challenging old attitudes; two, by empowering marginalised groups in society and providing them with education and employment opportunities and, three, by ensuring the most vulnerable and marginalised are specifically supported.
While it would be wrong to overstate what has been achieved, there is no doubt it has created a framework in Border areas within which a process of reconciliation can be facilitated. These programmes were put in place following the paramilitary ceasefires in 1994. The fact that they survived the breakdown in 1996, is a tribute to all those involved. It will clearly take a long time to end the legacy of suspicion created by generations of conflict, but the EU peace programme has played an important part in the process of reconciliation and must be allowed to continue to do so.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute briefly to this debate, one which, some weeks ago, we did not believe we would be holding having regard to the passing of the British-Irish Agreement Bill. I acknowledge the technical difficulty which has been brought to the attention of the House by the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, and the need for primary rather than secondary legislation. It is fair to say the legislation, however technical in nature, has the support of everybody in the House. It is important there is no legal doubt as to the status of European funding for Northern Ireland. Having regard to the great role played by the European Union in the past in terms of investment in Northern Ireland, that level of investment will continue to be extremely important as we hope the democratic routes take effect and the Agreement and the peace process proceed.
Economic development has been assisted by the European Union, particularly the road and rail links. Other infrastructural benefits have been made possible by EU funding. West of the Bann, where there has been a great need for economic regeneration and to ensure employ ment and training is available for citizens and that infrastructural developments can keep apace with those east of the river, there is no rail link, port or air service. It is important in the context of European aid and the various aid projects available that consideration is given to that area.
The European Union has been of great assistance in community projects which have been put in place, particularly projects to help and assist the rehabilitation and reintegration of those who have been released from prison under the Good Friday Agreement. In the context of post-release welfare, it is important that an appropriate level of training is available and that there is induction by way of skills to ensure people can reintegrate into society in an appropriate manner. It is significant that so far, incidence of re-offending among those who have been released from prison have been particularly low. In fact, it has been almost negligible among those who have benefited under the Agreement and who have come home and availed of the early release scheme. Thankfully, there have been few recorded incidents of persons becoming engaged in unlawful activity.
The Bill recognises the fact the status of Northern Ireland has become internationalised. As well as the assistance from the European Union in recent times, it is important to acknowledge the great role played by the United States, which has been acknowledged in the House on many occasions, and perhaps most importantly, the visit of President Clinton two years ago. Maintenance of the current level of economic aid from Europe is important and amounted to 100 million ecus in 1999. The Minister indicated a similar amount of funding will be available over the next couple of years.
In the context of the 80:20 split between Northern Ireland and the Border counties, I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and his colleagues from the Border constituencies will have something to say about it. It is important to ensure there is a level available to the Border counties that have suffered considerably because of the absence of normality over the past 30 years or more.
As Deputy De Rossa said, the Bill will only be of significance in the event of progress being made on the Agreement in the multi-party negotiations over the next ten days. I listened to what the Taoiseach said and noted in the context of what was quoted by the previous speaker a change in the signal he is sending out when he said that the Agreement "will only work if the institutions are established now and if confidence is created that a process of decommissioning will be achieved under the aegis of General de Chastelain and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement". I am not sure one can point to an element of contemporaneous movement in the context of the use of the word "will" on two occasions in this extract as it seems the Taoiseach has indicated that the institutions could be established now, that confidence would be created and that following that a process of decommissioning would be achieved. This seems to signal a change from the article in the Sunday Times in which the Taoiseach spoke about the compatibility or possibility of having people serving on the Executive without the commencement of or movement on decommissioning. I wonder where stands this interview which was carried in the Sunday Times eight or ten weeks ago vis-à-vis his statement earlier this evening.
Looking at what has been achieved puts into context the great difficulties faced over the next few days. It would be unthinkable to suggest that everything which has been done to date has been for nought. There have been changes in security arrangements in terms of demilitarisation and normalisation which to some extent have changed the landscape in Border areas, physically with the removal of some of the military posts, and in west Belfast where troops on the street are a thing of the past. There has been a recognition on the part of the security forces that the process of normalisation should be considered positively. Considerable progress has also been made in policing and justice by the police commission, under the chairmanship of Chris Patten, which is due to report before the end of our summer recess. Progress on the prisoner issue has been so positive that it puts other areas of the Agreement, particularly that concerning decommissioning, very much in the spotlight. Today a very high profile prisoner was released showing the resolve on the part of the British Government to continue with the early release programme for prisoners in spite of the fact that there are areas of the Agreement where little or no progress can be reported. There has been progress in terms of UK human rights legislation and the review of the criminal justice system.
We have enacted much legislation in this jurisdiction, including that concerning the North-South bodies and that dealing with the graves of the disappeared, legislation which was not part of the Agreement but which was considered necessary. One wonders whether we, as democratically elected parliamentarians, were sold a pup by the republican movement in terms of this legislation. Certainly, there has been grave disappointment on the part of the families who have suffered horrendous insult and injury following the great trauma and difficulty imposed on them. Their most recent experience has been horrific and has brought little from the republican movement other than hand wringing as it says that what has happened is not really its fault and that it has given as much information as it has. The debacle surrounding the graves of the disappeared is totally unacceptable. Within a few weeks of an initial statement from the republican movement we enacted legislation of an emergency nature which would be unknown and unheard of in many democratic states. However, we were prepared to accept an element of good faith from people who did not reciprocate in terms of providing an equal measure of good faith not only to us as parliamentarians and to the British and Irish Governments, but more particularly to the families of the victims who have suffered silently and without support for decades.
There can be no doubt that decommissioning is an issue upon which there will have to be some positive movement. In our democratic State, it would be unthinkable to suggest that a party commanding sufficient votes to allow for a number of seats in our democratically elected Parliament could sit in Cabinet in a coalition Government while at the same time it was in a position to at least license a return to terror or the engagement of a private army. We would find this totally unacceptable and I do not think we should wish different circumstances to obtain in Northern Ireland from those we would tolerate or wish to see in operation in this jurisdiction. The reality remains that Sinn Féin still must show and convince us that it has crossed the Rubicon and embarked upon constitutional politics in the form of a total and exclusive commitment to the ballot box and has turned its back on the armalite. The leadership of the party has not said this in clear and concise terms. It was most shocking to see on television evidence of paramilitarism in terms of balaclavas, military gear and sun glasses at the republican commemoration in Bodenstown at the weekend which was addressed by prominent members of Sinn Féin. What was the reason for such a display? Why was there a need to have these people present if Sinn Féin has crossed the Rubicon and is engaging exclusively in constitutional politics and the politics of democracy? It was a most unfortunate and distasteful show of strength which at such a crucial time in the peace process could be considered most unhelpful.
Some form of movement in the decommissioning issue is essential. We have debated this before but people still need convincing that Semtex can be regarded as a weapon of defence. Although there is a remarkably high supply of Semtex on this island, none of it has been handed over in a genuine attempt on the part of the Republican movement to demonstrate to those who doubt its commitment that it is prepared to engage in an element of disarmament, in spite of the fact that the Agreement signed over a year ago makes it clear. Paragraph 4 of the decommissioning section states:
The Independent Commission [, that is General de Chastelain,] will monitor, review and verify progress on decommissioning of illegal arms, and will report to both Governments at regular intervals.
General de Chastelain has not reported anything because he has had nothing to report. It is some months since Mr. Martin McGuinness decided to sit on that committee as a liaison officer and yet there is little report of positive progress. General de Chastelain has made no public statement to date. We are told by Republicans that he is happy. We will probably know pretty soon if he is. He does not have any political authority to advance the process. As much as he would like to take an initiative, it is not within his remit to do so. So much has been left to his judgment and so much in terms of a breakthrough has been placed on his shoulders that I am not sure if his legal standing will allow him to make such a breakthrough.
The British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill is legislation which the Government states is essential in the context of the Agreement. I am not sure we will have an opportunity to process the remaining legislation, that is the human rights Bill and perhaps one or two others that need to be enacted, because we are approaching the high fence, which is the last day of June. The jumping of that fence is beyond the remit, scope, power or authority of anyone in this House. It is out of our hands. It is up to those parties who have signed the Agreement to carry out the Declaration of Support to the Agreement, which states:
We affirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise.
It is up to those who have signed the Agreement to ensure that the section dealing with decommissioning is brought, if not up to date, at least to a position where progress can be reported in the same way as other areas of the Agreement can visibly report considerable progress. I hope that can be done.
I am disappointed Deputy Flanagan seems to be inclining towards pessimism about the present process and the journey we are making towards peace. I remain an optimist. The fiasco over the disappeared has been extremely unfortunate. Regrettably when one deals with disorganised and secretive conspiratorial organisations like the IRA one is apt to find oneself in this situation. I hope for the sake of the families concerned that those bodies are produced. It is not an easy job and I cannot imagine after so many years of conflict that it would be easy.
I am surprised at the Deputy's reference to private armies. All three Members present belong to parties that have been accused of having private armies at various stages. I refer to Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Workers Party. We have all belonged to parties that are alleged to have had private armies. Unfortunately that is one of the legacies of Irish history. All parties, with the exception of the Progressive Democrats, are splinters of movements that were founded on the use of violence. That is part of our history which I hope we will put behind us in the way the parties to which I referred have done over a period in a consistent and forthright manner.
I would not take too much note of graveside juju, such as people wearing paramilitary regalia, etc., at Bodenstown or elsewhere. I would not be too disappointed at that. There is a considerable element of the boy scout approach involved in these types of events, particularly in the context of a people moving towards peace. There are always certain people within organisations for whom that is the primary appeal. I would not take it too seriously. I suppose they must also take those people with them. Parading at Bodenstown is rather harmless compared to engaging in violence and alternative activities that might be entertained.
I was heartened by the Taoiseach's succinct contribution, the key phrase of which was as follows:
The Good Friday Agreement cannot work on the basis that there will not be decommissioning. It will only work if the institutions are established now and if confidence is created that a process of decommissioning will be achieved under the aegis of General de Chastelain and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
While we hope there will be decommissioning we must hope more than anything else that the institutions are put in place so that we can achieve that goal. It must be stated clearly that those parties that obstruct the creation of these institutions are flying in the face of democracy and should not be entertained. They should be rigidly faced down because the Agreement is backed by a referendum. The Irish people, North and South, wish these institutions to be set up and an end to the nit-picking. The public has travelled far in advance of even all the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement and it is up to political leaders of every kind, including Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson MP, to recognise that the people want peace and prosperity.
Many years ago Deputy De Rossa's party had the slogan "peace, jobs and progress". It is an aphorism but it is also a truism. That is what people want and not the old empty historical rhetoric of the past and continuous nit-picking with regard to peace and relationships on this island.
We referred to the issue of decommissioning earlier. In regard to reform of the RUC, I do not know whether many Members watched the "Panorama" special last night but some of the information which emerged about the RUC and the Chief Constable was shocking and alarming. I do not intend to rush to condemn Mr. Ronnie Flanagan who, like anyone else, deserves a fair hearing. However, the British Government must investigate his role in and comments on the Rosemary Nelson affair which has cut to the very quick of the Nationalist dilemma in the Six Counties. If we are to make any advances and ensure confidence in the years ahead, the role of the RUC, particularly in regard to the murder of Rosemary Nelson, must be thoroughly investigated.
On a point of information, the Deputy's comments have not reassured me.
That does not constitute a point of information.
Will we have an opportunity to comment further on this matter in the course of the debate on this Bill? As far as I am aware, a guillotine has not been imposed on the Bill.
There is no guillotine although we will be taking Committee Stage. As long as the matter which the Deputy wishes to raise is relevant to the content of the Committee Stage amendments, he will have an opportunity to make a comment.
I am not being flippant or trivial. This is an important point. I hope the Minister will clarify matters.
I call on the Minister to conclude the Second Stage debate.
I thank Deputies for their thoughtful contributions to the Bill. Deputy Bruton expressed concern that the Agreement might be set aside and acknowledged that Drumcree made matters more difficult for all parties. The Deputy may be assured that the Agreement will not be set aside lightly. Intensive negotiations have been ongoing for the past number of months and will continue up to the deadline. If we are to achieve final agreement, all parties must move on from their current stated positions. If we fail to secure such movement, it is difficult to see how we can advance matters towards signing off on all aspects of the Agreement.
We share Deputy Bruton's concern about the situation at Drumcree and call on those in the Nationalist and Unionist communities, and those in the Orange Order, to exercise restraint in order that further tragedies and loss of life will be avoided. We hope the communities will be able to see past their present difficulties and envisage a better future under the Agreement.
Deputy Bruton also raised a matter of which the Government has been very conscious, namely, the position of elderly Irish people living in Britain. The Taoiseach recently announced support, under the Irish Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust legislation, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds for a range of projects which will provide accommodation, day centres, community centres and assistance for individuals throughout Britain to meet the needs of the people referred to by Deputy Bruton. The Deputy referred specifically to Coventry. Support will be provided by Rehab in that city for the provision of facilities for elderly Irish people to allow them to meet each other.
I wish to respond to the point raised by Deputy De Rossa. There is no change in the Government's position. The Agreement does not make decommissioning a precondition for entry to, or participation in, the Executive. The Taoiseach and the Government have maintained this position throughout the process. The obligations in regard to decommissioning contained in the Agreement relate to the timeframe set out therein, namely up to the May 2000 deadline. The Taoiseach, in his speech, simply reiterated and underlined this position.
Could I clarify that point?
The Deputy may do so if the Minister is prepared to offer clarification.
In response to a parliamentary question which I tabled, the Taoiseach indicated that there could not be any executive without Sinn Féin but that Sinn Féin could not take part in any executive without decommissioning – one presumes that means a start on decommissioning, not complete decommissioning. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that statements made in speeches by the Taoiseach seem to move away from that position. The Minister's clarification does not reassure me that there is not a move away from that earlier stated position.
I thought I had addressed the matter. However, let me re-emphasise the point for the purposes of absolute clarity. The Taoiseach has spoken about this issue on many occasions. There is no change in the Government's position. That categorical, unequivocal and absolute position must be put on record.
Deputy Flanagan referred to the parts of the Agreement which are still being progressed in spite of the existence of problems in other areas. A great deal of work has been done in the area of human rights and we hope to continue to progress these matters. There is already an increasing level of co-operation between North and South on many economic and social areas. It is important that we do not lose sight of the benefits which have accrued from the Agreement to date. The major task facing us now is to convince those parties who are unsure that the Agreement will result in a better way of life in Northern Ireland. I, and other Members of the House, have no doubt that the Agreement will bring a better way of life to Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.