Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 May 2003

Vol. 566 No. 1

Northern Ireland Issues: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I thank the House for this opportunity to report on the latest developments in the peace process. I thank the Opposition leaders for agreeing to change the time arranged for the European debate.

Members on all sides of the House have always expressed their overwhelming support for the Good Friday Agreement. I share the sense of regret and frustration that we have, so far, not succeeded in achieving the definitive progress that is essential to underpin the Agreement and assure the stability of the political institutions in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement was negotiated by representatives of all traditions on this island – Nationalist, republican, Unionist and loyalist. The Agreement truly belongs to all the people and all traditions on this island. The pro-Agreement parties and both Governments have a fundamental obligation to uphold the will of the people and secure the Agreement.

All of us have a collective responsibility to make the Agreement work. This is not a policy option. It is the will of the people of both parts of the island, democratically endorsed in the May 1998 referendum.

I assure the House that this is what we have been seeking to do over recent months and this effort, despite the current setback, will continue.

Following the suspension of devolved government last October, Prime Minister Blair and I expressed our commitment to the full implementation of the Agreement. At that time, however, it was clear that devolved government could not be made to work effectively in circumstances where there had been a breakdown of trust between those involved. We simply could not go on as we had been. There was an obvious need to move forward decisively and bring completeness to all the outstanding issues if we were to guarantee the future. The issues distilled down to the necessity to remove concerns around the commitment to exclusively democratic and non-violent means and the need for each community to have confidence in the commitment of the representatives of the other to the full implementation of the Agreement.

Over the past six months, the two Governments and the parties made enormous progress in our effort to reach a solution. Throughout this period, the two Governments worked in partnership and with the parties to try to drive the process forward and to ensure finality and clarity in our work. However, on Thursday last, we had to acknowledge that this phase of our efforts could not be brought to a conclusion at this time. Prime Minister Blair subsequently announced that he had made a decision to postpone the Assembly elections that had been re-scheduled for 29 May.

I have stated clearly that the Government disagrees with the British Government on the postponement of these elections. I reiterated our view, which I know is shared by many members of the House, on this matter on several occasions directly to the Prime Minister. I believe that yet another postponement of the elections causes more problems for the process than it solves. However, while we do not agree or endorse this step, the closest of partnerships between the two Governments is essential to achieving continuing progress in Northern Ireland. That partnership remains strong and will continue. It is of enormous value as we work to overcome the current difficulties.

The Prime Minister and I met yesterday and restated our commitment to our shared objective of completing the full implementation of the Agreement. The crux issue remains a deficit of trust between the parties. We will, in the coming weeks, focus our efforts and those of the pro-Agreement parties on remedying that deficit. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Northern Ireland Secretary of State will meet shortly and will meet the parties in the near future to try to advance matters. The Joint Declaration and associated documents we published last week indicate very clearly the work we have been engaged in for the past six months. I have had a copy laid before the House.

This declaration contains many elements which are not conditional upon action by others – for example in the areas of policing, criminal justice, equality, human rights and some aspects of demilitarisation.

These will now be taken forward as part of the ongoing implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, to which both Governments remain fully committed. Progress will be reviewed, where appropriate, within the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

The Joint Declaration is a document of considerable content and substance. It genuinely sought to bring completeness to a very considerable range of issues, including effective demilitarisation of Northern Ireland by April 2005, as well as a resolution of the "on-the-run" issue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will address the substance of the Joint Declaration in greater detail during his intervention later.

I regret that we did not manage to release the Joint Declaration in the context that was intended and understood by all the parties. Vitally, this would have included – from the very beginning of the negotiations last November it was understood by those concerned that it would have to include – a response from the IRA that there would be a definitive and unambiguous ending of all paramilitary activity. While the focus has been on the IRA, it was always clear that what we want is an end to republican and loyalist paramilitary activity alike.

The negotiations throughout the six months from last November proceeded on this basis and with this clear understanding. The necessity for such clarity was as essential at the conclusion of the negotiations as it was when we embarked on this project. We were told that the IRA statement that we received on 13 April and which has now been published was definitive and would not be further amended or elaborated upon by the IRA. We welcomed the statement at the time. We said it contained many positive aspects. We said that it showed obvious progress and a clear desire to make the peace process work. However, as will be very obvious from a reading of this statement, there were several fundamental aspects in vital areas that both Governments felt had to be clarified in the context of the completeness we were seeking to achieve. It was not clear and unambiguous, as has been asserted. If it was, we would have been more than happy to embrace it and move on but it was not so we had to embark on a protracted process of clarification. We did this in a genuine attempt to advance matters. Specifically, we needed clarity regarding the circumstances in which the IRA would bring complete and final closure to the conflict. For example, was this in the context of a united Ireland or in the context of full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and other commitments? This is an important distinction, which was not at all clear from the IRA statement.

We also needed clarity as to whether it was the IRA's intention to put all arms beyond use and we needed clarity that IRA activities of the type referred to in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration were at an end. As I indicated to the House last November, these activities include military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisitions and development of arms and weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings, and attacks and involvement in riots. Moreover, the practice of exiling had to come to an end and the exiled had to be free to return in safety. These were basic questions to which we needed clear-cut answers that everybody could understand. Unfortunately, a great deal of time elapsed while the process of clarification was under way and elections were also getting closer.

Overall, the environment in which clarifications were being sought and eventually being given was deteriorating. Let me assure the House that we applied every effort to try to achieve a satisfactory solution. This involved our sustained and undiluted attention. It involved a huge commitment by the Prime Minister and his officials. I commend their contribution as well as that of my colleagues the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and their officials, who were also actively and constructively involved at all stages in this effort.

At every point we sought to support, encourage and bring satisfactory closure to this initiative. If I thought for one moment that we had achieved the clarity essential for our purpose, I would have said so and so, too, I am sure, would Prime Minister Blair. Our two Governments are deeply committed to this project. We wanted this initiative to work and we wanted a successful outcome. We wanted a major act of IRA weapons decommissioning which was in prospect but we knew also that, even though we were very close to success, we could not pretend that we were satisfied when we were not. I regret that the process of getting essential clarifications to basic questions was so protracted and that clarity on alleged IRA activities – an issue of such fundamental importance to confidence and trust and on which everything ultimately rested – was not forthcoming.

Let me remind the House that it was precisely the issue of alleged IRA activities that undermined and eventually brought down the Executive last October. It is not a case of being unrealistic in our expectations and needs. Such alleged IRA activities were the crux of the issue last October; seven months later they remain central to the problem.

The various statements by Gerry Adams were helpful and brought matters to a new level of clarity in relation to two vital aspects: first, the ending of the conflict and, second, the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons. This has been acknowledged by both Governments.

In the end, however, it did not prove possible to have sufficient clarity to convince everyone that paramilitary activity, the third issue, was definitively at an end. This is an issue that must be resolved satisfactorily in a way that everyone can understand. If the significance of Gerry Adams's clarifications were obvious and clear to many, they were not so clear to many others, including Unionists who must be persuaded if we are to make progress together.

Convincing the two Governments is the first imperative but convincing and assuring moderate and reasonable Unionists is clearly also essential. Without the support of moderate and reasonable Unionists, it is very difficult to imagine how we are going to re-establish the devolved institutions and allow the Good Friday Agreement to reach its full potential.

At the same time Unionists need to assure Nationalists that they are fully committed to the full operation of the Agreement, particularly in terms of the sustained operation of all the institutions. If the clarity required of the republican movement is forthcoming, it also needs to be clear that the phase of the stop-start operation of the Agreement has come to an end, that Unionists will fully and comprehensively engage in all the interlocking institutions of the Agreement, including the North-South Ministerial Council, and that they will accord full respect and legitimacy to the democratic mandates of their partners in government. It is important that the dialogue on these issues, which had been ongoing, is brought to a point where any doubts that exist in this regard are dispelled.

I welcome last night's publication of the IRA statement of 13 April, as well as a further statement on the matter. It is helpful that this latter statement confirms that Gerry Adams's answers accurately reflect the IRA's position. The problem, however, is that Mr. Adams's answer to one of the questions was unclear, which means that this latest statement does not take the issue of IRA activities any further than Gerry Adams has done. This, therefore, remains an issue to be satisfactorily resolved.

It is a great pity that the endorsement by the IRA of Gerry Adams's clarifications was not forthcoming at any stage during the period of 14 April to 1 May when these clarifications were being sought. Indeed, it was made clear to us that there was no question of asking, or expecting, the IRA to do anything or say anything of that sort. Their statement of 13 April was supposed to have said it all. I believe that an IRA endorsement would have been helpful – although I cannot say it would have been decisive – had it come earlier. At the same time, I do not now wish to minimise its significance and potential.

We embarked on this task knowing that it was going to be difficult and that it might prove to be protracted. In the frustration and disappointment of recent days there is a natural tendency for recrimination but I will not engage in any such recrimination. Yes, there is disappointment but we must move on. The work that we have done over recent months will, I believe, have lasting value and purpose. The gains we have made – and there have been gains – must not be lost.

I also deeply appreciate the assistance of President Bush and his Administration, particularly Ambassador Richard Haass who has worked closely with us in recent months. The successful negotiation of the Good Friday Agreement was the first time in modern Irish history where, working together, the different traditions on this island managed to agree a fair and balanced accommodation worthy of everyone's support.

As the two Governments reiterated yesterday, the Agreement is our template for future relations on this island. It will not be re-negotiated. We know that politics in Northern Ireland can work. Despite the frustrations that people feel with politics and indeed with the political process, there is no alternative. We have achieved a lot – more than most people ever imagined we would. The outstanding issues have now crystallised: how can we ensure that the IRA will cease all paramilitary activity and how can we restore the institutions permanently?

As we have done on many occasions since this process began, we will work with determination to resolve these difficulties. In the meantime, we expect all parties and groups to do their utmost to ensure a peaceful environment, particularly in the course of the forthcoming marching season. This in itself would be a major contribution to achieving a restored climate of trust and confidence that we can build upon. I would urge everyone, from all communities, to continue to constructively focus on the visions and ideals of the peace process and on the attainment of the key objectives of the Good Friday Agreement.

I have been engaged in this process for many years now. It is at the centre of my political priorities. We have had our ups and downs in the last number of years. Last week was a temporary setback, in my view, but rather than slacken the pace at this time, we now need to pick it up and finish the job. I and my colleagues are dedicated to doing just that.

Mr. Kenny

Through the years, the Northern Ireland peace process has had more than its fair share of heart-stopping moments and now, almost at the end, there is one more – one that everyone hopes will be the last. It is impossible to overstate the magnitude and significance of what has been negotiated and achieved since this fragile process began. In five years, we began to solve what had proved historically unsolvable. We achieved what was previously and until recently quite unimaginable but despite those remarkable achievements it is still all to play for. Now, republicans and Unionists alike must be clear that their next move will decide the future of this island and its inhabitants for generations to come.

Postponing the elections for the second time was deeply disappointing. Fine Gael regrets the British Government's decision but understands why it was necessary. Prime Minister Blair has shown an exemplary commitment to Northern Ireland and I have no doubt but that the decision to postpone the elections, yet again, was a difficult one for him and his Cabinet.

As we know only too well, this is a frustrating time for all involved. It is over two months since the round-table talks at Hillsborough but the results of the shared understanding that was, by all accounts, arrived at, have yet to be delivered. The latest statements from the republican side are certainly encouraging. Their language is promising but they do not contain the levels of comfort and reassurance required by the Governments or pro-Agreement unionism at this critical stage. That reassurance will only be provided in a definitive, unambiguous announcement that all paramilitary activity on the part of republicans will end and that all weapons will be put beyond use.

It goes without saying that demilitarisation is required across the entire political spectrum, including the normalisation of policing. This is not a big shift. Sinn Féin, like all sides, has conceded much in this process. It has come far and proven itself capable of taking the necessary risks. All that is required of Sinn Féin is to bridge the small but critical gap that remains. It can do this by stating clearly and unambiguously that it is committed to a solely democratic political agenda. The pro-Agreement Unionists, who have time and again proven their ability to compromise, must hold their nerve as they await that statement of comfort. They must recognise that the resilience of the institutions is finite and that there should be no question of their being suspended once again. The institutions must be allowed to work and solutions must take precedence over sanctions.

The people of Northern Ireland have been bemused and enraged, at different times, by the Governments' peace efforts over the years. We have to believe that the purpose of the efforts, whether they originated in Dublin or London, was always to influence and facilitate, and never to interfere. People on all sides of the conflict gambled their political future – in some cases even their lives – during that era, particularly during the past five years. The gamble was taken by those with a bright vision of a better future of peace, confidence, prosperity and opportunity rather than bullets, bombs, hate and dread. I believe that such a bright future can still be achieved.

I would like to pay tribute to those who have taken the historic gamble. I refer, of course, to the pro-Agreement parties that are working furiously and diligently to make this process work. In particular, I commend the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for their continued efforts. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, has shown remarkable courage and commitment to resolving the crisis in Northern Ireland and I thank him for his efforts. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Paul Murphy, has also played an important role in what we hope will be the end-game.

I pay particular tribute to the officials on the Irish and British sides who have worked tirelessly, far from the camera lens. The officials working in the current Downing Street Administration, who in many ways are the real architects of this process, have been especially helpful. They receive little recognition for the huge role they play in understanding and resolving issues that have proved residually complex and contentious. Those involved in the peace process have recently withstood a few verbal grenades lobbed from the armchair – or from the environs of the pulpit – to create a workable and better future for the people of Northern Ireland. I respect the characteristic good grace shown by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, in response to Dr. Paisley's deeply insulting remarks. The activists and supporters of those I have mentioned can brandish their credentials as risk takers, pragmatists, men and women of courage, principle and vision and, above all, as peace makers.

Fine Gael supports the Good Friday Agreement unequivocally. It is a compromise and therefore imperfect, but no one, not even its most fierce detractors, has produced anything better. The Agreement remains our best and only hope. Fine Gael stands by the Agreement because the principles underpinning it are those it has articulated and defended since its foundation. We have always stood for a settlement based on reconciliation, mutual respect, understanding, democracy and power-sharing. When others may have been ambivalent, Fine Gael was unbending. It constantly and categorically rejected the use of violence to achieve political aims long before that principle was universally accepted. Fine Gael has never equivocated about the use of private armies. Since it founded this State, Fine Gael has stood resolutely behind the principle that a democracy can sustain only one legitimate army.

The integral and historic role played by Fine Gael in the Northern Irish peace process over the years is one of which its members are extremely proud. Looking away was never an option, no matter how difficult the situation. My party led the Governments that brokered the precursors to the Good Friday Agreement – Sunningdale, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Framework Document – in politically turbulent and anxious times. I am quite sure the Taoiseach will accept that the agreement reached on Good Friday five years ago might never have come about without the earlier, frequently contentious and hard-won milestones on the path to peace.

Fine Gael in opposition retains a patriotic and passionate commitment to Northern Ireland and its people. It has never played politics with this issue and has supported the Government staunchly throughout the process. As the leader of a party with quite a few new members, I have worked in recent months to forge stronger links with political parties and groupings in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to members of the SDLP, some of whom are present in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery, for the outstanding efforts that party has made in terms of policing in recent years. Fine Gael has undertaken a series of visits to Northern Ireland to meet parties and community groups across the divide, from Tigers Bay and Short Strand to Cluan Place and Holy Cross. All sides can be assured that my party will continue to do what it can to promote peace, prosperity and mature consensus on this island. The Good Friday Agreement must be implemented in full if the peace dividend is to be understood. Such implementation can only be achieved through political impetus. The process has stalled and stagnation will not only ruin the process, but it will also ruin lives.

When the bomb squad returned to our streets yesterday after almost 30 years, those of us in Dublin glimpsed what a political vacuum can bring. Such events explain why my party believed it was essential, if at all possible, for the elections to go ahead as planned. Like nature, politics abhors a vacuum, so I am calling on the two Governments to convene round table talks with all the pro-Agreement parties as a matter of urgency. If such parties could come together in a single room in Hillsborough recently to meet President Bush and if they are serious about clarification outstanding in terms of language and what that means, surely we can come together as mature political leaders to discuss the future.

The documents on both sides are now in the public domain. The work done by the officials on both sides can be implemented in part but surely there is no reason politicians on both sides cannot now sit down, face to face, to hammer out a solution to the unresolved and contentious issues. Unionists can hold up the documents and say "here is where we need more", thereby giving republicans yet another opportunity to deliver with the requisite clarity. Republicans need to get over their enduring suspicion of Unionism – that no matter what Sinn Féin publishes, it will never be enough. Unionism must respond by ensuring that institutions which are finite have consistency and longevity. I would love Gerry Adams to explain what his pledge not to undermine the Agreement actually means.

Am I correct in my understanding that IRA training is continuing in Donegal and that there were three paramilitary punishment beatings last week, one republican and two loyalist? Does undermining the Agreement mean vans of men with black balaclavas taking like wolverines to the streets of Bray and towns like it? There must be clarity in this regard also, not just for Northern Ireland politicians but for the ordinary people of the entire country.

The institutions provided for in the Agreement can still be the bedrock of peace and prosperity on this island. As that great architect of peace, Jean Monnet, put it: "rien n'est possible sans les hommes, rien n'est durable sans les institutions"– nothing is possible without the people but nothing will last without the institutions. For the sake of the future generations of Northern Ireland, the two sides must come – I hope for the last time – to the edge in a final effort to bring conclusion to this problem, in respect of which we have all come so far with so many concessions and so much understanding.

Mr. Rabbitte

For several weeks there has been a strong belief in the community at large that a major breakthrough was about to happen in the peace process. Negotiations have been taking place, with apparently increasing urgency and intensity, about the concept of acts of completion. Decisions have been taken by the Government and apparently by the Provisional IRA that put flesh on the bones of this concept. All this led to considerable hope that the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive could be restored prior to the elections due to be held in May.

Suddenly and at the last minute, that hope was dashed. Instead of progress, a seemingly irreconcilable stalemate has arisen. Hope of considerable progress has been replaced by disappointment. Arising from that stalemate, the British Government has taken a decision to postpone Assembly elections that flies in the face of some very fundamental principles. The Irish Government, though it has publicly objected to that decision, has taken care to make it clear that it supports the general position of the British Government, that both Governments are at one in all essential respects.

We, in this House, are left to wonder about whether it was right to postpone the elections. We have to ask ourselves also what has caused the stalemate and who is responsible, and we have to seek to establish what the next steps are.

I have already said, and I repeat, that while I understand some of the anxieties that have arisen about possible outcomes to elections in these difficult circumstances, it is hard to find any normal reason that would justify the postponement of the elections. It is unacceptable in any normal scheme of things that the people can be arbitrarily deprived of the right to vote. While I recognise that the present situation in Northern Ireland is a politically difficult one, it is not so far outside the norm that so radical a decision is justifiable. The day we in this House support a proposition that the likely outcome of an election constitutes a good reason for postponement is the day we are on a slippery slope.

It seems that the stalemate has been caused, essentially, by a lack of good grace on one side of the issue, the republican side, and by a lack of courage on the other, the Unionist side. What should have been a genuinely historic moment, at some point in the past couple of weeks, has, as a result and at least for the time being, passed us by.

Until today I had not seen the statement given by the IRA to the two Governments. We had been told that it lacks clarity to such an extent that the Governments simply could not be sure what the Provisional IRA was saying. We now know that in that statement the IRA was responding to the text of the Joint Declaration published in April. Although the Oireachtas had no sight of that document until it was made public, it is clear from references in the IRA statement that it did.

It is certainly true that there is ample clarity in the Joint Declaration. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the document make it clear that the two Governments expected the following: that paramilitarism and sectarian violence would be brought to an end; that there would be an immediate, full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity, including military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, acquisition or development of arms or weapons, other preparations for terrorist campaigns, punishment beatings and attacks and involvement in riots; that the practice of exiling would come to an end and the exiled must feel free to return in safety; that sectarian attacks and intimidation directed at vulnerable communities would cease; that all paramilitary groups would actively engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning with a view to putting arms beyond use in a manner conducive to creating public confidence; and that all parties should, in accordance with the Agreement, use their influence to encourage and support the completion of that process.

It is perhaps worth saying here – indeed, I feel I have no choice but to say it – that in setting out that list of requirements, the two Governments were speaking on behalf of every citizen throughout this island who voted for the Good Friday Agreement. Furthermore, I cannot for the life of me see the difficulty of responding to that list with the plainest of plain English. Yet it does not seem to have been possible for the IRA to do so. I have to say that if I were looking for a response to the list of proposals above and I got the IRA statement handed to the Governments on 13 April, I would require clarification.

The best the IRA could do was say:

We are resolved the see the complete and final closure of this conflict. The IRA leadership is determined to ensure that our activities, disciplines and strategies will be consistent with this. Furthermore, the full and irreversible implementation of the Agreement and other commitments will provide a context in which the IRA can proceed to definitively set aside arms to further our political objectives. When there is such a context, this decision can be taken only by a general army convention representing all volunteers.

Not only does that statement beg for additional clarification, I simply cannot see how it can form a basis for a resolution. There are several references throughout the IRA statement to the need to address Unionist concerns, and one rather patronising remark about a "firm pledge by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party that he will actively support the sustained working of the political institutions." However, nowhere is there language that Unionists could possibly be expected to accept at face value. It is almost as if the Provisional IRA was only willing to address Unionist concerns in some code or dialect of its own. I say that conscious of the fact that, in respect of the remarks Deputy Kenny made about some of the louder voices on the Unionist side in Northern Ireland, it would be a great contribution to the process if, when arms are decommissioned as I hope they soon will be by the IRA, that particular man would decommission his tribal hatred.

Mr. M. Higgins

Hear, hear.

Mr. Rabbitte

It would be a contribution to the cause. Mr. Adams has sought on several occasions to bring clarity to this situation. In fairness, it has to be said that if he were not somewhat hamstrung by the nature of that secretive organisation, he might have been able to go even further. It certainly seemed that he wanted to.

Nonetheless, in assessing the various statements issued, it is important to say that for some months now members of Sinn Féin have been actively engaged in promoting the understanding that a major step – what Prime Minister Blair once referred to as a seismic shift – was indeed under way. The Joint Declaration, apparently prepared in anticipation of such a shift but written before the Governments had sight of the IRA statement, refers in Annex 1 to "the historic leap forward by the IRA."

We are left to wonder why, if the IRA was prepared to countenance the kind of historic leap suggested by the list of acts of completion, outlined earlier, they were not prepared to say so in simple language. Paramilitary activity is defined in the Joint Declaration by reference to specific activities – military attacks, training, targeting, intelligence gathering, punishment beatings and so on. One possibility, to eliminate all doubt, would be to say "Yes" to each of them specifically. Another would be a simple statement that confirmed a shared understanding of the definition of paramilitary activity and an assertion that all such activity would cease. Instead, only convoluted phraseology was offered, then clarified, then somewhat elaborated upon, eventually leading to the assertion by Gerry Adams, on behalf of the IRA, that all activities would cease.

From that point on, direct questions to Sinn Féin spokespersons began to be answered with the mantra, "What is it about 'all activities' that you don't understand?" One might be tempted to answer with the question, "Is there any one of the specific activities that you don't want to be questioned about?" Even if we take the clarification as meaning what we all hope it means, that the IRA has decided that the war is over, the bottom line may be that the clarification offered was too little, too late. It was certainly too late and as we know now, in the original IRA statement this cessation of all activities was still to be conditional on the IRA's assessment, at some future time, of the extent of compliance by all other parties and only if it secured a vote in favour at a subsequent IRA convention.

Whatever chance there was of persuading David Trimble to once more expose himself to the taunts of the DUP and the machinations of some of his own members, it disappeared in the welter of confusion that surrounded the various claims and counter-claims made about the IRA position. A failure of nerve on the Unionist side thus appeared to end whatever hope there was of rescuing this phase of the peace process. Given the opaqueness of the IRA statement, that failure of nerve is perhaps not all that surprising. It seems somewhat unreasonable to expect Mr. Trimble to interpret the real meaning of IRA statements to his own sceptical council. This was an opportunity lost at several levels. Normal society in Northern Ireland needs a sustained period not just of peace but of stability and relative certainty about the future. We have all noted how taking the violence out of conflict has not ended the conflict. If anything, the bitterness within and between the communities and the sense of polarisation has increased since the violence ended.

A clear and unequivocal statement by the IRA, together with acceptance by the Unionist leadership that the future was about democratic politics, would, and hopefully still will, be a crucial next step in reconciliation and the development of normal relationships. What is to be done now? I understand the Governments will initiate a new round of discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland, and I welcome that. There is no good reason the bona fides of all parties should not be tested in the months ahead. If the IRA, despite a lack of clarity, is intent on delivering an end to violence of all kinds, the British Government should perhaps be just as intent on delivering those aspects of the normalisation process it describes in the Joint Declaration.

We are heading into what is traditionally the danger period in Northern Ireland where a political vacuum, as referred to by Deputy Kenny, stands a good chance of being filled by a variety of sectarian voices, activities and attitudes. It is vital that we seek to make progress, that we not waste time in recrimination, as the Taoiseach said, and that we not be too cast down by the squandering of opportunity. We should perhaps remember that when Senator Mitchell first arrived on the scene in Northern Ireland, it was not to chair the all-party talks leading to the Good Friday Agreement but as a necessary preliminary to those talks, to produce his report on decommissioning.

The Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, set out more than seven years ago, are essentially what we have been trying to achieve ever since. Those principles included, among others, total and absolute commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues; the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations; and the taking of effective action to bring an end to punishment killings and beatings.

Seven years after Mitchell's first report, we still cannot say with certainty that we have arrived at the point where all the key participants in the process are equally committed to the public expression of those principles but it appears to be the case that we are closer than ever and for that reason alone I urge both Governments to redouble their efforts in the weeks and months ahead.

Above all, we should not listen to any more talk of vetoes. The reality, when it comes to allegations of the veto being wielded, is that all the major players in the North have a veto and the SDLP is the only party which has not sought to exercise it. The Good Friday Agreement is itself designed so that it can only work if there is a majority of both traditions who support its terms and who work actively to implement it.

The draft-resignation-in-my-back-pocket approach of David Trimble has been destructive of cohesion over time. The on-again off-again approach to the institutions, at the stroke of a secretary of state's pen, has been damaging. The failure of the IRA to be willing to express in clear and simple terms that it accepts the inevitable logic of the Agreement and the demands it places on it has applied the brakes very sharply to progress. Only by pressing on and insisting that the actions outlined in the Joint Declaration will be implemented will the Governments be able to get across the message that vetoes will no longer be allowed to damage the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kirk)

We now move on to the Technical Group. There are three speakers, Deputies Joe Higgins, Sargent and Ó Caoláin, in that order.

Mr. J. Higgins

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Trevor Sargent agus an Teachta Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin – cúig noiméad don duine. Níl níos mo ama againn don díospóireacht seo.

Mr. Morgan

Disgraceful. I want to speak.

Mr. J. Higgins

It is important that we are honest about the decisions that have been taken. The paramilitary campaign of the Provisional IRA is over. It was a cul-de-sac from the very beginning for both working class communities in the North. I welcome the realisation of that among republicans, belated as it might have been, but Prime Minister Blair knows it is over as well. He did not postpone the elections because he believed the Provisional IRA would resume paramilitary activity. Neither did he postpone the elections because of Mr. Paisley's despicable and bigoted outburst, which was another reason that was attempted to be given. The British Government postponed the elections because it did not like the perceived likely outcome to those elections, which it perceived to be the strengthening of the anti-Good Friday Agreement Unionists and Sinn Féin emerging as the strongest party on the other side. The British Government is going down a very dangerous road in denying the people of Ireland a democratic say, for reasons such as that.

There was no election on this occasion because there was no pre-election agreement between Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionists but every time an election approaches, the same issue will arise. The Ulster Unionists will shy away from a pre-election agreement. They are looking over their shoulders at the DUP because of the growing disillusion and anti-Agreement feeling within the Protestant community. We have not been given a specific date for the postponed elections. The British Government is vague on whether elections will be held in the autumn, and I would like to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs comment on that.

The fundamental problem is that the structures put in place under the Good Friday Agreement institutionalised sectarian division and have done nothing to overcome division. Unfortunately, the opposite has been the case on the ground. There is no problem getting politicians, most of them of a right wing hue, to make agreements among themselves. They would like to have agreements and divide the spoils. Unfortunately, however, divisions on the ground have intensified and that has underlined the reluctance of the Ulster Unionist Party to make an agreement.

The power sharing executive was sceptically viewed by both Catholics and Protestants in the North and there was a question as to whether it made a difference to the lives of ordinary people or improved them in any way. It was a legitimate question when they saw the Executive faithfully carrying out the right wing economic and social policies of Mr. Blair, including private finance initiatives and privatisation in health, education and other services.

It is to be welcomed, therefore, that the campaigners to retain the acute status of the Tyrone Hospital, Omagh, signalled their intention to contest the Assembly elections. This represents ordinary people beginning to move into the political process directly, which must happen. A crowd of 100,000 marched against sectarian killings and intimidation in January 2002. The instinct of ordinary working class people and trade union and community activists is for unity but that must be given a political expression. It is the 105th anniversary of Jim Larkin and James Connolly leading large movements across the sectarian divide in the North by addressing the social and economic ills that affected the Protestant working class. A new movement of that character is needed to address the current situation.

Mr. Sargent

Green Party members, North and South, are deeply disappointed at the postponement of the 29 May elections. While electoral politics have not been put beyond use as is the intention with arms, they are being postponed in a dangerous way. The Green Party does not come from an ethnocentric analysis of this type of conflict. We have a global perspective, believing that if one thinks globally, one should act locally. We are rooted in the peace movement and do not have time for the physical force tradition.

However, we respect diversity, which should be the hallmark of republicanism. Unfortunately, republicanism has been marked by a strong armed approach to gain the upper hand in a debate such as this. There are people who cannot be republican because it represents too narrow a context for them. That is dangerous because terrorism thrives in certain contexts. The "us and them" context and the divisiveness that has been a hallmark of this conflict need to be removed.

The Good Friday Agreement contains a number of flaws but it is the only show in town. It must be clearly stated again and again to all who might think otherwise that there will not be renegotiation of the Agreement and it must be made work. Clarity of language is needed in that regard. It was a fudged Agreement in much of its wording. However, in the context of clarity of language, Sinn Féin and the IRA should recognise that in the past statements were made, and taken at face value in many cases, that, for example, civilians would not be killed in various actions but, unfortunately, they were. Considerable wording has proven not to stand the test of time and there is a need to re-establish the trust that has been lost and the confidence that has been shattered down the years. That will take time and it will take patience on the part of Sinn Féin and the IRA to answer the same questions again and more fully than previously.

I do not know, for example, whether Sinn Féin accepts that the Joint Declaration meets its requirement for full implementation of the Agreement. We still need answers from the IRA regarding what it believes full implementation means. We still need to know what activities the IRA will continue as well as those that will be abandoned. Will the IRA become an ex-prisoners fundraising organisation or one that commemorates various historic events? These questions are valid and need to be answered if trust is to be re-established to allow the Agreement to be fully and fairly implemented for all sides.

It is ironic that this year we commemorate the rising of Robert Emmet in 1803, a time when republicanism was clearly the unified wish of Catholics, Protestants and the centre. We are, unfortunately, looking on at republicanism while it is at a low ebb. It is seen to be divisive and we need to reclaim the inclusiveness, which was the ideal of Robert Emmet's time, without forcing agendas.

It must also be recognised that politics is becoming less relevant as we talk about different sides in this debate, given that the World Trade Organisation is organising corporate power to sideline political dialogue and the relevance of democratic institutions. That must be borne in mind as it is not only a case of who wins the day in Northern Ireland or what is the result of the discussions but is also a case of facing up to the fact that unless we can reclaim democratic politics for everybody on both islands, corporate power will move in and take whatever power is needed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Both the Irish and British Governments have been engaged in a charade since 13 April. In this charade the two Governments have pretended in public that the IRA's unprecedented statement of that date, which was published yesterday, was insufficient for them. They have tried to fool the people into believing that a clarification provided by Gerry Adams on 27 April was also inadequate in their eyes and they have claimed that even further clarification provided by Gerry Adams on 30 April, one week ago, did not go far enough.

I assert that these claims by both Governments are totally false and I point to a reality a majority of Irish people now recognise. The unprecedented initiative by the IRA and the best efforts of Sinn Féin have been rejected and rubbished by the nominal leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, David Trimble, and both Governments have carried on this charade to protect Mr. Trimble from the political consequences of his actions.

The demands of Mr. Trimble are insatiable because they are meant to be insatiable and he continues to be indulged by the British Prime Minister. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the Taoiseach is prepared to say to David Trimble "enough is enough" while they are always ready to demand more from republicans. The question is, why? The answer is that they know that the republican commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process is solid. However, in shielding David Trimble, and in taking republican commitment for granted, the Governments have damaged and undermined the very Agreement they claim to uphold and they have caused anger and resentment among republicans, deep and justifiable anger that will make the task of rebuilding the political process all the more difficult.

I accuse the Irish government of a dereliction of its duty and of helping to pave the way for the disgraceful decision by Tony Blair to ban an Irish election. When that decision was announced in London on May Day, we had weak statements of dissent from the Government in Dublin. At Farmleigh House yesterday, in his opening remarks to the media the Taoiseach did not even mention the banning of the Assembly elections. This act against Irish democracy by a British Government was merely alluded to as a temporary setback.

The two Governments' Joint Declaration states on its first page: "The best way of ensuring that peace remains permanent is by demonstrating that politics work." How did the British Government "demonstrate that politics work" on the very day the declaration was published? It did so by postponing the Assembly elections indefinitely. The British Government had no right to do this but it acted in time-honoured Westminster fashion where the rights of Irish people are concerned. It seems that the British Government has yet to make, in the words of the Joint Declaration, "the transition to exclusively democratic means."

Martin McGuinness, the chief negotiator for Sinn Féin, was told by David Trimble that no matter what the IRA said or did he would not call an Ulster Unionist council meeting and return to the executive ahead of the Assembly elections. Jeffrey Donaldson is now the real leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, which he pulled into the anti-Agreement camp last September. He has already rejected the Joint Declaration. I believe that Sinn Féin has gone far more than the extra mile to break the impasse in this peace process. Any objective reading of the Good Friday Agreement will show that we have long fulfilled all our obligations.

These are realities which some on the Government benches may not like to hear but they must be recognised if we are to move forward. We cannot go forward on the basis of what I have described as a charade. We cannot go forward on the basis that the Irish Government is an honest broker. We have heard a lot about clarification but the Taoiseach has yet to clarify that assertion from his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Irish Government is a co-equal partner in the Agreement with the British Government. The British Government acts in British interests as it sees them. The Irish Government must act in the Irish national interest. For decades, while it was carrying on a brutal war in Ireland, a war highlighted most recently by the Stevens Report, the British Government pretended to be the referee keeping the so-called two warring sides apart. Are we now to have that tragedy repeated as farce with both Governments pretending to be neutral arbiters while the Unionist veto is allowed to succeed again?

This process will be rebuilt and we in Sinn Féin will play our part to the full. Let both Governments note that it can be built on nothing less than the rights of the Irish people and that no matter how it is resisted or delayed, change is unstoppable.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I do not spend my time representing the Irish people involved in charades or pretences. I am a constitutional republican who wants to see full implementation of this Agreement. I want to see everybody take up their responsibilities to have it implemented. If my good faith is to be questioned the way it has been questioned here I ask for that to be reconsidered.

Mr. F. McGrath

The Minister should speak up for the people of the North.

Mr. Cowen

I thank Deputies for their contributions this evening.

Mr. F. McGrath

Some of us were excluded.

Mr. Cowen

I am conscious of and very grateful for the support and encouragement which is forthcoming from all sides of the House for our endeavours in the implementation of this Agreement. I also value the opportunity to speak on the proposals which the Governments have agreed to take forward at this stage, as indicated by the Taoiseach in his statement. Since I last spoke in the House on Northern Ireland issues, there have been a series of developments, some positive and others less so.

The underlying aim of all the work undertaken by the two Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland since last October has been to address the deficit in confidence which had arisen about the commitment on all sides to the full and inclusive operation of all aspects of the Agreement. We undertook this work in the full awareness that it would be difficult and might not be resolved quickly. Our intensive engagement continued through the months that followed and, after much painstaking effort and slow grind, a full and complete audit of all areas of the Good Friday Agreement which remained to be fully implemented was developed.

This blueprint, which was published last week as the Joint Declaration by the British and Irish Governments, was part of an overall package which we described as acts of completion. This requires a renewed and clear commitment to a definitive end to all paramilitary activity. It also requires an unequivocal commitment to the full and inclusive operation of all of the institutions of the Agreement.

The last weeks have seen detailed discussions and contacts among the Governments and the parties, and we eventually arrived at a situation which came close to securing a resolution of the problems that have bedevilled progress on repeated occasions. That was not part of a pretence or charade. It was part of an attempt to resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction, but, to the regret and disappointment of all sides, despite great progress and advances which went far beyond what might have been imagined possible by the naysayers and cynics, it was not possible to achieve a final agreement at this point.

The requirement for clarity on the end to all paramilitary activity inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement is not a matter of mere semantics or word games. The Governments did not arbitrarily demand certain words from republicans for our own satisfaction. As I have made clear, our aim from the outset was to address the real deficits of trust and confidence on the ground in Northern Ireland. This can only be done by offering clarity and certainty that all paramilitary activity is coming to an end. In the Dáil last November, the Taoiseach stated that this required immediate, full and permanent cessation of the kind of paramilitary activities now listed in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration. That has been the position since last November.

The clarifications provided throughout the process by the Sinn Féin leadership have been helpful and positive. I welcome as a positive development the indication in yesterday's IRA statement that the answers provided by the Sinn Féin leadership accurately represented their position.

There remains an ambiguity about whether the full range of activities described in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration has been dealt with. Unless this aspect of the issue is addressed to the satisfaction of everyone, the prospect of inclusive partnership government being restored is unlikely to be translated into reality.

It was in this context that the decision was taken by the British Government not to proceed with the Assembly elections which had been scheduled for 29 May. As the Taoiseach made clear in his statements, the Government disagreed with the British Government on the postponement of these elections. That opinion was made clear to the British Government throughout our contacts, including at two meetings by me with Secretary of State Paul Murphy in Belfast on that Monday, 28 April. I was not involved in a pretence or charade when I represented the Government's views on that matter either. They were sincere, straightforward, consistent views of the Government that were put to the British Government on that occasion.

Mr. F. McGrath

Ask the Northern minority what they think.

Mr. Cowen

The Deputy was not there. I am telling the House what happened. I will not have my good faith or my honesty questioned by anybody in or outside this House. The Government does not deserve that and will not take it.

Mr. F. McGrath

The Minister should remember his job and represent the citizens.

Mr. Cowen

I tell the Deputy that I have not been involved in any charade or pretence since I took this job, nor have my predecessors nor the people with whom I work in Government, nor the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach is working on behalf of the people, with others, trying to move might and main to achieve a solution to this problem. When I make the effort and recognise the contribution of others I expect the contribution of the Government to be given the same generosity of spirit. I am prepared to give that recognition to anybody who sincerely tries to resolve this problem.

Whatever we think and whatever people's view might be, in terms of who we are dealing with or the difficulties we might have in certain areas of policy, everybody, collectively, is trying to resolve this problem. The attitude and tone of some of what I have had to hear this evening does not add to the prospect of solving it or moving it forward. It might settle constituency nerves in some quarters but it does not add value to what needs to be done to resolve this problem. When I do not question anyone else's sincerity I will not have the sincerity of the Government questioned.

However, this disagreement does not reflect any rift in the wider partnership that continues between the two Governments as co-guarantors of the Agreement, which is strong and well able to withstand some differences of view among equal partners. That must be the case if we are to solve this problem. Indeed, during yesterday's meeting at Farmleigh, we discussed the basis on which we propose to move forward together in the new circumstances.

The Government put forward its views clearly and unequivocally as to what the requirements now are. In the event of institutions not having been restored, which they were not, there is a default mechanism in the Good Friday Agreement and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, for which I have responsibility to represent the Government and the Irish people in respect of what needs to be done in that area. I will discharge those responsibilities and I will not be in dereliction of my duty in so doing.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Why have the elections been postponed?

Mr. Cowen

We fully agreed that the task of the two Governments would be to work together to bring about the conditions under which full confidence can be restored on all sides. We also agreed that those aspects of the Joint Declaration which are not contingent on acts of completion by others will now be taken forward. When the Joint Declaration is fully analysed, most commentators will have to agree that it is broad and ambitious in its scope. From criminal justice to human rights to the issues relating to victims of the conflict, it is alive with opportunity for real and tangible progress and we are determined to work closely in the coming months to bring it to full realisation.

As Deputies will be aware, certain aspects of the Joint Declaration are explicitly dependent on acts of completion by paramilitary organisations. However, by no means is all progress dependent on those acts of completion. Such conditionality would be at variance with the Agreement which regarded key concepts such as equality and human rights as being automatic entitlements. Instead, a broad range of proposals in the Joint Declaration will be brought forward, for example, in the areas of policing, criminal justice, equality, human rights and some aspects of security normalisation. We are determined that they should be taken forward since they form part of the ongoing implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will have an important role to play in reviewing progress. I expect there will be an early meeting of the conference, which I will co-chair with the Secretary of State in the latter half of this month.

Significant developments are achievable in the area of criminal justice reform. The Government looks forward to the publication of the implementation plan for the criminal justice review which should promote greater confidence in the justice system among all parts of the community. An open competition is under way to appoint an independent oversight commissioner to provide independent scrutiny of the implementation of the criminal justice review. In addition, statements of ethics will be introduced this year for all criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland which do not currently have them.

In the Joint Declaration the British Government stated that it will bring forward a second criminal justice Bill which will, among a number of detailed measures, allow for the creation of a reflective judicial appointments commission prior to the devolution of responsibility for criminal justice matters. It will also make further provision to promote a human rights culture in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland as well as other key provisions which have long been sought by representatives of the Nationalist community. I look forward to the early publication of this Bill.

The two Governments are committed to working in partnership to develop structures and arrangements for enhanced co-operation on criminal justice matters. The scope of co-operation for our mutual benefit will be wide-ranging and practical. A group of policy makers from both jurisdictions will meet at the end of this month to identify and advise on the opportunities for co-operation at governmental level and between agencies.

Under the broad heading of policing the Joint Declaration offers scope for further progress on the elimination of baton rounds, with the confirmation of the British Government's intention that, on the basis that an acceptable and less lethal alternative is available, they should not be used after the end of this year.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGinley)

The Minister's time has expired.

Mr. Cowen

I am just coming to a conclusion. In view of the importance of the matters I am discussing, I would like, with the agreement of the House, to put them on the record.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cowen

The legislation necessary for secondments and lateral entry from the Garda Síochána to the PSNI and vice versa passed all Stages in the Seanad on 9 April and will be introduced before this House in the coming weeks. North-South police co-operation is progressing apace, with the continuing implementation of the Patten recommendations on structured co-operation. The Police Act 2003 will also implement all the recommendations of the revised implementation plan, including giving greater powers to the Policing Board.

On the key issue of security normalisation, while there is certainly a direct link in this area to acts of completion by paramilitary groups, there is still scope for some further progress in the direction of the full normalisation of security arrangements. In particular, I hope to see early movement in the dismantling of some of the intrusive towers in south Armagh and in the ongoing assessments by the Policing Board of the progress which can be made in the further normalisation of policing structures and patrols.

In the area of human rights and equality, so central to the ethos of the Agreement, the Joint Declaration offers ample scope for further progress. In relation to the bill of rights, for example, work has already begun among some of the parties, through the implementation group of pro-Agreement parties, on the creation of a round table forum, inclusive of the parties and civic society, on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. The work which has already taken place among the parties on this subject is ripe for further development and I look forward to seeing concrete progress on this issue in the near future. At the conclusion of the proposed round table process, the British Government is committed to bringing forward legislation at Westminster on a bill of rights for Northern Ireland.

Equality is the cornerstone of the Agreement. I look forward to the continuing work which will be undertaken on a range of measures to combat the unemployment differential. These measures will be aimed at progressively eliminating the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities by targeting objective need. The British Government is also committed to encourage funding to be made available for research for this purpose.

While the detail of issues such as the unemployment differential might seem arcane or obscure to some, it is in the cut and thrust of such areas that the impact of the Agreement on individual lives can be most clearly experienced. The entrenchment of the knowledge that employment is dependent solely on merit and that the equality provisions of the Agreement are being given tangible expression are clear manifestations of positive change.

Co-operation between North and South in the economic and social arena has never been stronger and will continue to develop. The institutions of the Good Friday Agreement have provided the opportunity for a strategic and structured approach to co-operation on this island in all the key policy areas, including health, education, environment and agriculture. In addition, two important new players in the commercial field are InterTradelreland, the all-island trade and business development body charged with improving the traditionally low levels of North-South trade on the island and Tourism Ireland Limited, responsible for marketing the island of Ireland overseas as a single destination. The successful operation of these two North-South bodies, with the other bodies dealing with special EU programmes, our waterways and loughs, food safety and language, continue to be critical to the economic, cultural and social well-being of the island. North-South co-operation has consistently delivered real, practical results and is of mutual benefit to both parts of the island. It has a key role to play in strengthening relationships between and within communities on the island.

To draw my remarks to a close, I would like the House to be clear that the Government remains completely committed to the Good Friday Agreement, not merely as a mantra to be repeated in current difficulties, but as an active and continually developing commitment which is deep and unshakeable. As the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair made clear yesterday, the question of a renegotiation simply does not arise.

Notwithstanding the frustration of the past few weeks, which I recognise, the Good Friday Agreement remains the only workable or acceptable template for progress within Northern Ireland and on this island. The Governments are wholeheartedly committed to continuing to make it work. The Joint Declaration, our template for full implementation of the Agreement, which was made public last week, is now also the shared agenda for action between the two Governments. We will do all within our power to make rapid progress in the areas it covers.

While the two outstanding issues of paramilitary activity and full operation and stability of the institutions remain to be finally clarified, the two Governments will continue to meet and maintain contact with all parties. We are also committed to encouraging open and comprehensive dialogue on the outstanding issues between the parties. This dialogue would provide the optimum context, through the facilitation of mutual confidence and trust, in which the elections this autumn should take place. We have faced many tests and a number of stumbling blocks in the five years since the Agreement was reached. However, we are determined that the present difficulties will be overcome, as others have been in the past.

I wish to relate to the House a personal anecdote concerning an event at the weekend. A good friend of mine who is facing a huge challenge in terms of his health wrote to me to give encouragement about what we are trying to achieve. The fact that, at a time when he was facing such real personal problems, he took the time to say he wanted the peace process to work, married as he is to a Belfast woman who is aware of the problems, difficulties and perceptions, should perhaps encourage others in this House and outside to show more generosity and start thinking about the ordinary people who want this problem solved and believe we can solve it if we can muster sufficient courage and trust in our mutual ability to overcome the legacy of the past, a legacy of injustice and discrimination. It is now up to this generation to shape our history. On the cusp of achieving it, let us not recoil to the bad old days or the bad old thinking. Whatever the difficulties, they are not insurmountable. I will think of my friend, rather than some others who have reminded me of that legacy this evening, in the days and months ahead as we try to resolve this problem because he represents the real will of the people.