I apologise to the House for being unable to be here sooner to hear the proposal of the motion as I was overseas and was delayed. As I have just arrived back and obviously had to make an input into my speech, it will be available to Deputies shortly. I am glad to have this opportunity to address the House on this very important subject and hope that our debate over the coming two nights will be constructive, forward-looking and solution-oriented.
When it reported in January 1996, the international body led by Senator George Mitchell stated that the people of Northern Ireland wanted "lasting peace in a just society in which paramilitary violence plays no part". That is a simple yet powerful mission statement for the work we have all been doing over recent years. While considerable progress has been made towards reaching those goals, we have not yet reached the final destination.
A significant step forward towards the achievement of a just society was taken on 1 May when the Irish and British Governments published their Joint Declaration. This document is a comprehensive audit of the various commitments contained in the Good Friday Agreement. It is also a blueprint for the implementation of its outstanding aspects. It addresses a range of issues which derived from the Agreement and are central to the achievement of a just society in Northern Ireland – equality, human rights, criminal justice, policing and the normalisation of security arrangements on the ground. When they met in Farmleigh on 6 May, the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, agreed that other than those aspects explicitly linked to acts of completion by others, the commitments contained in the Joint Declaration should now be implemented by both Governments. The meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which I co-chaired last week in London, was largely devoted to a detailed discussion on the implementation of the Joint Declaration and that work will be proactively advanced through the conference.
It is a matter of great regret that some people have denounced the Joint Declaration. Since its content is largely dictated by the terms of the Agreement itself, such a denunciation is either motivated by a partisan purpose or is a covert attack on the Agreement. It is doubly unfortunate that such assertions have the effect of reinforcing the perception, which I do not share, that many Unionists are hostile to the notion of a just society, the achievement of equality or a genuine partnership with Nationalists.
According to recent reports, Jeffrey Donaldson MP has called for an unequivocal rejection of the Joint Declaration. Does such a statement imply a rejection of the goals of achieving a fully representative police service and a more effective and representative criminal justice system? Does it mean a summary dismissal of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, adequately resourced and empowered human rights and equality commissions, the elimination of the current unemployment differential between both communities, an effective community relations strategy and the need to regenerate deprived areas in both loyalist and Nationalist communities? We should recall that all these practical measures of equality and renewal are at the core of the Joint Declaration.
I cannot believe that any substantial segment of the Unionist community would so unequivocally turn its face away from such key objective requirements of a just society. These are requirements which protect both communities – they are emphatically not a concessionary agenda to any one side. An unequivocal rejection of the Joint Declaration may of course have more to do with the political fault lines between nationalism and unionism or, indeed, within unionism itself. If so, it is a particularly dismal manifestation of the zero-sum mindset that we are trying to leave behind.
The entrenchment of equality, human rights and effective, fair and impartial policing and criminal justice systems is necessary, but not sufficient, for the achievement of a just society. These fundamental entitlements also need to be complemented by a political process that offers the right of democratic participation and the prospect of effective government. Elections are the key interface between democratic politics and government. The recent postponement of Assembly elections not only closed off the route to the formation of the next devolved administration in Northern Ireland, it also drained a great deal of energy from the operation of day-to-day politics. Deputy Boyle made some comments about the Government in this respect. If the Irish Government had been legally required under the Good Friday Agreement to sign for elections to be deferred, we would not have done so. We can only do what is within our power.
The restoration of that political momentum requires that there now be a credible prospect of the elections taking place as early as possible and in any event no later than the autumn. The holding of elections should not be contingent on some subjective judgment that a particular party or community now has sufficient trust and confidence to proceed with the democratic process. The elections should proceed as of right and, in a positive context, as part of the process of renewing that trust and confidence. The holding of elections will not, of course, guarantee the formation of an inclusive administration. Unionist participation in government, like that of Nationalists, is a voluntary engagement. Securing such Unionist participation will be dependent on achieving an end to paramilitarism in a way which everyone accepts and believes. Equally, the ability of the republican movement to undertake these final steps will be influenced by whether unionism is willing to embrace the agenda of change represented by the Good Friday Agreement. Both sides have fundamental choices to make but will only make them in the context of a vibrant political process, not within one which is stagnant and in which the prospect of elections is a receding target.
In terms of these fundamental choices that the parties have to make, it seems there are two clear realities that need to be confronted. The first reality, for unionism, must be that devolved government in Northern Ireland will only be available in the context of the kind of balanced political arrangements contained in the Agreement, including a Northern Ireland administration constructed on an inclusive basis. The alternative is the Good Friday Agreement without devolved institutions but with the intergovernmental dimension, as provided for in the Agreement. That is not the preferred option of any partner in the process.
The second reality, for nationalism, is that sustainable participation by republicans in such an inclusive administration requires the cessation of all paramilitary activity, as outlined in the Joint Declaration itself. In the absence of that, there is little prospect of Unionist partnership in government on a stable and sustainable basis.
The two Governments have made it very clear that the British-Irish Agreement is not negotiable. Its core values must be at the heart of any stable dispensation for the future. I cannot imagine a Nationalist of any persuasion or, indeed, any Irish Government being willing to dilute the key protections and principles at the heart of the Agreement. Those who argue that the Agreement must be renegotiated to secure the majority support of Unionists, which they allege is in deficit, have never clarified who they expect their negotiating partners to be or why a solemn referendum in both parts of the island should be overturned.
Despite all the difficulties, contact between the political parties should be maintained. It is important that we have a calm summer so that the autumn elections can be held in as positive a context as possible. We need to find reasons to do things rather than excuses not to move things forward. I have just returned this evening from a EuroMed meeting in Greece where I discussed with Palestinians, Arabs and Israelis the resuscitation of the Middle East peace process. My words were ones of encouragement and of the need to maintain partnership regardless of the inevitable ups and downs of the peace process there. I recently visited the Balkans where less than a decade ago ethnic tensions erupted, 400,000 people lost their lives and four million people were displaced from their homes. They are now seeking to chart a way forward and build a future based on one point of departure. That point of departure is that they do not agree on the past. Each party to the conflict in those areas will tell you that theirs is a legitimate story and, of course, the cause of the tragedy that enveloped them was that each party had indeed a legitimate story to tell.
We in Ireland, therefore, must not predicate our future on the basis of getting prior agreement on the past. A lesson in our history is that we cannot fashion a future exclusively through our experience of the past. Our primary responsibilities are in the present and the future. Following 25 years of conflict, the Downing Street Declaration set out where we were politically in 1993. The Framework Document produced parameters within which political dialogue and discussion could take place. The British-Irish Agreement is the culmination of painstaking negotiations that addressed the three strands of the relationships that need to be addressed for political and economic stability. It is a formula that provides inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland with cross-Border institutions to facilitate pro gress on an all-island basis for our mutual benefit. The British-Irish Council was established to reflect the more mature partnership that now exists between two neighbouring EU countries.
The people having voted for it in both parts of the island concurrently, the British-Irish Agreement now represents the democratic imperative that governs our political life and has brought peace and, ultimately, will bring reconciliation to our country. The process of reconciliation and outreach also applies to republicans. In this regard, I welcome the recent remarks by the Sinn Féin President, Gerry Adams, directed to the Unionist community. I endorse his view that Nationalists and Unionists, republicans and loyalists have to recognise each other's integrity and must provide the required mutual reassurance about their future intentions. In this regard, our collective task is to create the confidence that Northern Ireland is irreversibly on course to become a society in which paramilitary violence plays no part and where democratic institutions, open to all who have an electoral mandate, will operate on a stable and sustainable basis. These are the two sides of the same coin of trust and confidence and were the core objectives of the acts of completion process pursued by both Governments over recent months. They remain to be fully achieved and must be secured if we are to provide a sustainable basis for future political stability and partnership.
It is now clear that the peace we are all seeking must involve the ending of all paramilitary activity as set out in the Joint Declaration. That peace is best achieved and consolidated when elected representatives of all sides in the community recommit themselves to work together for the betterment of all, as the letter and spirit of the Agreement demands. The Northern Ireland Executive does not work to its full potential if it is simply regarded as a coalition of necessity, protecting one's own political interests at the expense of the other. Real political engagement in an inclusive partnership Executive will bring win-win situations to Northern Ireland's divided society. Hesitancy, mistrust and a refusal to engage in an agenda of real and lasting change for the better simply provides a no score draw.
Part of the more difficult agenda of reconciliation will also involve bringing closure to the conflict. Ceasing activities inimical to the peace process is but one confidence-building measure. In that respect, the victims of the conflict, and they were far too many on both sides, will, of course, not be forgotten by their families, friends and communities. The terrible legacy left by that hurt and pain should remind us all of the need to put ourselves in the other person's position and understand their point of view when we confront difficult issues that remain to be addressed in the aftermath of conflict. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that there were 1,500 unsolved murder cases in Northern Ireland during the course of the conflict, it would appear that, for many, closure will not come by way of resolving these murders through police investigations and subsequent and successful prosecutions in a court.
The Governments have sought to make their contribution to achieving closure in respect of a number of cases which are currently being examined by the eminent international jurist Judge Peter Cory. These are cases of serious controversy in their respective communities. The cases of Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill, Rosemary Nelson, Judge Gibson, RUC Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Robert Buchanan and loyalist Billy Wright are being investigated by Judge Cory. Both Governments are committed to respectively implementing Judge Cory's recommendations on these cases.
We also have here the Barron inquiry into the Dublin-Monaghan bombings which reflects the Government's commitment to pursue matters that have given rise to public concern. In dealing with these matters from the past it is important that they not become preconditions for the necessary political developments to secure our future. They must be dealt with on their merits. Accountability and confidence in the future must mean that the recommendations of the Stevens investigation and the Crompton report are fully and transparently implemented through the policing board.
The Good Friday Agreement is about a new beginning, turning a bloody page in our history, insisting on the primacy of politics so that we can create a just society without victims and reforming the institutions so that all political persuasions can participate in the democratic life of the society. We need to end the public psyche of victimhood, not perpetuate it into the future. In short, we need to come to terms with a past that can have no place in our future and we must do so in a way that gives hope and optimism to all our people that we are finally on the road to reconciliation, recognising the wrongs and violence that were visited on far too many for far too long.
The Government will work with others in good faith to achieve full implementation of this Agreement in a way that is sustainable and permanent. We have come too far to resile from our collective responsibilities now. Given the recent past and present that we have helped to shape, we owe it to this and future generations on this island to make it work. We should make our own history and I firmly believe that we must work in the coming weeks and months to shape an enabling context that will provide us with the ability to confront these responsibilities courageously.
While mindful of the requirement to justly deal with the painful legacies of the past, we must also be conscious of the need to protect and conserve the gains of recent years. In working with the British Government, we are determined to protect and develop the achievements of the Good Friday Agreement despite the suspension of the Assembly. In this connection, the importance of the continued operation of the North-South bod ies was restated by the two Governments at the meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference in London last week. For our part, we have consistently emphasised the importance of maintaining the programme of North-South co-operation agreed by the North-South Ministerial Council prior to suspension and ensuring that the North-South bodies continue to successfully operate and perform their essential public functions throughout this period.
We have repeatedly stated our determination that the progress we have made in North-South co-operation since the establishment of the North-South Ministerial Council and the founding of the North-South bodies over three years ago will not fall victim to the difficulties in the wider process. This determination is shared by the British Government. The two Governments jointly take any decisions necessary to ensure the continued effective operation of the North-South bodies on a care and maintenance basis. That arrangement will continue until the Assembly is restored and we can once again come together with Northern Ministers to agree ways in which we can move forward to fully develop and enhance our relationship of partnership and co-operation for the benefit of all. I look forward to that time.
Recharged with the original spirit and energy of the Good Friday Agreement, and not allowing ourselves to be distracted by the negative fall-out of the divisive legacies of the past, we must press on with the outstanding tasks of fully implementing the Agreement, ridding ourselves of paramilitarism and sectarianism, and consolidating the achievement of a just society, including in the areas of policing and criminal justice. Above all, we must assert the primacy of politics because it is only through renewed political engagement and momentum that we will close the remaining gaps and finish the job of securing the new beginning envisaged by the Agreement for the benefit of all of the people on this island.
I recognise the constructive purposes underlying the motion tabled by Sinn Féin. Likewise, I also recognise the helpful and constructive elements of the amendments tabled by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. The differences between the motion and those amendments are more questions of emphasis and nuance than major substance. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government amendment represents a more balanced and comprehensive reflection of the overall sentiment in this House. I commend it to Dáil Éireann and ask others who have tabled amendments to consider an agreed motion in the Government's name.
