Northern Ireland: Statements.

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

I thank the Cathaoirleach and Members for the invitation to address the House during this important debate.

Democratic societies such as ours rest on a few simple but unshakeable principles. Our institutions have been created to serve the interests of the people, and are ultimately answerable to them alone. The free contest between competing ideas and philosophies is determined by the judgment of the electorate, but the wishes of a majority must respect, and cannot violate, the rights of minorities. Dialogue, debate and persuasion are the only means available to democrats who seek change. Violence and terror are not merely illegal but entirely illegitimate. These are the values by which the overwhelming majority of the people live. They form the basis of their approach to all political questions, including that of how to arrange that complex of relationships which intersect in Northern Ireland.

At a time of great distress and anxiety it is important to remind ourselves of these truths. Our parliamentary institutions, by providing the arena for national debate, not only allow for the expression of a wide range of views and ideas, but in their very operation demonstrate our unyielding commitment to the democratic way. Last week's debate in Dáil Éireann reflected the passionate determination of the people that the peace must be restored and a lasting political settlement agreed. I welcome the fact that the voices of the Seanad and its Members will also be heard and I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.

On Friday last I suggested that we show our feelings about the breakdown of the ceasefire by wearing a white ribbon as a symbol of our grief at the loss of life and of our resolve that peace must prevail. Since then I have been immensely heartened by the huge response to this and to other initiatives which have aimed to give the public ways of making clear where they stand and what they want for themselves and their children. White is universally recognised as the colour of peace. It is also at the centre of our national flag. Mr. Thomas Francis Meagher, its designer, saw it as an expression of the fraternity which could and must exist between the orange and the green, between our two main traditions, which share the common space on the island and will continue to do so.

The basic questions to which the peace process has sought to provide answers are: is it possible to conceive of a way in which the two traditions of unionism and nationalism can successfully live together without surrendering their identities? Is the dream of coexistence and co-operation realisable or must we abandon ourselves to the continuation of the centuries old pattern of sterile antagonism and murderous conflict?

Those who believe that by bringing terror and death to the streets of London they will advance the prospect of all party negotiations aimed at reaching a comprehensive political settlement have truly fed themselves on fantasies. Their hearts have grown brutal from the fare. Today's IRA sees itself as the contemporary embodiment of a long and honourable republican tradition, in whose pantheon Thomas Davis holds an honourable place. Every bomb and every threat of violence simply postpones the day when some form of genuine fraternity will be possible.

Without in any way minimising the role of the British Government in the search for a solution, it is obvious that peace and agreement in Ireland ultimately depend on an accommodation being reached between the divided people of Ireland. This insight has been the basis of the nationalist approach for 25 years. It informed the report of the New Ireland Forum and has permeated the work of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. It has underlain the approach of successive Irish Governments. No political figure has more ably or forcefully emphasised the need for agreement or delineated the many inferences which can be drawn from that simple fact than John Hume.

When on 6 September 1994 the then Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, met John Hume and Gerry Adams, they reiterated that "our objective is an equitable and lasting agreement that can command the allegiance of all". They also reiterated that "we cannot resolve this problem without the participation and the agreement of the Unionist people". On many occasions since then, leaders of Sinn Féin have made the same point. As recently as last Thursday Gerry Adams said in a speech at Conway Mill that "Sinn Féin has always stressed the need for unionist involvement in the peace process. We cannot make peace without them."

Given the extent of agreement on the need for both communities in Northern Ireland and their political leaders to work together with the two Governments to reach a political settlement, it is virtually impossible to understand the thinking of those who have arranged the planting of bombs in London, and who apparently see terror, death and destruction not only as legitimate but as effective, political tactics. In its own words, the IRA claims that "what is required is a meaningful process that is capable of leading to a negotiated settlement". It believes that the "fundamental issues at the heart of the conflict are unchanged. There is only one place for all the political representatives of the Irish people to go and that is to the negotiating table."

None of us could disagree with that. However, what has happened in London — which, as the IRA must know, brings with it real dangers of a response which could further inflame and exacerbate the situation — makes the path to negotiations still more difficult for all of us and not least for Sinn Féin.

We remain convinced that the best way forward is to move as rapidly as possible into inclusive all-party negotiations. Moreover, we want to see Sinn Féin at the table. However, there is no point in pretending that serious political damage has not been inflicted by recent atrocities. Negotiations are, after all, not an end in themselves but a means to an end. In any negotiation there is a need for a level of mutual confidence and of trust if parties are to go beyond the restatement of familiar positions and to look for compromise and common ground.

There is little doubt that a glaring credibility gap exists between republican words and republican actions. I was a guest last week on the Radio Ulster phone-in programme "Talkback". Most of the callers identified themselves as members of the Unionist community. There may have been one or two who seemed embittered and intransigent but most sounded to me as if they were cautiously eager to talk. However, a common theme which ran through the questions was in essence — how can we ever deal with these people again? That is a question to which Sinn Féin and the republican movement urgently need to find a convincing answer.

In saying that, I know that trust and confidence must run of necessity in both directions. There is much in the history of Northern Ireland, and indeed in the handling of events since the ceasefires, to which nationalists and republicans can reasonably point with anger and frustration. However, when we narrow the focus to the past few months, there can be no pretence that errors of judgment and political procrastination are remotely on the same moral level as the murder of innocent people to achieve a political end. Each outrage reduces the scope for political movement and makes negotiations harder to attain. Even in the IRA's own terms, therefore, their resumed campaign is utterly counterproductive.

There must, first, be a restoration of the cessation of violence. As I said in the Dáil last week, the then Government saluted the IRA's announcement of 31 August 1994 on the basis that it represented a permanent and irrevocable step away from violence and into the democratic arena. That commitment to a total cessation of violence, which was to have held in all circumstances, was on 9 February revoked in the bloodiest possible way. It must now be set back in place. I do not want to engage in a semantic debate about the terms in which a renewed ceasefire should be announced, but I will say that they should be straightforward and unambiguous.

Until that happens, the Government does not feel it right or appropriate to meet Sinn Féin at ministerial level. The Taoiseach and I have explained why this is so. Others, who are in a different position, take a different approach. It is to be hoped that exchanges between them and Sinn Féin will be fruitful. However, no Government in the history of the State would have taken a line different from ours. Indeed, one of the ways in which the previous Government, headed by Deputy Reynolds, was able to exert leverage over the republican movement as we worked towards the IRA ceasefire, was that it could show to Sinn Féin that only a complete cessation of violence could lead to complete acceptance into the democratic family.

This does not mean that we are abandoning the community represented by Sinn Féin or ignoring the party's democratic mandate, nor are we saying that Sinn Féin and the IRA are one and the same or that Sinn Féin bears and must always bear full responsibility for the actions of the IRA. However, we cannot ignore the fact that there is a level of connection between the IRA and Sinn Féin, a degree of overlap in terms of personnel and of ideological affinity. Our treatment of Sinn Féin, should, therefore, be modulated and carefully calibrated and we must be conscious of the full implications, both for our own democratic system and for varying perceptions elsewhere, of how we proceed. We are, of course, continuing to keep open channels of communication at official level. There will be no lack of opportunity to convey any serious message in either direction.

Second, Sinn Féin itself should consider what it can do, by itself, to develop confidence in its commitment to democratic processes. It may not be practicable or useful to look for condemnations of specific incidents. It is true that from the earliest days of the ceasefire Sinn Féin's leaders have been willing to state their determination to proceed by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. However, it is surely now time for Sinn Féin to be ready to go further and to be fuller and more precise.

At the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, its representatives appeared ready to accept the formulation that "the pursuit of all political goals, including the establishment of an overall political settlement, must be undertaken by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, characterised by dialogue and free from violence or coercion". Sinn Féin must now think through the implications for them as a party of a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.

Attention has rightly been focused on Sinn Féin's attitude to the key issues of self-determination and consent. Neither this Government nor its predecessor has ever sought to make Sinn Féin's participation in dialogue dependent on their attitude to these questions. They were never asked to accept the Joint Declaration in its entirely but rather to establish their commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and to show that they abided by the democratic process.

At the same time, it is fair to point out that there are substantial grey areas and internal contradictions in what Sinn Féin says about the consent principle. These were carefully and effectively teased out by the Leader of Fianna Fáil in his speech to the other House last Tuesday. Indeed, the implications of the international law on self-determination were spelled out with great clarity by former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, in January 1994. To my knowledge, Sinn Féin has made no serious attempt to respond to what he said then. These are issues on which, as Mr. Séamus Mallon said, Sinn Féin stands outside the broad nationalist consensus.

I do not raise this with a view to making acceptance of the principle of consent a requirement for entry into negotiations. On the contrary, I regard attempts to do so as impractical and unwarranted. In my view, while one can reasonably ask participants in negotiations to give undertakings about their conduct, one cannot seek to limit what they believe or say. In any event, the two Governments and the overwhelming majority of parties stand four square behind the principle of consent as stated in the Joint Declaration. However, it is legitimate to suggest to Sinn Féin that, in the present context, the continuing ambiguity of its position is a further source of uncertainty and suspicion.

However, as the Taoiseach said, we must seek, with the British Government, to find a way forward in which Sinn Féin could honourably rejoin the political process once the IRA campaign is over. Our goal remains inclusive all-party negotiations. This is not because we are motivated by a desire to offer something to the IRA or to do anything we were not already seeking to do before recent atrocities. We desperately want the IRA campaign to stop now before further lives are destroyed but, despite what they have said, we cannot know for certain whether or how their bombings will be brought to an end. We want negotiations because they are objectively necessary if a settlement is to be found. Even if the IRA vanished tomorrow, there would still be a need to reach an accommodation which addresses all the relevant relationships and allows the people of this island and of these islands to live and work together.

Some argue that the lesson of the current situation is that the goal of an all-inclusive settlement is unrealistically ambitious and that we should now proceed to build a settlement from the centre out and hope that the extremes can either be contained or brought along in due course. This thesis was put forward with characteristic eloquence and vigour by the Leader of the Alliance Party in yesterday's Irish Times. I fully agree that we cannot allow the prospect of a settlement to become dependent on the whim of those who are prepared to use violence. The two Governments and the parties must continue to work towards agreement, come what may. However, it would be premature and defeatist to conclude either that the entire strategy of the peace process was doomed from the beginning or that we should abandon all hope of pursuing peace and a political agreement in tandem.

I have always held that the prospect of real peace and lasting agreement would be greatly magnified by an end to all paramilitary violence and a matching reduction in the security response. Looking back over the last 18 months, we can see that peace did make what was previously unthinkable a real possibility. The continuation of renewed violence and the consequent absence from the negotiating table of key players would militate against reaching an agreement which would stick in the long run. I want both Northern nationalism and Northern unionism to be represented as they define themselves and also in their full diversity. However, as I have said, while the two Governments will do all they can to bring about negotiations in which all can participate, it is ultimately up to parties to make it possible for themselves to enter.

Nationalists have rightly been frustrated by the continued reluctance of the unionist parties to enter into full negotiations. Their unwillingness to enter into dialogue and their attempts to promote a framework for talks which exclusively reflects their perception of the issues at stake and the context of their resolution has sent worrying signals. Many nationalists interpret these as stalling tactics. They fear that the real agenda for unionists has been the maintenance of the status quo, not the creation of a society based on the principles of equality in which all could feel themselves to have a stake.

Likewise, they have detected few signs that the British Government, in its day to day stewardship of the peace process, is fully aware of the implications of the commitments into which it entered in the Joint Declaration, notably, to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of agreement establishing peace, stability and reconciliation among all the people who inhabit the island. They fear that the maintenance of incumbency is a less challenging task than the search for a radically new dispensation.

Unionists will, with some justice, point to a variety of policy statements and speeches in which a new and more generous agenda for change has been sketched out. This evidence of movement should not be ignored or minimised, even though it is questionable whether, even at its most liberal, the new unionism is prepared to go far enough in understanding and accepting nationalists in terms of their own self definitions and stated objectives. However, regrettably, too often the style and tone adopted by unionist leaders has seemed to belie what they sometimes claim to be about.

I am glad, therefore, that after too long an interval since our previous meeting on 23 October last, David Trimble has agreed that he and I should soon meet again. I look forward to our meeting very much and hope that this time we will lay the foundations for a more enduring dialogue. Mr. Trimble has accepted my assurances that I do not wish to participate in debate exclusively concerned with the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. I have proposed to Mr. Trimble that the principal item on our agenda should be how we proceed to all-party negotiations on the three-stranded basis.

Self-evidently, the Irish Government will be fully and directly involved in negotiations on North-South and East-West arrangements. In addition, the way in which the various strands of negotiation interlink, and their overall phasing and management, are of legitimate concern to all parties in every strand. Given, therefore, that the peace convention advocated by Mr. Trimble, or any form of elective process, would of necessity be expected to lead immediately into full negotiations, the manner of this interconnection is one on which all participants need to agree.

In the meantime, the two Governments continue to work very hard in direct meetings at official level — the latest of which is being held today — and in continual contact at political level to prepare the summit between the Taoiseach and Mr. Major which is due to be held before the end of this month. The importance of our continuing partnership is immense. The co-operation of the two Governments is not a sufficient condition for the achievement of agreement — ultimately only the people and their political representatives can make that possible. However, our co-operation is and always will be a necessary condition.

For reasons which I am sure the House will appreciate, I do not wish to enter into particular detail about the progress of these contacts but I wish to reiterate a number of the basic elements which inform our approach. We need together to offer the Northern parties a fair and generally acceptable way into negotiations which all can take in the knowledge that they are not conceding any vital principle or weakening their substantive positions.

Debate has tended to focus, in a predictably polarising way, on the question of elections. I note that the most recent opinion poll seems to confirm a wide gulf between the two communities' perception of this issue. I have on a number of previous occasions analysed the main difficulties Northern nationalists have with the concept of elections, and have drawn attention to a range of potentially difficult practical consequences. As I have already said, it is fundamentally up to the Northern parties to decide whether and how an elective process could play a role in the lead-in to negotiations. The onus rests on those who believe that this approach offers real advantages to persuade those who have advanced a variety of cogent objections to it. The criterion of broad acceptability must, as a matter of common sense, be met.

I said last week in the Dáil that the British Prime Minister's positive and helpful clarification of his thinking on some aspects of an elective process should make it possible to consider the question in a calmer and more rational way. Nevertheless, many aspects, both practical and conceptual, need to be debated between the Governments and the parties as soon as possible. In essence, what needs to be ascertained is whether all the Northern parties can buy into a process which satisfies the criteria set out in the Mitchell report: that an elective process needs to be broadly acceptable, with an appropriate mandate, and that it fully respects the three-stranded structure of negotiations as agreed in the 1991-92 talks.

Another possibility now on the table is John Hume's characteristically bold and imaginative proposal for a referendum, North and South, aimed at confirming and demonstrating the overwhelming force of public demand for peace and for dialogue. Some critics have unfairly sought to dismiss these questions as somehow irrelevant, saying either that they are too vague or that the answers are already known. That is to ignore the authority of the ballot box and to misunderstand the challenge that strongly positive responses would present to those who then sought to defy the will of the communities they claim to represent. At the very least, the referendum proposal requires, no less than that of the elective process, full and open debate.

There is in addition a need to address the structure and organisation of negotiations themselves. We need to agree on a format and on ground rules which will best facilitate genuine negotiation capable of resulting in a lasting settlement embracing all the strands. We also need to see how the recommendations, suggestions and analysis of the Mitchell report can best be integrated into the negotiating process.

There are many complex issues to be resolved and a wide range of participants, even in the absence of Sinn Féin which we hope will be temporary and short lived. Thus, for practical reasons and to demonstrate our shared determination to bring about all party negotiations as soon as possible, I continue to believe strongly that some form of intensified multilateral dialogue is essential. This lay behind my proposal for proximity talks which was put forward in an attempt to take account of the sensitivities of some of the parties. The fact that the parties were all present in close proximity to one another would enable an intense series of exchanges to be set up between them and with the two Governments. The reality is that the several weeks of preparatory talks we have had so far have not been sufficiently concentrated to make it possible to zero in on agreement on such a wide range of intertwined issues. The proximity talks proposal remains, in my view, the best way to do so. "The principles of intensity and urgency", as John Alderdice describes them, must govern our approach at this stage.

As I said last week, I am determined that the loyalist parties must have a place at the negotiating table. They represent people who have been central to the conflict in Northern Ireland and must be directly involved in finding a solution. They have made their own contribution to the process of reconciliation and in the present difficult conditions they are making concerted efforts to preserve the loyalist ceasefire. It is vital that it hold and that we do not descend into a spiral of atrocity, retaliation and counter-retaliation. How to ensure their role is an important consideration in any discussion of the elective process.

The people of Ireland, and of Britain, deserve to be spared from a return to the abyss out of which we so recently escaped. The right to peace is surely the most fundamental of all rights. That the exercise of this right is being hampered by those who purport to act for Ireland is a cruel irony. There is no justification, moral or political, for their actions. We must now act decisively, in concert with the British Government and with all the democratic parties, to bring about negotiations to agree on the political underpinning of an unbreakable peace.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I welcome the Tánaiste to the House and I thank him for his comprehensive address on this sensitive issue. This debate is taking place at a most delicate and dangerous time. I regret that it did not take place much earlier as I and my party requested here many times. The climate then would have allowed us to speak more freely in support of positive developments and to voice our criticism of complacency, inertia and even obstruction — though, let it be said, not obstruction on the part of our own Government.

The Hume-Adams talks created the conditions for a major breakthrough: a transformation from violence to peace and co-operation. As the Tánaiste has acknowledged, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, achieved an historic breakthrough in the Downing Street Declaration, building on the foundation of the Hume-Adams talks and the painstaking negotiations of his predecessors in that office.

The paramilitary organisations called ceasefires and the conditions were there for the construction of a permanent and durable peace. If we had had this debate last year we would have been entitled to question and criticise the lack of urgency on the part of the British and regrettably, to a certain extent, the Irish Government in building on this unique and solid foundation for peace.

We would have properly pointed to our Government in a responsible and supportive way that the preconditions being introduced by the British Government were unprecedented anywhere such negotiations have taken place. We would also have pointed out that it was being obstructive. We would have insisted that the British Government be constantly and vigorously reminded of the dangerous risk it was taking in placing the political survival of its Government ahead of the survival of a peace process and the welfare and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, in particular.

It is an irony that those who showed the most vigorous commitment to the cause of peace before the horrific event at Canary Wharf last Friday week were the Sinn Féin and loyalist leaders who over the years were seen as close to those who perpetrated the most horrifying acts of violence. The political leaders in both Governments should have ensured that the political role being played Sinn Féin and loyalist leaders would have underpinned the construction of a new era of peace and prosperity in Ireland.

John Hume, above all others, has devoted his life to eliminating injustice and substituting instead a common bond of harmony and co-operation. He has been a personal friend since our student days in Maynooth College in the 1950s. I have been privileged to work with him many times in the interests of all the people of Ireland during my period in Government. On Friday, 9 February — who will forget that day — I met him informally and unexpectedly. I was overwhelmed by the sense of frustration, anger and pain he expressed that the peace process which he had worked so hard to build up was at risk of being destroyed in the absence of political agreement for all party talks. The tragic events of that night in London horrified us all. John Hume's message had not been heard and his efforts had been taken for granted. The courage of those engaged with him in the peace process had unfortunately until then been ignored.

Sometimes the political path can be fraught with risk and danger as it clearly was for John Hume in engaging in discussions with Gerry Adams. It was also fraught with danger for Gerry Adams in trying to steer Sinn Féin away from support for violence to painstaking political negotiation. It was not the first time Gerry Adams tried to bring Sinn Féin onto the path of political negotiations.

I was involved through priest friends — intermediaries who have now become rather well known — in negotiations with the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, to bring about the end of what was then called the "dirty protest". Gerry Adams played a crucial role in bringing about the end of that protest, with the intention that he could lead Sinn Féin on the political path which would ultimately lead to negotiations for a permanent peace and which, by definition, would repudiate the path of violence. That was as long ago as the end of 1980.

Unfortunately, the attitude of the prison authorities in Northern Ireland at that time, subsequent to the political negotiations and conclusions we reached with the British Government, created conditions to obstruct what might have achieved a new era of peace and prosperity. The hunger strikes, as we sadly recall, followed. The prisoner who called off the protest from within the prison, the late Bobby Sands, was the first to put down his name for the hunger strike. Since then we have witnessed horrific violence, death and suffering which could have been replaced by peace and prosperity for all in the intervening years. After 15 years of violence and suffering, is the path to peace and negotiations to be frustrated and obstructed again? There is a huge onus — bigger than ever before — on all of us to help to clear the way again for a breakthrough into a new and mutually respectful era of co-operation and harmony.

Killing can never be tolerated as an instrument of political achievement. It is particularly repulsive and sick to use killing and bombs as a means of intimidation towards political negotiation. Negotiations for peace cannot be in any way linked to killing, maiming and intimidation. On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad — although it hardly needs to be said because it has already been vigorously expressed by our leader — I express my total and ulter condemnation of the recent horrific events in London. I also express my sympathy to the families of those who have been killed or maimed and our renewed determination — as the Tánaiste has underlined today — to bring about conditions which will ensure that such outrages cannot happen again. I also take this opportunity to express our sympathy to the families and particularly the children of all those who have suffered during the past 25 years in Northern Ireland and particularly in the last 15 years, when there was a prospect, for the reasons I have outlined, for political discussions. I express our sympathy to those people for the lost opportunities in the meantime. We pledge to renew our efforts to release them from this nightmare of violence into the dawn of a peaceful era.

Many people, such as Mr. Hume, Mr. Adams, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. McMichael, Mr. Hutchinson and others, have taken up the challenge for peace and have showed immense political courage and determination in recent times. Their courage and commitment are respected by all who value peace. Of course, there will be doubts, distrust and even justifiable fears on the part of people from other political communities. However, let the political community of nationalist Ireland make it clear that we are not seeking and have no right to seek our political aims through any other means except friendship, mutual respect and mutually beneficial co-operation. We deplore and reject violence for any cause, particularly the cause of the coming together by agreement of the Irish people.

There can and never will be a united Ireland based on the supremacy of one community over the other. For that reason, it is dishonest of the political leaders of the establishment unionist parties to talk in terms of a united Ireland — which they constantly do when nobody here does so — that will be forced on the unionist community by a pan-nationalist conspiracy. I appeal to unionist leaders to stop using the term "united Ireland" as a means of frightening their own genuine supporters about the terrible consequences that would follow such a horrific scenario as they would present it.

John Taylor wrote some years ago that in that event, the Protestants would be driven out of Northern Ireland as the Protestants of the Republic had been after Irish Independence. I wrote to him at the time and told him I thought it was shameful to express such a horrific scenario which did not accord to the truth. Unfortunately I did not get a reply. I appeal to unionist leaders particularly to stop using that term as a means to frighten people.

Unionist leaders are understandably concerned about talking only to constitutional politicians. However, these same leaders refuse to talk to any constitutional politicians in the context of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body which clearly has no power of decision making and has no right to in any way subsume whatever authority or responsibility they have. They justify their absence from all party talks, which might involve Sinn Féin, because they do not see them as constitutional parties. How can they possibly reconcile that position with their absence from the British-Irish Parliamentary Body where their chairs are waiting to be occupied and where we want to hear their voices and listen to them in friendship and harmony? It is time they had to answer for their isolation in that as in many other areas in recent years.

I assert without qualification that we acknowledge and respect the unionist character and tradition on this island. They could and should have a dynamic role at European and international level from which they have been excluded by the misplaced and self-imposed isolation of leaders in the establishment unionist parties. Full and vigorous participation at all levels, for instance, of the European Union, the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the Parliament, the Courts of Justice, the European Investment Bank and other rights as citizens of Europe could be available to them as it is to us in a new era of partnership and understanding. Why should the nationalist community alone be the ones represented at all these international levels, including the United Nations? Why should we alone be able to play a full and vigorous part and, as the Tánaiste is now doing, earn respect and recognition for our participation? How long more can any unionist political representative justify the self-imposed penalty of isolation? How long more can they turn their backs on the huge opportunities that will arise from even further international investment if Belfast, for instance, as much as Dublin, became a centre for international financial services and other international and major political events?

Later this year, the Presidency of the European Union will offer all of us a unique opportunity to play an even bigger part in constructing Europe and winning respect for Ireland. Why should that respect be confined to the nationalist tradition alone when we are so anxious to share that role with our fellow unionist Irishmen?

We were witnessing a new beginning of peace and prosperity in both parts of Ireland before the horrific events of Canary Wharf. For that reason, we must again commit ourselves to rebuilding that process. No one, particularly those who would claim to be political representatives, has a right to reject that challenge, particularly through spurious self-justification. No one has a right to deprive the people they represent of a new hope for a peaceful future free of violence, fear or intimidation. The issue is not the political security of any Government or political party — it is much greater than that; it is about the peace and prospects of the people in all parts of Ireland.

We are prepared to play our role in mutual respect and co-operation. We acknowledge the huge contribution our unionist fellow Irishmen can make to the political and economic development of the island. No nationalist has a right to impose by intimidation, threat or violence, or through deceit or subterfuge political structures on our unionist fellow Irishmen.

All Irishmen of whatever tradition have an obligation to co-operate in common purpose and mutual respect through whatever structures can be agreed. We can and must start again after the recent horrific events. Hopefully, we can do so in an atmosphere based on recognition of the various traditions on this island and the confidence that together we can achieve new political and economic status in Europe and throughout the world.

In a landmark speech to the Dáil last week, our party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, left no doubt as to Fianna Fáil's rejection and abhorrence of violence as a means to political ends. He also showed respect and sensitivity for the unionists' position on this island. The Government has an awesome responsibility at present and the Tánaiste's imaginative efforts to re-establish the peace process through proximity talks will have our full and unqualified support.

Mr. Manning

I thank the Tánaiste for opening these statements. His speech gave a good analysis of the present position and pointed out the complexities of trying to make progress. It highlighted the situation of unparallelled danger in which we find ourselves, where wrong words or actions at this stage could lead us into an abyss which would be more terrible than we have ever experienced. However, there must always be hope. From now on we must go forward. There is no point in recriminations. We must be as truthful and honest with ourselves and those with whom we are dealing as possible.

Parliament must send out the message that the peace process must continue, with or without the IRA. Too much has been invested and achieved over the last 18 months to let it go now and there is too much hope and potential to lose. We must give a clear message that Parliament speaks with a single voice on this issue.

The parties in this House shaped and preserved Irish democracy. They have had their differences but they have been resolved in Parliament. Those who talk of Civil War politics miss the point. The Civil War was transferred from the battlefield to Parliament; it was fought out in the parliamentary assembly. It may have been raw, led to great bitterness at times and sidelined economic issues at the time, but it was our ability to bring the Civil War into Parliament that laid the basis for our secure and mature democracy.

It was our hope when the peace process started that Sinn Féin would be enabled to do what other parties did 60 or 70 years ago and translate their differences into the parliamentary process, here and in the North. When our Civil War was transferred from the battlefield to these Chambers there were no more killings and suffering. Words hurt but they healed and our parliamentary democracy was founded on that basis. As parliamentarians and democrats we want Sinn Féin to play a full part in the democratic process. In saying the peace process must be continued with or without the IRA our dominant hope is that the IRA will reconsider, will call a permanent and durable ceasefire and will allow the political process to continue again.

Most of us who met Sinn Féin over the past few months were genuinely impressed with those to whom we spoke. Few of us saw any problems in doing business with Sinn Féin within democratic structures. We felt they had a real contribution to make. They had new ideas and a new closeness to the people they represented. In particular, Gerry Adams struck many of us as a person who had the potential to be a genuine national leader.

Now, however, a black cloud of uncertainty, a large question mark, hangs over the credibility of the people to whom we spoke over the past 18 months. The question is simple: can they be believed after what has happened? I am not going to rush to judgment on that and I do not think any of us should but they do have a lot of explaining to do. The question mark hangs over some of their leaders in particular, and I exempt Gerry Adams from this. We are all aware of rumours and newspaper reports about how much some of the leaders did or did not know about the events leading up to the Canary Wharf bombing. Were they, on the one hand, involved in negotiations where their bona fides were accepted while, on the other hand, they were busily preparing to bomb Canary Wharf and unleash the terror campaign that we have experienced over the past two weeks? If we do not know the answer to that question, it is difficult to continue doing business in good faith. If Sinn Féin cannot assure the other parties there are no such links and if they cannot show they are not just a political front for the IRA but a genuine independent political movement in their own right, then it will be hard to do business, no, it will be impossible, unless truth and trust are at the core of what is happening.

When we do business we know from where other parties come; we know who runs the show within the political parties, what they want, how they operate and in what they believe. If we do not know these things about Sinn Féin, how can we talk to them on any basis of trust? It does not give me any pleasure to talk about the cloud of credibility hanging over Sinn Féin at present but it is something which Sinn Féin must resolve if it is to be taken as a serious genuine political party.

As for the IRA, what can we say? The Tánaiste spoke at some length about the IRA in his contribution but, again, there is no point in brushing these things under the carpet. On "Morning Ireland" today, Richard Crowley spoke to a woman who was involved in organising a peace campaign who made the not unreasonable point that the democratic desire of the Irish people was overwhelmingly for peace and democratic methods. Richard Crowley agreed and said that the decision of seven or ten men in a room can bring the country close to the brink of, or to, civil war and that they can thwart the democratic desire of the overwhelming majority of the people.

What we know of the IRA and what has emerged, in particular in the past couple of weeks, is that it has not, or does not appear to have, changed from the IRA we have known over the past 25 years. It is an organisation which is fundamentally anti-democratic. It scorns democracy, as do all fascist groups. People, in their view, have no right to do wrong. They alone have the view of what is right for this country. They prefer fear to persuasion. Intimidation, death, bombs and threats work, they say, better than persuasion — the doctrine of Mussolini and of Hitler. They are obsessed by their own rightness and their right to do what they think is right for the people of this country.

Democracy and the IRA cannot coexist. Ultimately, it is as simple as that. If the IRA will not accept the rule of law, the rule of the Constitution, democratic principles and doctrines of consent, then we may well find ourselves thrown back on the most fundamental and primary obligation of any state, that is, the obligation to defend itself, its constitution, its political institutions and the safety of its people from attack. Ultimately, the State may have to do terrible and awful things to do all of this — a situation none of us wants to and, hopefully, will never have to contemplate. At least, let us be honest with ourselves and face up to the IRA as it is at present because, unless we recognise it for what it is, we are not being honest with ourselves.

Let us also face up to that lurking ambivalence within so many of our people with regard to the use of violence for political ends. That discomforting ambivalence was illustrated by a recent opinion poll carried out on behalf of the Irish Independent. There can be no compromise between the IRA and democracy, except on democracy's terms. We must never lose sight of that fact. The IRA cannot be allowed to exercise its veto over the express desire of the overwhelming majority of people, north and south, to live in peace and harmony.

The question outside observers must ask is why it is taking so long to begin negotiations which will hopefully lead to an agreed arrangement for Northern Ireland. Why is this the case when there are so many principles upon which to base agreement? Politicians on all sides in Northern Ireland have a wide range of issues upon which to agree but they do not necessarily have to agree on the way such principles are put into practice. Members serving on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body will be aware that politicians in Ireland and in Britain discover much common ground on basic principles and common objectives. If there is so much agreement, why is it taking so long to begin negotiations?

It should not be forgotten that we are discussing an administrative structure for an area which is similar in size to Merseyside and not much larger than greater Dublin. We are not discussing a continent or subcontinent, but a small area of land and a small number of people whose problems have been analysed and discussed for the past 25 years to the point where there is very little left to be written or said about the subject. Is there something in the northern air which prefers a grievance to a solution? This sometimes seems to be the case because there is a tendency to find points of disagreement rather than seeking to build upon principles for agreement.

Faults exist on both sides, but I wish now to refer to the present unionist position. Last week I spoke to a distinguished academic who works in Belfast. I asked him, as a southerner, for his views on the situation and he informed me that until the Canary Wharf bombing most unionists had what they wanted. This point was echoed by the Tánaiste. The unionists had security and were in a position to block any real progress. They were happy and there was no real desire within the unionist community to proceed towards a lasting settlement which would involve their position coming under threat. There is a great deal of truth in this argument.

One of the most extraordinary things people have difficulty understanding is the inability of unionists to avoid a solution of which they would be the principal beneficiaries. The unionists would be the principal beneficiaries of an agreed, peaceable, prosperous Northern Ireland, with both communities living in harmony. Senator O'Kennedy correctly referred to the unwillingness of unionist leaders to trust in the good faith of successive Irish Governments which people on this side of the Border have difficulty comprehending.

Journalists, politicians and observers from across the world have travelled to this country to examine the Northern Ireland problem. I am not aware that they left Ireland, having spoken to politicians from all parties, with any sense of bad faith on the part of any politician in the Houses of the Oireachtas. We have no imperial ambitions for Northern Ireland. We merely desire a settlement for Northern Ireland which will allow people express their identity and live together in peace and harmony. For the past 18 months the people of Northern Ireland have experienced the miracle of peace which has now been cruelly taken from them.

Why is it that our unionist colleagues in Northern Ireland cannot accept the basic principle of our goodwill in this matter? We would prefer to be in a position to devote our time and energy to the daily problems of our constituents. We like being part of a modern European state. A settled peace would allow the politicians of Northern Ireland, especially the unionists, to realise the potential within Northern Ireland, allow them to play a part on a bigger international stage and to transfer their part of Ireland into a model community from which there would be no losers, only beneficiaries.

I am conscious — and I would be very interested to hear what Senator Haughey has to say about this — of the absence of a strong middle class opinion, especially a business opinion in Northern Ireland which would put pressure on the unionists to start thinking positively and creatively rather than defending the status quo. The business community in Northern Ireland is the biggest and the greatest beneficiary in material terms of a move towards peace. We all know that if our party or Government followed policies which were inimical to business, business representatives would tell us so. We also know these people will support us at the ballot box but, in Northern Ireland, there appears to be an almost total silence on the part of the business community to exert pressure for movement towards a lasting peace. I exempt the churches which have been exemplary; they have given great leadership in trying to bring people together and in trying to move the process along. I only wish their example was followed elsewhere.

Where can we go from here? The Tánaiste and the Taoiseach outlined our position and the steps which must be taken. Clearly there is no simple step. The initiative now lies with the two sovereign Governments. They cannot wait for a new IRA ceasefire. We must do everything we can to bring it about, but we cannot let the peace process wilt in the meantime. We cannot wait until all parties are sitting around the table because if we wait that long it will never happen. Although inclusive all-party talks are an essential part of any settlement, the two Governments must pressurise, cajole and persuade the parties to come to the table. We must be prepared to start these talks even if all parties are not present. We cannot wait for the slowest party to come to the table to allow the talks to start.

The initiative will not come from within Northern Ireland. The greatest deficiency of the unionist parties is that they do not have a leader of the calibre of John Hume or Seamus Mallon, who is capable of lifting them above tribal differences and inherited hatreds and who can give them the opportunity to see their community on a European stage. John Hume has internationalised Northern Ireland; he has raised it to a European dimension.

The past few weeks have shown that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has worked and that the structures built up over the past ten years allow the Governments to come together in common cause at times of great difficulty. Those structures will prove sufficiently strong over the coming weeks and months to see us through the greatest crisis of the past two years.

I will not join with others — it did not happen here today — in attacking John Major who is in a perilous position in his Parliament. He has consistently shown that he wants to bring about a resolution to this centuries old problem. It ill behoves people to attack his bona fides or to try to diminish his contribution to resolving this problem. We are lucky to have a Prime Minister such as John Major who has put so much thought, energy and effort into solving this problem.

The problem is being given great thought and consideration by the Government. We all have confidence in how the Government is handling the problem. We on this side of the House applaud the constructive role of the Opposition. If ever there was a need for solidarity, it is now. In Opposition we gave that support to the Government and we are thankful and grateful that the same support and solidarity have been forthcoming during these difficult days.

The weeks ahead will be difficult and the key to progress lies with the IRA. It imposed the veto two weeks ago; it can lift it now and allow us to start rebuilding the peace process. I appeal to anybody who has any influence with the IRA to try, even at this late stage, to get it to change its mind.

Mr. Norris

This is an important debate which is taking place at a sad and dangerous time in our history. It is, however, appropriate that we should have this debate. We have been frequently told that the time was not right for a debate in this House because incautious words could further inflame the situation in Northern Ireland. That argument is now impossible to sustain. However, we must still be deliberate and reflective in our discussion.

I recall in particular the words of our late colleague, Senator Gordon Wilson, at the time of the murder of his daughter, Marie, in Enniskillen when he reminded us that dirty words would not advance the cause of peace. Nevertheless, this is a time for straight talking and the unutterable fifth of the deeds perpetrated in our name by persons immune to democratic feelings must inevitably sully with the dirt of murder and betrayal whatever is said.

I come from a background of fighting over many years for civil and human rights in this country. I was one of the founders of the Southern Ireland Civil Rights Association in the early 1970s which fought by peaceful means to secure the civil rights of Roman Catholics and republican citizens living in the North of Ireland. I have also campaigned successfully for the civil rights of minorities such as gay people and the travellers in this country. I also consistently argued and voted against the continuance of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. However, I have no hesitation in saying that I would understand and support the use of emergency legislation in this State to remove from circulation persons resident here who are clearly implicated in the decision making process of the so-called Provisional IRA Council, but against whom there is not as yet sufficient evidence to secure a conviction in the courts.

Every newspaper in Ireland has carried reports of the process which led to the planting of bombs in the Canary Wharf and on a London bus which, although falling short of actually naming the people involved, clearly indicates who they are, what their backgrounds are and where they live. We are told there is one person in Tallaght, another in Balbriggan and another in Louth. If I knew the names of these persons, I would unhesitatingly name them in this House. I hope that if someone in either Houses of the Oireachtas knows who they are, they will publicly name them in this Parliament. In my opinion, all such persons are enemies of the State. They have declared war upon the people as a whole and they are traitors to their country and they should be treated as such.

I have suggested in previous debates that those convicted of particularly heinous republican outrages should be deprived of citizenship. I repeat this suggestion here today. We were told that those who made this callous decision are seven in number. If they are known to security forces they should speedily be removed from circulation. They are not only moral imbeciles as evidenced by the way in which they are prepared to visit indiscriminate carnage on civilians, but they are also, in my opinion, political cretins. Even supposing that their difficulties with the Government of Mr. John Major were reasonable, it is also reasonable to suggest that they, like everyone else, would understand that the present Administration in the United Kingdom has a very short life expectancy. There is little doubt that the British Government will shortly change and be replaced by a Labour Administration more amenable to the idea of genuine all-party talks. It seems incredible that these people were not prepared to wait the few months necessary to accomplish this change.

However, there is a degree of contradiction about John Major's consistent demands for decommissioning and for the removal of arms from the situation in the North of Ireland. I am, I suppose, attacking Mr. Major on this issue but I feel entitled to do so. His moral position is strangely weak for him to make such a call in the light of his Government's continuing and vicious policy of supplying the instruments of death, destruction and torture to some of the worst tyrannies on the face of this globe. One need look no further than the Scott report, the callous and inhuman remarks of former Junior Minister, Mr. Alan Clarke, in dismissing the sufferings of the East Timorese or the plain complicity of the British and indeed other European Governments in the genocide being perpetrated by the Indonesian regime against the defenceless civilian populations of East Timor and West Papua, employing weaponry supplied by those governments.

Moreover, it is the main responsibility of any democratic government to protect the citizens of its state. We need now to be protected against the disastrous consequences of the present IRA bombing campaign. These consequences are economic, moral and political. The economic consequences lie principally in the area of international investment in this country and in the development of the tourism industry which is one of the engines of growth which this State possesses. Morally speaking, it is unacceptable to the vast majority of Irish people that the name of Ireland should be besmirched by the terrorist activities of a small unrepresentative group. Politically, it would be very unwise to allow the perception to grow abroad that the Irish and British Governments respond favourably to those elements whose only argument is violence.

Politically one must ask, if one accepts that the IRA are the enemies of the Irish people who are their traditional friends. In the 1940s, under Seán Russell, the friends of the IRA were the Nazi Party in Germany; in the 1960s they were the hated Stasi secret police of Eastern Germany and, subsequently, they received massive arms shipments from the regime of Colonel Gadaffi in Libya. This is a very foreshortened history of their movement and their involvement with other undemocratic regimes throughout the world, but it should certainly raise some questions about the commitment of the IRA and their supporters to the path of peace and democracy.

I consider it vitally necessary that the Irish Government keeps open its lines of communication to persons within the republican movement, such as Gerry Adams, whom I continue to believe is committed to the continuance of the peace process. If the Taoiseach made one mistake, it was that he should have confronted Mr. Adams directly upon the news of this bombing and sought an explanation from him face to face. However, it is chilling to hear statements such as that issued yesterday by the Provisional IRA to the effect that if Mr. Major had not yet received and understood the message delivered by them in London, he would be receiving other messages delivered throughout other United Kingdom cities.

Just as Colonel Gadaffi supplied enormous resources of weapons to the IRA as a method of getting revenge against Margaret Thatcher's Government, clearly regarding the Irish people as mere pawns in his game, so the IRA currently appears to regard the ordinary civilians of this country and the United Kingdom as pawns and legitimate targets who are conveniently disposable and whose human suffering can be ignored in an attempt to achieve their political objectives.

Mr. Adams states that he does not speak for the IRA but it is clear from everything he says that he speaks to the IRA. It is time for him to deliver the message which the Irish people, North and South, have made quite unambiguous, that is, a demand for the end of the current campaign of terror. Even for selfish reasons we in the South must echo that demand. If the present escalation of violence is not halted, it is only a matter of time before bombs explode in Dublin and we all may suffer the same fate as the citizens of London. At that time it will be too late for us to act. That is why I believe and strongly urge the Government that those people known to be involved in the decision making process that lead to these bombings should be removed from circulation.

I also believe that at this time we must reverse our traditional distaste for "informers". The most patriotic duty of Irish people, North and South, is precisely to inform on those involved in this campaign. An economic incentive must be added to persuade those with knowledge to divulge that knowledge to the security forces. The economic consequences of a continued guerrilla war are so catastrophic for this country that it would be well worth our while as a people and as a Government to offer a reward of £5 million in each case for information leading to the conviction of any member of the so called Provisional IRA Council.

The truth is most regrettably that in common parlance we have been had. John Major and the unionists were clearly right to question whether "a complete cessation of military operations" really meant "a permanent end to political violence". The IRA-Sinn Fein would not stomach and could not bring themselves to utter the word "permanent". Now we know why. The ceasefire was never intended to be permanent. The threat of the bomb and the bullet was always intended to remain effective.

Let us suppose Sinn Féin had even got their way and that by some miracle the unionists had been persuaded also to approach the negotiating table. There is no possible way in which, through negotiation, the IRA-Sinn Féin could have achieved their political objectives. It must appear that the inevitable consequence of the majority of parties at such a conference coming to a conclusion which did not reflect the wish of this unrepresentative armed clique would have resulted in further violence anyway.

A dangerous and volatile situation has been precipitated. It is clear to me at least that the intention of the IRA is to provoke a civil war. I can see no other logical explanation for their conduct. The IRA after all have given nothing whatever, unless one is so servile as to suppose that ordinary decent citizens should express their gratitude to the gunmen for not being murdered. In this I echo the famous words of Sean O'Casey's character Seamus Shields in The Shadow of a Gunman—

I am a nationalist meself right enough. I believe in a United Ireland. But I draw the line when I hear the gunmen blowin' about dyin' for the people when its the people that is dyin' for the gunmen.

On the British side, despite some slowness, there have been significant concessions made. Prisoners were released, troops withdrawn to barracks, RUC brought back to police functioning, the number of troops reduced and border roads opened. These are major concessions and should be regarded as such. They also regrettably assisted the IRA in their task of regrouping and preparing for a new phase of violence in this country. Newspaper reports indicate the strong probability that a number of those IRA personnel released during the ceasefire have been instrumental in bringing that very process to a close. Moreover, the IRA tactically could not afford to wait until the Major Government fell. If they had, their hypocrisy, evasion and dishonesty would have been made perfectly clear.

It is obviously the intention of the leadership of the IRA to goad the Protestant paramilitaries into violent reaction thereby setting off once more the spiral of violence which will lead inevitably to civil war. Once this tit for tat bombing, probably including attacks on the city of Dublin, commences, it will be psychologically extremely difficult for any Government to introduce the strong measures necessary to curb the actions of the IRA in the South. For this reason I believe a pre-emptive strike is necessary.

I believe, of course, that we should continue to talk to Sinn Féin in tandem with whatever strong security measures are necessary. Perhaps Mr. Adams may still be a conduit to the armchair generals of the republican movement. I was astonished to hear Mr. Adams say that he had no reason to go back to the IRA pleading for peace. No reason? Has Mr. Adams never heard of common decency and humanity? I would have thought that in itself was sufficient reason to demand an end to the slaughter. Of course what he may have meant was that the present leadership of the IRA were immune to such human feelings. If this is what he meant I believe he was correct.

The psychological profile of those instrumental in the present campaign perfectly fits the psychological profile of the deviant type known as psychopaths. The clinical definition of the "psychopath" is someone who has no sense of moral responsibility for his or her actions, is indifferent to the consequences of those actions, feels no remorse for them and is incapable of imaginatively understanding their impact upon others. If one contemplates the fate of the two young men killed in the Canary Wharf bomb and the equanimity with which this ghastly deed was regarded by the IRA, it will be clear what I mean. A young Pakistani man was brutally butchered; his friend, a 31 year old English man, was also killed. The second man's father was a 71 year old widower with no other relations. Has the Republican junta ever paused to reflect on what the future holds for that 71 year old working class pensioner living alone in a council flat in London? I am not alone in feeling that we have been had by the IRA. The security correspondent of The Irish Times wrote on Monday, 12 February:

There has been disquiet among some senior gardaí and members of the Special Branch since the end of 1994 about the level of confidence the government has placed on the IRA maintaining its ceasefire.

According to Garda sources there has been a refusal in Government to take proper cognisance of their warnings that the IRA was continuing to smuggle arms in to the state, develop new weapons, carry on training and target security forces in Northern Ireland. Gardaí were also worried that anti-terrorist resources and operations were being depleted as confidence now seemed to be misplaced in the IRA ceasefire groove.

Some Gardaí believe that Government was becoming too dependent on information about the IRA intentions derived from its own channels, set up in the republican leadership in the period before the IRA ceasefire. These links are through senior officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Taoiseach."

Perhaps the House can be assured that the proper arrangements for security and surveillance are once more in place. I, and I am sure all Members, support the courageous efforts of this Government and others of goodwill, such as Mr. John Hume, to secure peace. We could usefully look at Mr. Hume's suggestion for a peace referendum to be held simultaneously on both sides of the Border.

I want to reiterate a parallel suggestion I made many times over the past few years, that is, that a referendum should also be held for the purpose of amending our Constitution by adding, after Articles 2 and 3, the following words: "That in any attempt to realise this aspiration to national unity the use of violence shall be prohibited". This would constitutionally cut any apparent justification from the IRA in its campaign of terror.

Mr. Maloney

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on Northern Ireland but, as a County Donegal person, I do so with a heavy heart. The bomb in the centre of London on Sunday night, following the bomb in the Canary Wharf the previous week, has done further damage to the peace process. On behalf of my constituents in County Donegal and the Labour Party I extend my sympathy to the families of the bereaved and the people injured in the recent attacks, innocent working class people who did nothing against Ireland and did not deserve that fate.

I totally and categorically condemn all the callous attacks perpetrated by the IRA in recent weeks. No politician or any person who is committed to democracy and democratic politics can justify the recent actions of the IRA. These attacks should be universally condemned by all self-respecting political parties. I urge Sinn Féin to demand that the IRA calls an immediate and total cessation of violence. The peace process can only restart if there is a total cessation of hostilities. There is no place for the gun or bomb in politics. It is incumbent on all politicians not to allow the peace process to wither away and die. We must work harder than ever to breath life back into it and we cannot allow this opportunity to die. It is time for public representatives and politicians to show courage and determination in the face of adversity.

I travelled to Derry yesterday to do some business and it was changed times to see the soldiers back on the road at the Border between Derry and County Donegal. It is sad that that situation has been reverted to after 17 months. Border crossings had been opened and there was a massive tourism inflow to Northern Ireland. Now, suddenly, that will cease. I heard in my area this morning that English people who planned to come to Ireland for their holidays have started to cancel their bookings. Undoubtedly, unemployment will rise again; jobs will be lost as a result of the stupid and callous actions of the IRA.

I welcome the fact that the Tánaiste opened the debate and I congratulate him for the stand he has taken. I also congratulate the stand taken by all the party leaders, including the Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, and Deputy Ahern. It is important that cross party support is encouraged; it is not a time for division. The white ribbon protest initiated by the Tánaiste last week is welcome and I offer my support and solidarity to the STOP 96 peace initiative.

STOP, which stands for Solidarity To Organise Peace, is an ad hoc group which has the full support of my party. It is organising a series of peace demonstrations on Sunday, one of which will take place in my town. I urge every citizen to use Sunday as an opportunity to tell the IRA that it must resume the ceasefire if we are to have any chance of repairing the damage done to the peace process. The ceasefire, which the IRA destroyed, is the property of all the people of this island. The peace belongs to the people and we must reclaim it from the terrorists. Through rallies and demonstrations, such as those on Sunday, the public has an opportunity to give a clear and unambiguous message that the killings must stop.

I attended a meeting in Lifford last Thursday week — Senator McGowan also attended it — of cross-Border groups from County Donegal, Limavaddy, Derry and Strabane. It featured unionists and nationalists around the one table, talking about what we could do to move the process forward. However, ten days later, the whole thing seems to have fallen apart. Why?

The white ribbon protest illustrates how dearly the people of this island feel about peace and the response has been magnificent. However, politicians must begin to exert some power to wrest the peace process from the hands of the terrorists who seem to have taken it over. I urge the mainstream unionist parties to play their part in resurrecting the peace process. The Ulster Unionist Party and Democratic Unionist Party have a major role in the coming weeks and they must play their part in the peace talks.

I welcome the decision of Mr. Trimble to meet the Tánaiste for talks. I accompanied the Tánaiste to Belfast last year when he met Mr. Trimble. They were able to sit down, eyeball to eyeball, and argue their points on how this country must go forward. This can be done again and I am delighted no preconditions have been attached. It is important these types of meetings move forward.

I travelled to Belfast two weeks ago and I visited the Shankill and Falls Road. One thing which came across strongly was that everybody said all party talks must take place. Unionists and nationalists made this point and the two main unionist parties should show greater generosity of spirit. They are not getting the complete message of the people on the ground. Politicians must seize the initiative. We must not allow the IRA to strangle and kill the peace process. There is a better way and I urge both Governments, and the British Government in particular, to ensure the peace process is not taken from them.

We must tell the IRA to stop the killing. It cannot have it both ways; it is either totally committed to peace or it has no commitment to it whatsoever. There are no half measures. I urge Sinn Féin to demand that the IRA reinstates a complete ceasefire. We should all work together in the coming weeks to begin sincere dialogue based on democratic principles and values. Peace is still the prize we all chase. We must not allow it to elude us. The late Senator Gordon Wilson, who suffered tragically over the years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, which achieved little for either side, always said we must keep talking to each other. It is important to repeat his message.

There must be an absence of violence and the creation of peace will produce a suitable climate for reconstruction. We must encourage and bring people of violence into the political process and release them from the futile cul-de-sac in which they find themselves. The British Government must start to drive a resumed peace process with a positive commitment and join in partnership with the Irish Government to deliver a resolution to the tragic problem which has affected these islands for far too long.

For example, the way in which the British dealt with the prisoners in England was very unfair. I visited the prisons on a number of occasions and Mr. Howard should have shown more commitment to what was being said on the ground. The prisoners were very involved in bringing about the peace process and much damage was done because he was not prepared to recognise that these people sacrificed much to bring about the process. Together, the people of this island have the patience and determination to overcome mistrust. They must construct a peace process which is strong enough to ensure peace will survive and will not be broken again.

Mr. Dardis

I welcome my County Kildare colleague, Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, to the House for this important debate. In the past on these occasions, I always followed Senator Wilson. I am very conscious of his spirit today because it was most worthwhile to listen to what he had to say in all the debates on Northern Ireland. He greatly informed my views on how peace and reconciliation should be achieved. He was a model in that regard and it is appropriate to remember him.

It is also hugely disappointing that, after an 18 month lapse, the House must again denounce violence as a means of achieving political ends. While we felt compelled in the 18 month period to condemn such actions as punishment beatings and the lynching of people who were suspected of dealing in drugs, we had all hoped that the condemnations which we made so frequently regarding the bombings and the slaughtering of innocent people would be at an end. Indeed, there was more than hope; there was a confidence that we could solve our problems on the island by negotiation and by the means of a civilised, democratic society rather than violence.

Those who planted bombs in London within the past fortnight do not represent the Irish people, nor any shade of opinion within the Seanad. We must extend our sympathies to the families of the innocent people who lost their lives and to those who were injured in the Canary Wharf bombing and in the other events.

What is so depressing and disappointing about the London bombings is that the misguided people, who in the past believed that political ends justified violence, must now know, and be told with conviction by democratic politicians and by the public, that those of us who stand for democracy know that their cause of bombing and mayhem has irreparably damaged the objective which they hope to achieve.

The conjunction of the Mitchell report, the report of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and the British Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons after the publication of the Mitchell report created difficulties. However, the combination of these events could not be justification for ending the ceasefire. The joint declaration, the framework document and the twin track approach all stand as firmly as achievements and as guides today as they did before the bombing at Canary Wharf.

Like you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I was a member of the drafting committee at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Since last May the committee worked hard and without rancour to attempt to reach a common agreed position. All of the 12 delegations to the forum knew that agreement would be difficult to achieve. However, over time genuine compromises were made in a generous spirit with a view to finding common ground.

Eventually only one sentence in the document stood in the way. It stated: "Having regard, inter alia, to practical and legal requirements, the agreed outcome of this process will have to be ratified by the people of Ireland, North and South.” The objection to this sentence has been rightly represented to be a denial of the principle of consent. Aspects of the Downing Street declaration and the framework document were taken on board by Sinn Féin, but it could not compromise on this one sentence, on the question of how this exercise of self determination should take place.

In consequence of this I have reached a disturbing conclusion, one that has been shared by others in the past few days. We have learnt from this exercise and from some other developments that, on the issue of consent, Sinn Féin will not embrace the essential compromises which are at the heart of a democratic society and of democratic politics. Its basic requirement remains immutable and the only question for the party is how it achieves its objective. Is it by violent means, peaceful means or a combination of differing means? We should not delude ourselves into thinking that there is an essential compromise at the heart of Sinn Féin ideology; there is not. It is the disturbing and depressing lesson, among many more encouraging lessons, I took from the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation.

The Tánaiste was correct when he remarked earlier in the debate that the representatives of Sinn Féin appeared to accept that the pursuit of all political goals, including the establishment of an overall political settlement, must be undertaken by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, characterised by dialogue and free from violence and coercion. On the meeting of the drafting committee of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation I asked Sinn Féin if it accepted everything else in the document other than the one sentence it could not agree to. The party responded affirmatively and in doing so it accepted, at that time, the principle that it would not use violence and coercion as a means of achieving political aims. I was encouraged by this, but what happened subsequently does not square with the assertion to which the party subscribed at the forum.

If the party could not sign up for a broadly nationalist consensus — there were other voices at the forum, such as the valuable voice of the Alliance Party — how could it make the even greater compromise necessary to come to terms with the unionists and others living on the island? I find this question difficult to answer at present.

I recently visited Palestine with colleagues from this and the other House to observe the elections to the Palestinian Parliament. It was an inspiring experience to see hundreds of people queuing outside polling stations from 6.30 in the morning to cast their votes in a free and fair election, and one which was observed to be such. It demonstrated that huge differences could be reconciled by negotiation. It would be naive to suggest that the difficulties in Palestine and the Middle East are over, but huge progress has been made, as the Tánaiste would have observed when he visited the region as part of the EU troika.

Compromises were reached and some difficult questions, such as the issue of the settlements and the Palestinians' wish that their Parliament be located in Jerusalem, have been left to one side because it was realised that they were of such a profound and difficult nature that progress had first to be made on other areas. This was a sensible way in which to approach matters and there are some lessons to be learnt from it. In this respect, everywhere we travelled we were asked by local radio, Israeli radio, Vatican radio and others if Palestine was not similar to Ireland. In many respect it is, but in many more respects it is not. However, there are lessons to be learnt.

While the talking and the language involved must be carefully thought through, with the use of phrases very important, it will all ultimately lead to a settlement, upon which we must remain focused. My party leader today announced six principles which must form part of the settlement. In the first instance, there can be no internal settlement. Second, the principle of consent is the only practicable way forward. Third, both Governments have a legitimate interest in creating a genuine partnership society in Northern Ireland, Fourth, the tilt nature —"tilt" refers to percentages — of Northern Ireland gives a sound rationale for the inclusion of a real North/South dimension to the settlement. Fifth, the three strands will only receive their strength and shape by reference to each other. Sixth, the basis of a settlement will primarily emerge from those who are politically in the centre. This last point echoes something that John Alderdice wrote yesterday in The Irish Times and to which the Tánaiste referred earlier in his speech.

This is by no means a conclusive way, or the only way, forward; but it is a way forward. Our duty today is to find a path through all the violence that leads us to a peaceful settlement negotiated on the basis of trust and mutual respect.

An election is undesirable, not because of what its results would be but because of the nature of such a contest and the polarisation that would take place during it. Dr. Alderdice made a significant point yesterday when he said it would be important to decide beforehand that an election would lead to all party talks. I know that inference is there, but it is not copperfastened. It would be illogical if elections did not lead to all party talks.

There is also the reservation that some minority views might be excluded from all party talks by not receiving a democratic mandate if an election were to take place. That would be regrettable and needs to be looked at. There is a model for such a problem in Palestine where seats were allocated to different groups. Incidentally, and interestingly enough, the Christians were one of the groups that was given preferential treatment.

We must lay the blame firmly with the people who ordered the bombs to be planted as well as with those who transported and planted the bombs. The blame does not lie with the British or Irish Governments, however much we would like to apportion blame. We must not be deceived by silky words spoken in the media to convince us that there is some other reason or cause for this violence and mayhem. It lies squarely with those who perpetrate it and with nobody else.

The Government has my party's support in what it is attempting to do. I subscribe to what the Tánaiste said earlier in his speech: that there should be no talks with Sinn Féin at ministerial level while the ceasefire is suspended.

The deep anxiety among people at every level in Ireland, Britain and the United States to preserve the peace process must be built on. We must not be intimidated by violence into doing things that are wrong and should not be done.

The late Senator Gordon Wilson frequently said that so much could be achieved through love. Perhaps we forget those human qualities and therefore it is important to articulate them once again in his memory. The basic Christian decency at the heart of Irish society should be allowed to express itself and must not be overwhelmed by the violence of those who are prepared to blow people to smithereens in some ill-conceived idea of the way forward.

Mr. Sherlock

I welcome the Minister to the House for this important debate. Following the bomb which ripped through a London bus on Sunday night, the IRA warned that other British cities could be targeted. A republican source told Reuters news agency that "If what is happening in London doesn't get the message home, the same signal will be sent by activity in other major British cities". Stripped of the coded euphemisms in which terrorists tend to coat their phrases, the message is very simple: "If you do not give us what we want, we will continue murdering uninvolved civilians until you do".

That message poses a challenge to democracy and to all who consider or profess themselves to be democrats. In particular, it poses a challenge to Sinn Féin. For the past 17 months Sinn Féin trod the democratic path. In so doing they achieved more for their constituency than the provisional IRA had done in 25 years of violence. There are those in Sinn Féin who recognise that democratic dialogue is not only the best, but the only way forward. I also believe there are those in Sinn Féin who share the revulsion and despair felt by the rest of us in the ten days since the Canary Wharf bombing. In the wake of that incident the Government took the only decision it could take in the circumstances: it decided to halt ministerial meetings with Sinn Féin until the cessation of violence was restored.

It would be unthinkable for the democratically elected Government of this State to pose for photocalls with those whose allies are determined to undermine the very essence of democracy. That decision, however, does not close the door to Sinn Féin. On the contrary, it provides them with an opportunity to abandon their ambivalence and to unequivocally commit themselves to the exclusively democratic pursuit of their aims. That is the best way they can fulfil their democratic mandate.

Neither the bomb at Canary Wharf, nor the attempted bombing of Shaftsbury Avenue, nor Sunday's explosion on a London bus have diverted the democratic parties of these islands from the search for a lasting peace. The IRA has not, and will not, achieve peace by its actions. Terrorism simply postpones the achievement of a democratic resolution of political problems. That is the message which Sinn Féin must take to the IRA.

It is to the credit of the loyalist paramilitaries and those who represent them in the political arena, that they have thus far refused to be bombed back into violence. For the loyalist paramilitaries to abandon their ceasefire would simply play into the hands of the IRA and plunge the people of Northern Ireland back into the tit-for-tat politics of murder which they endured for 25 years. I urge them to maintain their steadfastness in the face of the IRA's resumption of violence and to reject any course of action which could only backfire on those they represent.

The ending of the IRA ceasefire ten days ago has reduced Sinn Féin to watching from the sidelines of the peace process. Despite the bombs, dialogue is continuing. I am glad that the Tánaiste has agreed to meet the Leader of the Official Unionist Party. There is also talk of a meeting between the SDLP and the Democratic Unionists, and a summit between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, is likely to take place in the near future.

Democracy is based on dialogue. The IRA has not, and will not, bomb democratic politicians from the table. However, by resuming their ceasefire and by ensuring that this time it holds in all circumstances, the republican movement can ensure that it has a place at the table.

The republican movement must adopt Tone's immortal dictum to unite the people of Ireland — Catholic, Protestant and dissenter. Its spokespersons should listen to the voice of the people, North and South. If they do they will quickly resist any further involvement in violence to achieve their aims.

Mr. Haughey

The ending of the ceasefire was one of the saddest days in modern Irish history and, Heaven knows, we have had more than our fair share of sadness. A great opportunity this century has been squandered. It was an opportunity which could have brought about a negotiated peace on this island, a peace with honour and consent which would have evolved and accommodated the political aspirations and the commercial desires of all.

We could spend the next decade looking back accusing and directing our vengeance at those we blame, but this will achieve nothing and will not further the peace in Ireland. It would polarise us and drive us further apart. We must help each other to nobly acknowledge our mistakes. It is critical that we use the benefit which hindsight has afforded us to look in a more conciliatory manner at our mistakes.

John Major made a statement in the House of Commons last week which, as any neutral observer would recognise, contained gross inaccuracies and language phrased for the placation of the unionists in Northern Ireland and the English electorate. Nevertheless, the opposition party leaders, Paddy Ashdown and Tony Blair, replied by saying that they had political differences but that they were at one with the Prime Minister's statement. There is an agreed to approach to the Northern Ireland situation in England. To the credit of the opposition parties, they have never attempted to gain politically from the sad situation in Northern Ireland.

Members will recall the Prime Minister's statement the day the Mitchell report was released into the public domain. The fundamental issues and recommendations of the Mitchell report were ignored. Mr. Major chose to highlight one issue which required all party support — elections. They were put forward as the only way ahead for all party talks, although he knew the Irish Government, the SDLP and Sinn Féin would disagree. He simply echoed the requirements of the unionists. It is amazing that these proposals are acceptable to the unionists and, indeed, to Mr. Paisley's party. I will leave Members to draw their own conclusions.

Members have heard the statements and proposals of the Government, the Opposition, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. It is sad that there has not been a coherent, co-ordinated and agreed approach by the nationalist parties to a political policy for Northern Ireland. How can we expect the unionists and the British Government to reach agreement with the nationalists on the future of Northern Ireland when the pan nationalist parties cannot reach agreement among themselves? To be fair, neither the Government nor the Opposition have tried to make political gains from the tragic circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland. I ask the nationalist parties to go the extra mile and to decide on an acceptable way forward to get all party talks started. It is reasonable for the unionists and the English to conclude that any overall agreement would be impossible to achieve if the nationalist parties do not agree on an acceptable formula.

We had 18 months of peace and during that time the British Government and the unionists asked if it was permanent. When that hurdle was surmounted we faced the question of decommissioning and when Senator Mitchell addressed that problem, we faced the question of elections. We also had the Downing Street Declaration and the framework document.

Members will recall the many visits to Northern Ireland by the British Prime Minister in the past 18 months. Members will also recall that any time an announcement was to be made by the British Government which might have caused some discomfort for unionists, John Major was at pains to travel to Northern Ireland to pacify and reassure. However, nationalists received no such reassurance as regards the peace process. There was no apology, reassurance or comfort for the rubbishing of the Mitchell report.

We must ask if the British Government is seriously seeking to promote the peace process in Northern Ireland in its present form, that is, within the terms of the Downing Street Declaration and the framework document. The unionists rejected the framework document and put every obstacle in the way of dialogue which would lead to all party talks in the fear that it would highlight their unwillingness or, indeed, inability to enter into such dialogue and any subsequent agreement.

Everybody is expected to modify their language when discussing Northern Ireland in these sensitive times. Nothing will be gained by looking at the past, other than to learn how best to deal with the future. To that end, we should examine the many difficulties the unionists, the British Government, the Irish people, the SDLP and Sinn Féin face. There is no need for me to tell Members about the history of Sinn Féin or the SDLP or the reason nationalists parties are not flavour of the month with the Government at Westminster.

I would like it to be understood that I am making the following factual statements for helpful reasons so they may be analysed to produce answers as to why we are experiencing feet dragging by the unionists and an unwillingness to enter into dialogue. All unionist MPs at Westminster are members of the Orange Order. Recently, the Ulster Unionist Party made an effort to disentangle itself from the Orange Order, but it failed to do so. The Rev Martin Smyth, who is a unionist MP at Westminster, is Grand Master of the Orange Order.

David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, was the hero of Drumcree. It is widely accepted and it has been acknowledged by the unionist council that it was his stance at Drumcree which gave David Trimble the seal of approval and rendered him worthy of being leader of the Ulster Unionist Party in preference to his opponent, John Taylor, who has been involved in politics for 30 years, although he is also a member of the Orange Order.

Drumcree is a small townland on the outskirts of Portadown. The Orangemen felt that it was their historic right to march down the nationalist Garvaghy Road but the RUC disagreed as it believed that it would lead to violence, which it did. The Orangemen refused to accept the decision of the RUC and, led by their MPs, they mustered up tens of thousands of members of the Orange Order who were willing to confront the RUC and march.

Another Unionist MP, Mr. Roy Beggs, appeared in court last week charged with causing obstruction. His contribution, it is alleged, was that he tried with others to block the port of Larne and to bring it to a standstill in support of the marchers at Drumcree. The closure of the port would have put pressure on the RUC and, indeed, on the economy of Northern Ireland. We have yet to hear from the lips of politicians at Westminster one word of criticism of the unionists using muscle men within the Orange Order to get their way.

It is important to examine the constitution and tenets of the Orange Order, which appears to be so inextricably linked with the Unionist Party and which has used and will threaten violence to get its way. The tenets of the Orange Order are based on religious bigotry, segregation and supremacy, and conformity with its rules is mandatory. Does this accommodate dialogue and agreement with nationalist Catholics? Is this part of the reason why the unionists cannot sit down and talk without preconditions? Membership of the Orange Order is open to anybody who professes the Protestant faith.

If the United Kingdom Government seeks renunciation of violence by all would be participants as a precondition to all-party talks, should it not seek a disassociation by the Unionist Party from the Orange Order and strongly condemn these violent shows of strength and challenges to authority throughout Northern Ireland by the Orange Order? They were very evident during last summer and will come into play at any time the Order wishes.

We hear time and time again that violence breeds violence. There is no earthly justification for the violence and carnage being carried out at present against innocent people going about their daily business. It is outrageous that the slaughter and mayhem is being carried out in the name of peace in Ireland.

During the ceasefire various Irish political leaders received top international recognition for their contribution to peace in Ireland. Present day events have put our nation back in the list of troublemakers and terrorists. We must move from this position now and recover the lost ground. People were dreaming one year ago that the gun and the bomb were gone out of Irish politics forever. The events of the last two weeks have shattered our dreams.

Both Governments have subscribed, and I believe still subscribe, to the Downing Street Declaration. Both Governments have subscribed and, I hope, still subscribe to the framework document. These documents clearly guarantee the security the unionists require and at the same time provide for the aspirations and dignity of the nationalists. They have proved sufficient to give us an 18 month ceasefire. If their contents can be seen to be speedily and impartially implemented, those who continue with violence will undoubtedly be ostracised both nationally and internationally.

The framework document and the Downing Street Declaration in themselves will not be the solution in Ireland. The solution will come when all fair minded people say "enough is enough" and when both Governments positively and impartially move down the road of reconciliation. I repeat my earlier exhortation to the nationalist parties — come forward with an agreed policy to start all-party talks. Speak with one voice. A common voice will be a powerful catalyst for all-party talks; it will lend credibility both on the national and international scene.

There are those who will say that nothing has been achieved in 18 months of peace. A great deal has been achieved and, we hope, all is not yet lost. John Major hosted the international commercial conference in Northern Ireland which resulted in substantial investment there. An investment in any part of this island benefits all its people. The Washington conference, supported by all political parties in this island, was a historic event. We are still reaping a commercial harvest and, I hope, we will continue to do so. It is this type of accord which will put the men of violence out of work.

It is a shame that the political momentum has not kept pace with the commercial momentum and, now that the political momentum has gone into reverse, the commercial momentum is in grave danger of following.

Mr. Ross

This is possibly the most depressing debate I have witnessed in 15 years in this House, not just because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves discussing this issue but because of the extraordinary sense of unreality among the speakers. I am most struck by the fact that people do not recognise what is happening. The Tánaiste and other speakers are clinging to a vain hope which they must know is no longer possible.

The peace process, which people like to speak of as though it was a panacea for our problems, is over and it will not be re-established in the form in which it existed in the last 17 months. The peace process did not work; it did not work for many reasons. To my mind, it was a bogus process. It was never going to work, but it managed to take in many people for a long time. However, with one or two exceptions, we are still talking in this debate as if the peace process can in some way be salvaged, that we can turn the clock back two weeks and say: "A couple of bombs have gone off in London but that is it; we will start again". We cannot start again for the reason the Tánaiste gave us today, or at least because of the question he asked. That question was: how can we ever trust Sinn Féin again? The answer to that question is simple — we cannot, we should not and we probably will not.

Let us be honest, the ceasefire was a tactical ceasefire. It was a ceasefire courtesy of Sinn Féin — they promised to stop killing people until they started killing people again. Ten days ago they started killing people again. I make no distinction between Sinn Féin and the IRA and I make no apologies for that. If another "ceasefire" is agreed, concocted or cobbled up in the next few weeks, how on earth are we to believe that they will not start killing people again? We cannot and we know we cannot. There is one way — if every single IRA, UVF and loyalist weapon is handed over. We know now that it will not happen.

Maybe it is natural to say that we should rescue this process and get involved in inclusive talks. However, inclusive talks of the sort we spoke about today will not happen. The unionist population who said they did not trust Sinn Féin all along were right. Sinn Féin has, in the words of the Taoiseach, betrayed the politicians in this country and any attempt to deal with it in a democratic or reasonable way in future is doomed; it has proven it.

I was also disappointed, which is natural, by the lack of ideas or proposals for a way forward. We were treated by Senator O'Kennedy to the same speech about Mr. Hume, Mr. Adams and Mr. Sands he makes virtually every time he talks about Northern Ireland. The Senator could have been making it since 1960; indeed, he may have. Senator Haughey spoke about the need for a pan-nationalist voice. The days of a pannationalist voice are well and truly over. There are two types of nationalism: constitutional nationalism, as represented by most political parties here and the SDLP, and there is Sinn Féin/IRA. I hope both sections will never be allowed to meet again because the last 17 months was a tactical ceasefire which took a large number of people for a ride.

As Senator Norris eloquently said, we now know why the IRA did not use the word "permanent". It was sticking out a mile at the time but few people would face it. Why did it not use that word about the ceasefire? Simply because it did not intend it to be permanent, and it was not permanent. It intended to start shooting and bombing people again if it did not get its way. If we deal with it in the future, it is likely to act in exactly the same way.

The unionists and the British Government were right about decommissioning. The only way these people can be dealt with as proper, civilised political parties is if they do not hold arms. If they do so, they will either use them or stop using them for a short time. We have been guilty of a series of mistakes. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was set up for no other reason than to decontaminate Sinn Féin, give it respectability, suck it into the system and take it away from the gun. It did not work. It is being abandoned as we speak. It is unlikely to meet again and it will be ridiculous if it does. The very people for whom that forum was set up to bring in from the cold refuse to condemn the maiming that took place in London this and last week. They should be put beyond the pale.

The Hume-Adams talks, which Senator O'Kennedy mentioned with such affection and praise, were a serious mistake. They accepted the IRA-Sinn Féin as some sort of reasonable, democratic political party that we could accept and somehow suck into the system; we cannot. Those talks were the precursor of what is happening today. They were setting the scene for a tactical and short-term peace which has ended up in a bigger disaster than the one we had 17 months ago. We have fallen back even further than the position we then occupied. We are bankrupt of ideas and have a failed peace process.

The finest words I heard on this issue recently were spoken by the Taoiseach at a private lunch last Friday. He said that he has to speak for the nationalist population — he is obliged to do so by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, having taken that position, he also has to see into the unionist mind. He is one of the few people in the Oireachtas who has even attempted to do this.

I deplore what Senator Haughey had to say with his hostile anti-unionist thrust. It does not help to call them all Orangemen and bigots at this stage. It adds fuel to their prejudices and sends them back into their ghettos. It would have been more appropriate if the Senator had answered a few other questions. Why did the SDLP say no to elections in Northern Ireland or to any internal solutions whatsoever? Of course there has been unionist intransigence but we should recognise that there has been SDLP intransigence as well. It says no, from a minority position, to any solutions coming from the other quarter and that should be recognised and confronted. I do not see any point in the ritual praising of John Hume, which was in the Tánaiste's and Senator O'Kennedy's speeches. There should be an examination and understanding of the unionist mind and position. That is incumbent on us if we are Irish nationalists.

It is also incumbent on most of us to talk about what should happen in the future and what proposals we would make and not simply condemn what is happening. My proposals would be different to those being made in the House today. If Members cannot see that Sinn Féin-IRA have fooled everybody, then they are blind. They do not want to see it because they — and this includes people who hold high office in this land — also fooled themselves. In the disguise of a bogus political party — I do not care about its electoral mandate because it approves of killing and is therefore, outside the pale — it first fooled John Hume and then Deputy Albert Reynolds and Jean Kennedy-Smith, the US Ambassador to Ireland. It has betrayed every political leader in this State and has even made an ass of the President of the United States. So great was the hope for peace that this party was prepared to hold it out as a carrot and we were prepared to take it as bait.

Sinn Féin and the IRA have always been indistinguishable. There is now the farcical position of interviewers asking Mr. Adams if he would take these proposals to the IRA. The idea of Mr. Adams making a presentation to the IRA as though they were strangers is fatuous, ridiculous, and dishonest. Mr. Adams is part and parcel of that movement in which Sinn Féin and the IRA are indistinguishable. We should stop pretending there is a distinction even if it suits our political view and we find it difficult to face up to reality.

The most important issue at present is the security of the State which is endangered when an armed force is prepared to take action in the UK and is based here. Internment must be introduced North and South. Such a measure should include the imprisonment without trial of Sinn Féin and IRA leaders, including Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams. This situation faced us 17 months ago and, although we may feel we have come a long way from it, in reality we have not. We could reintroduce a state of emergency and we could and should reintroduce the section 31 ban. These people should be outcasts from our political system. Let us learn the lessons of the so-called peace process and never trust Sinn Féin again.

Dr. Henry

The position we are in today is dreadful when one considers the last 18 months here, in the North and in Great Britain. I was in Belfast on the night President Clinton visited and I have never witnessed such an outpouring of emotion. I went by train to a dinner in Belfast which had been arranged long before President Clinton's visit was organised. People poured off the train as it drew into the station and began running to the City Hall in the centre of Belfast — they did not wait for taxis or buses. There was tight security but the people ran through it pushing forward and those in charge realised it was better to let them try to find their own positions rather than try to assert their authority. There was an outpouring of joy and Van Morrison's song with the line "My mama told me there'd be days like this" was playing. It was an incredible scene.

The Friday before last I was speaking at a conference in England dealing with Northern Ireland in the European Union. There was a speaker from England, I spoke and then we heard that the bomb had gone off. There was an unbelievable change in the atmosphere; everybody was stunned. I could only ask myself what it had to do with the unification of Ireland. During the evening we heard news of the casualties and we only found out about the deaths the following day. One of those killed was a man from Pakistan. What had anyone from Pakistan done to us that they would be killed by a bomb which, supposedly, was to progress the unification of Ireland? Like others, I was filled that night with a sense of despair and anxiety for what would come.

When Sinn Féin representatives came to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation — of which I have been a member for over a year — they were surprised by their reception. Many of them thought we were more supportive of those activities than is the case. They were astonished when they realised the level of rejection of the methods of the IRA and the lack of support for the methods Sinn Féin saw as conducive to attaining a unified nationalist Ireland. During the time those representatives were at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation they began to change their ideas.

I made contact with those I had met at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation when I returned from England. They were as shocked as we were at what had happened. They had not been able to agree to the draft report of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. However, Senator Dardis was right when he explained how small the difference was in the end — referenda were to be held at the same time North and South and the Sinn Féin members could not consent to this as it would mean the recognition of the partition of the country. The practical fact of partition has been obvious to the rest of us for a long time and it is difficult to deal with people who believe 70 years of partition can be ignored. In addition, they had to go back to a constituency which did not understand much about democracy.

It is important to remember that Sinn Féin, having had no one else to talk to, had been talking to itself for a long time. One member of Sinn Féin told me its representatives found the forum mentally stimulating because Sinn Féin had been talking to itself for a long time. If one talks to oneself it is easy to convince oneself one is right. I do not know how close the military element is to Sinn Féin — as the saying goes "those who know do not say and those who say do not know"— and I cannot make any presumptions in that regard. As Deputy Bertie Ahern said in the Dáil, I do not think Sinn Féin really understood that democracy is a slow and frustrating process. I do not know what it felt it was promised but obviously the progress was not as expected and contact between the two groups was lost.

It would not be helpful if contact with Sinn Féin were lost. Ministers should not meet Sinn Féin but it is acceptable for officials, and perhaps for the lesser mortals, such as university Senators, to maintain contact. Unless one argues with people one leaves them believing they are right. Some of the Sinn Féin representatives seem to be trying to resurrect what is left of the peace process. We have to continue talking.

I have had a lot of contact with women's groups in the North. I am glad the late Joyce MacCartan did not live to see this situation come to pass because her sorrow would have been great given the work she put into community groups over so many years. We have to deal with people involved in cross-community. It is sometimes difficult to be sure one has made contact with both sides in the North. There are very few women involved in politics in Northern Ireland. The Opsahl report highlighted this fact and suggested that the Northern Ireland Office should actively try to encourage women to enter politics. There are no women MEPs or MPs from the North so one has to deal with a group of male politicians which leaves 50 per cent of the population unrepresented.

We have to get down to dealing with what I call the "accidental activists" in the communities — those who would not be involved were it not for the Troubles. It was depressing to hear the reaction of some of the activists in the light of recent events. Most of them were frantic with worry and were wondering how they would now deal with those between the ages of 15 and 16 who saw everything collapsing about them. If there was much of a gap, they felt they were ready recruits for the paramilitaries. This is why I feel we need a sense of urgency in our deliberations. I do not know which of the suggestions that have been put forward are the best with which to proceed. Certainly, I feel an electoral process now would be inflammatory. Again, there is the possibility of those important people, who represent the paramilitaries but are their political spokespersons now, being left out in the cold because unionist politics there are monolithic.

We can never be grateful enough to the Alliance Party for taking part in the Forum. I was relieved when I went to their headquarters to see that they, at least, were not sitting around in a position of despair but were stressing that the middle ground must be got going again and that one must keep broadening it out.

I am anxious that one group, which is important and must not be tied totally into the peace process, is being left out, and that is the prisoners. I heard Senator Norris say it was suggested that some of the prisoners who have been released have been involved in the atrocities which took place in London. I do not know how we know that. If it were true it would be quite terrible. However, we must be careful in apportioning blame to one or two people if they were involved, because the prisoners, as far as I have been told — and I know a number of people who work within the probation service in Northern Ireland — were extraordinarily important in pushing forward the ceasefire and the peace process. Those who are in prison at present cannot be those who planted the bombs. It is important to remember that the death of a prisoner such as Patrick Kelly, for instance, who is in the City Hospital in Belfast, could be terribly inflammatory. If we could urge his transfer despite the change in the circumstances, it would be well worthwhile.

I read Deputy Mary Flaherty's contribution in the Dáil, because she has been involved with the prisoners and their families too. She said she visited prisoners' families in Northern Ireland who asked "What was all this about the peace process? Nothing has changed for us. We still try to go over to Belmarsh and discover that the man we went to visit has been transferred somewhere else". These are serious issues. I had thought the enactment of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act, 1995, which satisfied the European Convention would facilitate rapid changes here and that we would see the transfer of prisoners with southern connections to the south, those with northern connection's to the north, and a transfer to Britain for the few who want to go there. In fact, nothing at all has happened here and I think the British Home Secretary has been quite wrong under the Convention in trying to insist he would be in a position to impose his restrictions on people within our prisons. I do not think he is in a position to do that; but I try not to give legal opinions in this House because, as a doctor, I get plenty of medical opinions from lawyers.

I can understand the way prisoners were not released here again in the aftermath of the bombing, but it is the second time some of them have not been released for deeds which, we must remember, were done outside. I do realise that the deeds for which they are imprisoned are dreadful. When I hear about the murderer of Lord Mountbatten, I always think of the woman in her eighties and two teenage boys who also died. It was a horrific crime which was carried out at distance on people who had nothing to do with the unification of Ireland. If we must wait for all the various talks which must go on over the next few months, a lot of people will become bitter and disappointed within prisons. Remember, some of them are there 20 years, since they were 17 or 18 years old, so the Government should address the issue with urgency.

We must start again because we have no choice. If we do not start again we must say that violence killed the peace process, and that is hardly a situation which can be allowed to develop. As other speakers have said, we must explain far more clearly to the unionists what we are trying to do, and what are our views. We must be clear, and everyone who has spoken in these Houses has said so, that the deeds which are being perpetuated in our names must be, and have been, denounced.

The use which has been made by Sinn Féin of words and symbols which are really ours should be more loudly denounced. For example, I found Sinn Féin was astonished when it discovered we were really most unenthusiastic about the use of our flag in situations of violence. It is their flag too, they may say, but we do not want to get into a childish argument as to whose flag it is the more. It is the flag of our country and we are entitled to object far more about its use. It even involves the use of the word "republican". While I would describe myself as a republican, I hope it is in the true sense of liberty, justice, equality and fraternity for all — principles which have not been seen put forward in the deeds of the last few weeks.

We must get back to people again. Politicians have been trying their best for quite some time, but there are people within the communities in Northern Ireland and Irish communities in England who have a great anxiety at present about the situation. Between talking to these people and the various political parties, we must show that violent actions will not come in the way of the peace process.

Ms Gallagher

It dawned on me while listening to Senator Ross that one of the vagaries of coalition is that I find myself sitting on the same side of the House with him. As an admirer always of democracy, I find it difficult to share many of his views on the economy and, indeed, on Northern Ireland. He referred to the fact that this was a depressing debate and that may well be the case, but I found his contribution highest on the Richter scale of depression. To say it is all over, call for internment and say there is no hope for peace in Northern Ireland is the ultimate in depression.

When politicians talk about Northern Ireland they tend to take a particular slant. They speak of the politics of the whole issue and the terms used — proximity talks, Downing St. Declaration, joint framework document, etc. — tend to turn a lot of people off. Therefore, I want to focus on the human side of the argument because, as somebody who grew up on the Border, aware of the cloud that hangs over Northern Ireland and that has hung over it throughout the Troubles, I knew what the ceasefire meant to ordinary people. The Canary Wharf bomb meant ordinary people had to begin, once again, to look under their cars, to take their children out of their school uniforms, which distinguished them, and to call their children in off the street when they had been free for 17 months to play there. Young people who would have easily gone into Belfast, Portadown or the centre of Coleraine at night during the ceasefire could no longer do so. The fact that the centre of Belfast was quiet once again and that people were no longer willing to go shopping the following morning, Saturday, 10 February, show what it means to the people of the North to have violence and trouble hanging over them again. To acknowledge that suffering on a human level, we must state it is not good enough to wash our hands of the matter or to say that the IRA has ended the ceasefire and nothing more can be done. We have a duty to continue with the peace process and we must do so in whatever way possible.

On the morning following the bombing of Canary Wharf I awoke to discover a Garda checkpoint outside my house. As I stated earlier, I live near the Border and can now be stopped while travelling home or to Northern Ireland. The UDR has been mobilised, tourism is under threat and a question mark hangs over badly needed peace funds for Border counties. It must be realised that the cost of violence in Northern Ireland cannot be tolerated. The ordinary people of Northern Ireland and the Border counties must have their say. In that sense I am extremely angry with the terrorists for their actions.

The bombing of Canary Wharf was not a brave deed, nor was it laudable in terms of old IRA ideals or the beliefs for which James Connolly and Pádraig Pearse died. Such ideals are a far cry from those of the people who huddled in flats in London to plan the bombing. These terrorists know nothing of such ideals; they are cowardly, power-crazed individuals. Their ideals differ radically from those perceived by nationalists as their proper cause and concern. The terrorists must listen to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly the nationalists they claim to represent. The bombing of Canary Wharf and subsequent attacks have not served the purpose of nationalists; such events have done them a great disservice. If people believe that right is on their side they can approach the negotiating table with the strength of that belief, knowing they are in a position to bargain. There should be no recourse to the bomb to achieve this.

The cause of nationalists is a just one. Nationalists in Northern Ireland have suffered much in the past and continue to do so. We cannot forget that fact and the IRA must not be permitted to state that it is frustrated. Each day Members feel frustrated in terms of democratic politics because they cannot achieve their daily aims. However, we do not resort to actions similar to those of the IRA. They must accept that the road to peace lies only through democracy. The only thing we learned from the Troubles was that many people could be killed but neither side could win. Mr. Gerry Adams recently admitted that fact.

I imagine that the will of Sinn Féin representatives varies. Gerry Adams may not have known about the bomb. Perhaps the IRA knew better than to inform him of its existence and place him in an invidious position. It appears, however, that he was unaware of plans to bomb Canary Wharf. People such as Gerry Adams, who have an important role to play in the peace process, should not be isolated. That distinction must be made. There are people within Sinn Féin who are committed to the peace process. We must hunt out, keep faith with and talk to such people. If possible, it will then be their responsibility to bring others on board. However, I recognise that a type of schizophrenia exists within Sinn Féin. On one hand they have stated their wish for peace, but on the other they refuse to condemn the atrocious killings in London. I have some difficulty with that.

Sinn Féin must deal with this internal problem. When working toward the ceasefire, Sinn Féin gave its own membership unfair and high expectations of the eventual result. I have a sneaking suspicion that many members of Sinn Féin believed that theirs was the victory and that a 32 county Ireland would occur in a relatively short time. Sinn Féin should have explained to its membership that a peace process involves negotiation, that people must be prepared to give and take. A peace process takes time. The Troubles lasted for as long as I can remember and peace will not be achieved overnight, not even by means of a political settlement. The reality was that the process would take time. Had the IRA realised this, it could surely have given us more time and need not have planted a bomb in London several months ago.

I will now deal with the position of unionism and loyalism in Northern Ireland. The PUP and UDP showed realism in terms of how they perceive their loyalism and how they wish it to be represented. They realised that the status quo which existed before the ceasefires could no longer continue. To my mind, this was a breath of fresh air. Prior to that, the only vision of unionism I ever witnessed was Dr. Ian Paisley stating “Ulster says no.”, the pinstripe suits and a bowler hats and the marches on 12 July. This was the vision of unionism displayed to people in the south of Ireland — middle-aged, middle class men speaking in a narrowminded way about the rights, or lack thereof, of their neighbours in Northern Ireland. That was not my perception of the complete view of unionism. I was, therefore, pleased to see other loyalists and unionists taking their place in the arena. The PUP and UDP deserve much credit for brokering and maintaining their own ceasefire in very difficult circumstances.

When news of the Canary Wharf bombing reached the Shankill Road one would have expected an immediate response or reaction from some of the men living there. However, they were restrained and maintained their discipline. Those people deserve credit and I urge them to maintain such discipline. It is absolutely vital. If any of them are listening to this debate, I hope they will take that message from it. In return, they should be rewarded in some way. I do not mean to be facetious, but all those who are part of the problem must be part of the solution. If there is to be a negotiating body — and I hope there will be — I suggest that two representatives from each political party should attend its initial meetings. Elections or other means can later determine such numbers, but there should be automatic representation for such groups.

I have difficulty in discovering the bona fides allegedly possessed by the official, moderate or mainstream unionists in terms of the peace process. To my mind they displayed an “I told you so” attitude following the bombing of Canary Wharf which seemed to remove the pressure on them to enter meaningful talks. It also seemed to take the ball out of their court. They will now only talk about a renewal of the ceasefire, a further cessation of violence and decommissioning of arms. However, they have never examined their own position in Northern Ireland in a deep and meaningful way. I question whether unionism, as a political entity in Northern Ireland, has ever studied its own origins in the same way that nationalists have been forced to do in the past?

Nationalists in Northern Ireland, as a result of a discriminatory system, were forced to define their ethos, culture and desires and wishes for the future. Unionism has been happy with the status quo. It was not forced into a process of self-examination and was not obliged to deal with the issues put to it by nationalists. I am worried that unionists are happy to retain the status quo because peace will not be achieved in Northern Ireland until everyone is included. Moderate unionists cannot be ignored but their bona fides must be questioned. They must acknowledge past discrimination against nationalists and the historical context of the Troubles. They must also acknowledge the rights of nationalists to parity of self esteem and to have their identity recognised in terms of the right to belong to the Irish nation. If it is the wish of unionists to belong to Britain, they must recognise an equal desire on the part of nationalists to belong to Ireland. Unionists must recognise that and try to accommodate it. They have not worked hard enough in this regard. They have made some suggestions, such as the elections, but that is an easy option which suits their position; it does not address the problem. I question what they are doing in Northern Ireland. If unionists are genuine about the peace process, they must acknowledge the Irish Government's role. Refusing to talk to what they call a foreign Minister is out of the question.

It is important that the people of Northern Ireland are allowed to speak. It is easy to be depressed about what has happened, but we must listen to the people either through a referendum or an opinion poll. All communities in Northern Ireland have clearly demanded peace and polls show they want talks. The politicians who represent these people must carry out their wishes because we cannot afford to let this opportunity slip by. When we see what can be done in Bosnia and other countries where there has been extreme conflict, surely it is possible to find a solution in Northern Ireland. However, it may need some imagination; the Tánaiste's idea of proximity talks is a good one.

I agree with Senator Henry's point about involving women. Women involved in cross-community work should have a say because they will be invaluable in breaking the logjam.

The IRA's slogan is "Tiocfaidh ár lá"—"our day will come". My generation has never known peace in Northern Ireland, so I hope our day will come.

Mr. McGowan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. Although I come from a Border county and I must travel through the North to come to this House, I am the fourteenth person to speak. I listened to Senator Haughey's courageous contribution and to Senator Ross who is light years away from reality. He reminded me of an article in today's The Derry Journal under the heading “Campbell backs call for internment”. This refers to Councillor Gregory Campbell who said that internment would restore confidence to 95 per cent of the people in Northern Ireland.

I have been involved in a cross-Border group for 20 years. At the beginning the two unionist parties would not identify with us, although their needs were the same as ours. We had to agree not to take any photographs or hold press conferences before they would join. This cross-Border group, which is the only one on the island, is made up of elected people from all religious and political persuasions. It includes representatives from Limavady Council, Derry City Council, Strabane Council and Donegal County Council. The six members from Donegal County Council represent Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Independents. We met various Commissioners in Europe. I was disappointed we were not allowed to attend the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to tell how we survived for 20 years. We applied to address the forum but we were not successful, although every group, including the bishops, addressed it. That is an example of how difficult it is to be positive in this regard.

I watch with interest when Gerry Adams or another member of Sinn Féin are being interviewed. There is an article in this month's edition of Faces on Mr. Pat Doherty who never stops talking about mandates. No democratically elected person would accept that. The people who planted the bombs in London did not have a mandate from anyone. Less than 1 per cent of people in England and Ireland support those who killed innocent people in London. We have achieved more in 18 months of peace than in 25 years of violence.

I live half a mile from Strabane which I visit three or four times a day. It is difficult to describe people's feelings during the past 18 months when the barbed wire, sandbags and ramps were removed and British soldiers did not ask to see people's driving licences while pointing automatic rifles at their chests. Those structures were unacceptable to tourists and to those living in the Border counties. A way of life changed for those living in the Border areas during the past 18 months. Prior to that normal politics were not allowed to develop because political statements meant tramping on someone's toes.

I believe that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness could have prevented the bombings. Sinn Féin cannot have it both ways. When negotiations with the British became difficult there were hints that the peace process could collapse. This was done to frighten people. People like David Trimble and Gregory Campbell believed that after 18 months of peace they had John Major on their side and a commitment to elections. Whatever we are led to believe, it is accepted generally that the intended purpose of elections in the North was the marginalisation of Sinn Féin/IRA and the paramilitaries. Nobody has considered the danger of marginalising those people. It took enormous effort on the part of all the peacemakers, including Deputy Reynolds, John Major, John Hume and the Tánaiste, to put a framework in place. It was a delicate operation.

It is very short-sighted of the hardline unionists to believe that they can now insist on writing their own rules. David Trimble said he was too busy to see the Tánaiste the week before the bomb went off which indicates the level of entrenchment. We must tell David Trimble and hardline unionists that they are going nowhere. Must we go through internment and shooting, be it in Gibraltar or on Bloody Sunday, again? Surely there is a lesson to be learned. The problem will not go away and no amount of trickery will work. If every member of this generation of the IRA was shot or imprisoned, the next generation would carry on the struggle until an honourable settlement was reached. That is the perception I get from the ordinary citizens in the north-west.

My county and the other Border counties have paid a higher price than anybody else and we are entitled to a voice. We have lost the potential to earn an honest living. Industry has disappeared. There was a movement to bring tourists back to the region during the peace initiative but we still did not have many people setting up industries in any of the Border counties. The Washington conference, at which the Government was represented, was held to promote an awareness of the need to develop the North and the southern Border counties but there still has been no major breakthrough. This is largely because people are cautious before they set up a business and invest substantial capital.

We have set back the clock. It will be harder for Sinn Féin and the IRA to gain acceptance and those who were insisting on disarmament prior to the inclusion of Sinn Féin have a stronger case. They can argue that if we have inclusive dialogue in which Sinn Féin participates and, at the end of the day, things do not go Sinn Féin's way, the bombs will go off again. How can one argue against that? They have created a dilemma whereby it is harder for Sinn Féin to make a worthwhile contribution and be taken seriously. There must be a united front across all political parties and boundaries to tell the IRA that it has caused this situation and turned back the clock by 25 years.

When I came through Strabane this morning, the diggers and the jackhammers were boring into the road putting major obstructions in place again. I have not yet seen the uniformed policemen and the Army blocking roads, checking and holding people at gun point. However, the British Army and the authorities in the North are getting ready. The bunkers are being built and that signals the end of the development of tourism achieved in the last year and a half.

I have an agenda for a meeting of the North-West Cross-Border Group on Thursday, 22 February. One of the items on the agenda is the development of tourism potential in the region. When that agenda was written, things were going reasonably well. Where would one go with that proposal at a cross-Border meeting on Thursday, 22 February? I do not think one could go anywhere.

This House should be united. I welcome the opportunity to speak. Everybody made eloquent contributions which included condemnations but the bottom line is that the Government must first persuade the British Government that there is only one possibility, that is, to try to get the peace initiative back on track. Sinn Féin must be convinced it is going nowhere and that it does not have the support of the Irish people.

Sadly, once again, those who live in the Border counties must pay the price. Another generation must be prepared to put up with the hassle. The people in Dublin and the south of Ireland do not realise the constant grind and the lack of investment in our areas. There are people on strike in Cork today and lives are going on as normal. Things are not normal in the part of the world from which I come, the northwest of Ireland.

When the Tánaiste goes to meet David Trimble he must be firm. David Trimble should not be allowed to tell him that he cannot participate, negotiate, make any observations or comment about the internal affairs in the North of Ireland because everything that happens in the North of Ireland has serious repercussions for all the people on this island. None of us is in favour of bombing or driving the unionists out of Ireland. We all want to participate and work together and we were doing that magnificently over the last year and a half.

Senator Haughey made a tremendous contribution and highlighted the kernel of the problem. The Orange Order has a written law which states that they will never talk to Sinn Féin or the nationalists, however reasonable their approach. I ask the present Government, and I support them totally, to be firm with David Trimble and to be firm and positive with John Major. We must get this peace initiative back on the rails or life will be pretty hard for all of us.

Mr. Reynolds

I welcome the Minister and the opportunity to debate this important and sensitive issue, Northern Ireland. The last two speakers, Senator McGowan and Senator Gallagher represent Border counties, as I do. It is amazing that the views expressed by both Senators are similar to those expressed to me by people in my area. The dust from the London bombing disasters is just starting to settle and in the passage of time since then, all sides involved in the Northern problem are trying to assess where we go from here.

It is not an easy task to chart a clear course of action in the aftermath of the bombs. The Northern problem is multidimensional and multifaceted. It involves multiple personalities and groups. Unlike normal disputes involving one, two or three parties, where issues are clearly defined, this dispute is framed by a multiplicity of conflicting interests and coloured by a long history of strife. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the activity of one party to the dispute may impact in many different ways on the other participants. Indeed, we have seen that the inaction of parties may, on occasion, have the most decisive impact of all.

We cannot allow the benefits of the ceasefire to be extinguished and smothered by the smoke of the London bombings. We cannot allow the ceasefire to become a memory or an aspiration. As politicians we must demand its reinstatement and do everything in our power to secure that goal. As a representative of the Border counties, I have seen the benefits of the ceasefire in its most tangible form. The counties of Sligo and, in particular, Leitrim have experienced an unprecedented upturn in fortunes in the past two years. I attribute this to the atmosphere of optimism generated by the ceasefire and I am sure my colleague, Senator Mooney, agrees.

The atmosphere of economic benefit in the Border counties over the past two years has been huge. In my area of County Leitrim, the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal is considered a significant tourism development. It shows what can happen following participation in negotiations by people North and South. The ceasefire was of tremendous benefit to the people of the Border region. However, this was demolished last Friday week by the atrocity at Canary Wharf.

Opportunity, enterprise and potential have been seen and realised like never before. I tremble to think it might all be set at nought. At this time politicians must be brave. The obstacles faced must be met head on. Harsh realities must be faced up to and challenges met provocatively. Debate, analysis and firm decision making are now of the essence. Violence must be rejected as a means of securing political ends. In a civilised society, it is simply unacceptable and cannot be justified in any context. This must be the fundamental principle, the starting point, the bottom line.

However, the culture of violence must be analysed in greater detail. A study of the history of this island is in many respects a study of violent conflict resolution. The invasion of the Danes, the Normans and the many centuries of imposed British rule and national insurrection are the essential marking points in our history. For too long politicians have not looked to history and have somehow, in attempts to compromise and reach political expediency, refused to look at its lessons. It seems our history has in some instances been regarded as something to be shunned and closeted and not to be mentioned at all costs.

The watershed in Irish history of the 1916 Rising was born from the philosophy of insurrection through violence if necessary. These were the views held by its leaders and ultimately carried into action by them. This is a historical fact and we should not ignore it. In addition, let us not ignore the fact of history that the philosophy of violence has been all pervasive on the unionist side also. When the prospect of Home Rule seemed likely in 1912, Sir Edward Carson was heard to exhort 218,000 unionists to use all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracies to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. When challenged that the implicit threats of force would be illegal, Carson replied: "Do not be afraid of illegalities." If we hear that the IRA claim justification for violence from historical precedent, let us examine the many incitations to violence from particular unionist leaders over the past 25 years.

I make the above references, not in any way to endorse violence but for the following reasons. We should not regard violence with surprise; its shadow has always lurked in the Irish context. To defeat the culture of violence, we must understand this culture and its historical context. We should learn from experience and not ignore it. We must be convinced of the superior culture of peaceful negotiation. We must convince others and bear the responsibility for doing so.

To have a peace process, there must be all party talks. There must be dialogue and negotiation and, if this does not happen, there is no process. The stakes are too high to put up obstacles and we are learning this to our detriment. It is unacceptable that an impasse in the talking process should result in the innocent slaughter of civilians. However, to impede or obstruct talks or to decide not to talk at all is also the politics of violence and aggression. The stakes are too high.

We in the South must fully realise and understand existing loyalties. However close we appear to get to the British Government, we must assume that there are closer intangible links between the unionists and Westminster than we can imagine. History has told us so; witness the Boundary Commission report of 1925 when the Irish Government was lulled into the belief that the Six County boundary would be greatly reduced. In reality, not an inch of territory was ceded.

We may be forgiven for thinking that the British Government would not sacrifice the ideology of peace for short term political gain. However, Mr. John Major's side step of the Mitchell report was exactly that. The action of Mr. Major in this regard cannot be treated lightly or seen as another political stroke. It deserves loud criticism. A firm censure of this unacceptable approach to intergovernmental relations from the Irish Government to Britain will engender the necessary mutual respect to build on previous achievements.

A firm and unshrinking policy, underpinned by the indispensable requirement to communicate in positive and constructive ways to get parties to talk, must be bravely and, if necessary, provocatively implemented. I use the word "provocatively" carefully because provocation in its most positive sense is necessary to extract from all the political leaders the decisions which are necessary to rebuild the peace process. The people want peace and we must give it to them.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and the Tánaiste's words, which we must take to heart. Perhaps the tragedies of the past two weeks have taken us all a step closer to reality. There was much euphoria during the 18 months without bombs and this tended to mask the true magnitude of the problems which must be solved. Those who had the chance to visit the North often were almost lulled into believing that peace would continue and that there was no threat to it. However, we must never again make the mistake of taking things easy.

The bombs remind us that we face the challenge of squaring the circle and reconciling the irreconcilable. They should remind us that absolution will not be easily found. No neat settlement will form quickly from this or any other process. This makes it all the more important that people start talking immediately, whether it be around the same table or in different rooms.

There is a misconception that this may be an easy task. However, the talks will not produce agreement, but will rapidly produce disagreement. This is a positive step because when the disagreements are fully on the table we will, perhaps, begin to realise the true scale of the problem and that any settlement will not be made on the basis of anybody's present entrenched position.

Everybody is to blame for the fact that the parties are not yet talking. Sinn Féin and the IRA are to blame because they could easily have made a token gesture on decommissioning, which is all that was asked, and which would have met the initial demand. The British Government and the unionists are also to blame. They seemed to take the view that the longer talks could be delayed, the better.

Delaying talks only makes sense if people believe they will produce a settlement they will not like; indeed, this is the only basis on which they should be delayed. Perhaps the unionists are concerned that the Americans will take the approach they took in Bosnia when they gathered the parties together in Dayton, Ohio, knocking heads together and forcing a settlement down peoples' throats. However, anybody who knows Ireland knows that there will be no final settlement on that basis.

Anybody who wishes to see the situation move forward should be in favour of talks. This was made clear today by the Taoiseach speaking in the other House and by the Tánaiste in his address here earlier. The only people who can gain from no talks — they exist on both sides — are those who do not want any change in the status quo. Despite my abhorrence of violence, I see no point in not including Sinn Féin in talks at this stage, because without Sinn Féin we will not get the disagreements properly on the table, without which we cannot make progress.

Not enough people on the island talk to each other across the divides. We suffer because of this. The unionists tend to only talk to one another, likewise the moderate nationalists and the extreme republicans; while across the divides there is only shouting, posturing and sometimes violence but there is not dialogue. Nobody's entrenched position is properly tested in true debate.

My attendance at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation was an eye opener because I found that for the first time there were people at the forum who had to get used to debate and to convince others of their points, as they had no opportunity to engage in such activities over the past 25 years. One of the benefits of the forum has been that moderate nationalists have been brought face to face with the exact nature of the extreme republican arguments, while republicans have been forced to debate their position with those who disagreed with them. These were the debates that did not take place for so long and are unlikely to take place unless we find a way of getting everybody around the table. While a full agreement was not reached at the forum, a deeper understanding of the problem has emerged, in the same way as the bombs of the past fortnight have given us a deeper understanding of the grim reality we face.

The result of getting people around the table will not be to secure a comprehensive settlement in the foreseeable future. That would be wishful thinking. The result will be to get our disagreements out in the open so that we can then consider what has to be done to find a way to bridge them, to achieve a true reconciliation between the two traditions on the island. This is the real task, which the endless shadow boxing over the past 18 months has obscured. Let us address the real disagreements, not merely the artificial ones.

I welcome this debate because it provides us with the opportunity to say this as often as we can. I agree with Senator Reynolds when he spoke of the many benefits of peace. At the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation we began to recognise the possibilities and hopes of these benefits. As a member of the economic committee of the forum, I became aware of the many benefits that would arise if we manage to talk and to discuss the benefits that will accrue, even with a minor agreement. Such economic benefits will filter to all those living on both sides of the Border. While it would be wishful thinking to expect an immediate result, let us encourage talks to get underway as soon as possible.

Ms O'Sullivan

I welcome the debate. It is part of the process of reclaiming the peace that has been ongoing since the ending of the ceasefire by the IRA — a move that brought horror and despair that the return to violence had set us back, that all of the work that had been done over the past 17 to 18 months had come to nought, that we were back to square one, back to condemning the people of Northern Ireland to a life of fear, conflict and division. However, after this initial response, there has been a widespread determination, of which this debate is part, to reclaim the momentum of the peace process and bring it back on track. All the statements that have been made on all sides of the political divide, especially in the South, are evidence of this determination.

Senator Manning referred to remarks on "Morning Ireland" this morning when it was said that probably seven or eight people on the IRA Army Council tried to take the agenda from us. It is an agenda that is concerned with the democratic will of the vast majority of the people of the country, North and South. The small number of people who made the decision to end the ceasefire do not represent us. We cannot play into their hands by allowing them to set the agenda and to stop the progress of the peace process. There must be no ambivalence about how we say this, and I add my voice to the many voices that have condemned the return to violence and the specific acts of violence that occurred over the past week or two.

We must clearly state that we are totally opposed to violence and have the right to demand that it must end, because those involved are claiming to act in the name of the people of Ireland. They are claiming to kill in our name. They do not have the legitimacy to do this, and we must say this clearly and strongly. They only represent themselves, not the will of the Irish people.

Senator Reynolds referred to the tradition of violence and how we must understand the lessons of history in this regard. However, the attitude of the Irish people is now very clear. We do not support the use of violence. There has been a change. The suggestion by John Hume that we should hold referendums so that the people of Ireland, North and South, can clearly state this, has merit. It would contribute to the process of regaining peace because it would be a statement, albeit of the obvious, using the ballot box and making clear that violence is not part and cannot be a part of representing the people.

Gerry Adams and his colleagues must do what they can to persuade the IRA. We must also do what we can. In being clear in what we say we are also helping to persuade the IRA and are demonstrating a solidarity with the people in the North. The peace movement, which has been very strong in the past week, is important. The wearing of white ribbons is also very important, as are statements by people that they do not want violence. Daniel O'Connell said the voice of the people is the supreme law. The voice of the people is the voice of democracy. If political leaders, particularly in Northern Ireland, put the welfare of their people at the top of the political agenda then we could have progress and dialogue. If the voice of the nationalist people of Ireland can be heard loudly and clearly, it can neutralise the violence and wither the intended effect of the bombs and bullets. In the end it is probably the most powerful tool we have at our disposal at this time in the process.

The views and positions expressed by many unionist leaders are falling behind the people they represent, particularly in the intransigence of some of the statements from the leadership of the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. There is more generosity in the approach of many ordinary unionists in Northern Ireland than has been shown by their leaders. I welcome the fact that Mr. Trimble has invited the Tánaiste to meet him, as well as the fact that the Tánaiste has responded in a positive way. I hope that will produce positive dialogue and that the agenda will bring about movement towards a wider dialogue.

The leadership of both the Progressive Unionist Party and the UDP are to be congratulated on their determination to hold the loyalist ceasefire. On the radio today somebody analysed the fact that, by and large, loyalist paramilitaries have not been recruiting members or building up an arsenal, mainly because their leadership is committed to the peace process. They have decided there is no future in violence and that the peace process is the correct way forward. Apparently there are hawks within the IRA leadership who do not take that attitude and who proceeded to recruit and to build up stocks of arms.

Our best hope of progress is an unambivalent rejection of violence on the nationalist side and a return to the ceasefire, together with a willingness on the unionist side to acknowledge the concerns of nationalists while talking to them in an effort to positively address their problems. It is difficult to find that spirit among the unionist leadership, but it does exist among ordinary unionist voters, who have a sense of reality about the situation. They also have a sense of equality about the need for them to make space for their nationalist neighbours in Northern Ireland.

On 15 February 1996 an article appeared in The Irish News by Roy Garland, a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, who has addressed the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. The article demonstrates there is a sector of unionism that wants to enter dialogue and face up to the problems. In the course of the article, Mr. Garland said:

Neither unionists nor nationalists are the problem in themselves, rather the problem is our relationship to each other. As long as we fail to come to terms with this reality we cannot be in a position to solve the problem.

In the same article, he said that:

There does not appear to have been any authorised, informal or private contact between the UUP and Sinn Féin at any level. I believe that in this we, as unionists, have not behaved wisely. We should have grasped the opportunity afforded us by the ceasefire and exploited its potential to the full... The problem is that unionists have not yet been in a position to assess the capacity of Sinn Féin for compromise. We cannot do that until we engage in dialogue... It is time to recognise that Northern Ireland is a diverse community and will remain a diverse community... The choice is stark and is between inclusiveness, compromise and conciliation or a return to futile and tragic conflict... It will never be possible to satisfy the desires of extremists but it is possible to meet the needs of people in both traditions.

At the end of the article, Mr. Garland calls for unionists and nationalists alike to stand together in seeking new ways into friendship and peace and an end to the nightmare. That is an indication that a lot of thinking is going on within the unionist community which sometimes is not apparent to us in the voices of their leaders that we hear in this part of the country.

As Senator Quinn said, there are deep divisions within Northern Ireland and it will not be easy to find solutions to the problems. However, the next way forward is to get into a situation where people can sit down together to discuss those differences. Tools for doing so are at our disposal. The Tánaiste's proposal for proximity talks would mean that parties which are unable to sit across the table from each other at this stage could at least sit somewhere close to each other. That kind of ongoing discussion could focus in an intensive way on the problems and divisions.

In calling for a debate on Northern Ireland, I stressed the fact that we needed to analyse the proposals of US Senator George Mitchell and his colleagues in a way they have not yet been analysed. We need to confront the various parties in Northern Ireland with the proposals and principles in the Mitchell report.

The leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy Harney, made some worthwhile suggestions, one of which was a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. That idea has also come up in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and is supported by the Labour Party. It is something that can be on the table sooner rather than later. It is not a case of anybody giving into anyone else or ceding ground. A bill of rights is just a basic statement of the rights of all citizens in any democratic society. There is no reason why that proposal cannot be proceeded with.

There is the beginning of an understanding in unionism that there has to be compromise, talks and an attempt to understand the concerns and needs of nationalists. That is a positive step forward. The total and absolute rejection of violence by nationalists and every political grouping and party on this side of the Border, and in Britain, indicates there is hope for a way forward that sidelines the bombers, hawks and others who believe in violence.

Ultimately, there is more sign of hope now than there was a week ago. However, it will take a careful, delicate, positive and generous approach by everybody. There is an indication in the voices of ordinary people that they will not let the peace go and that they will not let it be taken over by the narrow agenda of a small number. The people will reclaim their peace and it is up to all of us as politicians to do whatever we can to ensure that peace gets back on the rails. This debate has made a positive contribution towards that end.

Mr. Lanigan

We have deliberated on the problems of Northern Ireland on many occasions in this House. They have been talked about more than any other topic one can think of in these islands. The reality, which escapes many people, was stated in a poem called "Black Athena" by Martin Bernard, which includes the following:

It would be easier to catch fried fish in the Milky Way, to plough the sea, or to teach the alligator how to speak, than to make us leave.

Whether the "us" refers to nationalists or unionists in the North, there is much truth in that poem. The IRA caused today's debate, but everybody utterly condemns the callous bombings in London. It would not be too hard for any one of us to have a direct involvement in the results of those bombings. There are few people in this country who do not have relations and friends in London.

We saw how the young man from Finglas was drawn into the situation. The press immediately assumed he was one of the bomb makers. However, it has since been acknowledged by the British and Irish police that he had nothing to do with it. As an Irish person caught up in the bombing, it was immediately thought that he was connected with it.

Many people will have heard the interview on RTE this morning with a man living in Blackpool who tried to use the situation. He said part of his van had been blown up in a controlled explosion in a car park in Manchester. He suggested that he had lost his livelihood and his place in society in Blackpool and that he would need to come back to Ireland because his tools had been destroyed in the explosion. Immediately after the interview RTE got in touch with the authorities. They said there was a controlled explosion but the man was able to drive the van out of the car park and that his tools were intact. Although the van was damaged, the man was asked to send in a claim. If an Irish registered car is parked in a car park for a number of days anywhere in Britain, people will be wary of it. That man misused the airwaves by suggesting that this should not have happened and that somebody should help him to come back to Ireland to get a job.

In any analysis of contemporary Northern Irish or British politics one would be tempted to conclude that the situation is again unmanageable. Distractions get in the way of peaceful negotiations and are caused by politicians or by the Army making statements suggesting that the IRA has been beaten. It seems distractions are a necessity. The aim of nationalists should be to involve all the people of Northern Ireland in political dialogue which would recognise the ethnic and religious differences of those who do not espouse their cause. Equally, unionists should recognise the aspirations of nationalists. The aims to which I referred may seem simplistic, but they are the only basis for progress in the North. Channels must be used to find a peaceful resolution to the problems.

The real or perceived wrongs done to nationalists over the years must be addressed. However, this will not happen if we return to the use of the bomb and the bullet. Nationalists and unionists will not be bombed into changing their political views. David Ervine, when speaking in Killala earlier this year, said in an article entitled "No Future in War" that there are not enough bullets for the majority in the North to kill the minority or for the minority to kill the majority and that there is no winner in war. He said that was the reason there was peace.

Nationalists North and South believe Britain is in the throes of a political crisis, that John Major needs the support of the unionists to keep his political career afloat until the next general election and that he is being held back not only in relation to his Northern policy by his lack of numbers. However, that is not to suggest that he is without blame. He has prevaricated over the past number of months and has introduced blocks when things seemed to be going in the right direction.

We should not allow the Labour Party off the hook. It has jumped on John Major's bandwagon and has agreed with 90 per cent of what he said. This could be because Mr. Blair believes the winds of political opportunity and victory are blowing in his direction. He will not create a problem which might take away the ground the Labour Party seems to have gained as a result of the ineptitude of the Conservatives over the past number of months.

The ending of the ceasefire by the IRA has come at a time which may be of political benefit to John Major's Government. He can now prove to be strong in Government by reacting to the IRA and by stating that his stance on decommissioning was correct. This type of political action saved Margaret Thatcher during what should have been her last days in Government. She availed of the opportunity provided by the Falklands War — it saved her political bacon and the IRA may now save that of John Major.

Perhaps the IRA did not have a peaceful resolution to the problems in Northern Ireland in mind when the ceasefire was announced. It may have been under financial pressure or it may have been tired of the campaign and in need of rest and recuperation. Now that it has had 18 months rest and recuperation, it has begun to bomb innocent people who could be members of our families. The IRA does not represent the aspirations of the people on either side of the political equation.

The unionists saw the peace process as a means of selling them out. It believed that the Irish Government, the British Government, the nationalists and the international community were attempting to marginalise them further. As Sinn Féin took the high ground, they were being eulogised in this country and in the United States, where they had access at the highest level to the United States Government and the President's Office.

We should not dwell on the fact that there is a connection between Sinn Féin and the IRA. The influence of Sinn Féin over the IRA has been diminished over recent weeks and I am not sure that this is good or bad. From a political point of view Mr. Gerry Adams, Mr. Martin McGuinness and the other Sinn Féin leaders have lost a great deal of credibility not only outside Northern Ireland but among their own supporters. They can be marginalised. However, if they are marginalised and we do not continue talking to them, to whom can we talk to get the IRA to resume its ceasefire?

There has been too much political silence in the North; too many people there have remained silent throughout the ceasefire and before it. As has been stated earlier, the business community in the North has not got involved in the way it should have. However, we should not be surprised. The business and professional classes in Northern Ireland have not suffered as much during the last 25 years as have people in working class areas and in areas where there never has been work. Business people go where the money is. Too much comment since the London bombing has focused on whether there will be a resumption of the campaign in the North and in the South and on the bad economic consequences of that. Unfortunately, too much emphasis has been laid on the economic aspects.

David Irvine said: "Those of you who are naive enough to believe that a peace process begins with a ceasefire are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. But I think most of you do anyway." I suppose most did live in cloud-cuckoo-land if we expected that a party of violence, bombing and murder could change overnight to being a party of peace. People are calling for all-party talks now. That is rubbish. They call for such talks as if it were possible to get people around the table immediately and without preconditions. That will not happen; it cannot happen and has never happened. There must be a build-up and one must give people a reason to attend such talks.

There is merit in the suggestion of proximity talks; it has been knocked by the unionists. I believe it was David Trimble who said that Northern Ireland is not a Third World country and does not need Third World resolutions. That is to suggest that the former Yugoslavia was a Third World country; it was far from that. Bombs have had their effect but the IRA should not believe that the Irish or British people will be bombed into having the IRA at the table. They must say "no more" and let the people of Ireland and Great Britain live in peace.

It has been a tough fortnight for Ireland. I sincerely hope we will not be in the Chamber next week doing what we are doing today. The people of Ireland want peace.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the debate and the Tánaiste's speech. I also welcome the Minister of State. This is an important debate at a crucial time in our history. It is important that we make our position about violence clear, regardless of how low we are on the political ladder.

Peace is the universal wish of the Irish and British people, as we have seen from recent surveys. Peace is wedded to the widespread respect for democracy which is the basis of our political ethos. We must all endeavour to reinstate the peace process. The peace process ended a long and bitter period of violence which destroyed the lives of thousands of people over 25 years. This process must not be lost; we must hope that humanity and decency will prevail and that the IRA will see the terrible uselessness of violence.

Democratic politicians must continue to work hard for peace. Life is precious; every life is precious. Nobody ever has the right to take a human life. I wish to add my condemnation of the taking of life in the London bombings and throughout the 25 years' conflict in Northern Ireland. We must all sympathise with the victims of violence in London and in Northern Ireland. One can only add one's voice to those who plead with the IRA to stop violence and to urge all democratic politicians in Ireland and Britain to start talking.

There can never be an excuse for killing. However, we must look at the situation as it has developed over the 18 months of the ceasefire. There was extreme frustration among nationalist politicians of all parties, North and South, with the rate of progress towards all-party talks. There was frustration with the pace of developing the peace process. The British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, delayed, frustrated and created barriers to moving the peace process forward. Each time a problem appeared to be solved, another barrier was placed in the way, whether it was Washington three, decommissioning of arms or the announcement of elections in response to the Mitchell report. These issues frustrated the process and created barriers to talks. Everybody felt frustration in this regard. This does not in any way excuse the resumption of violence. However, if there had been more progress on key issues in the peace process, violence would not have been resumed.

I do not wish to repeat what many Members have said. I support their comments but I wish to deal with a special issue within the peace process with which I was involved for almost 12 months. The issue of republican prisoners in Britain is important. Following the IRA ceasefire and the development of the peace process, it is ironic, unacceptable, vindictive and provocative of the British Government, that the conditions of political prisoners in Britain have deteriorated in the past 17 months. It is unacceptable that prisoners do not have, for example, proper access to medical attention.

The resolutions of all major world conflicts have shown that progress on prisoners issues is essential to underpin the progress in the larger agenda. The prisoners issue must be central to the peace process. The Fine Gael delegation in our report on our January visits to three British prisons which was published just two days before the end of the ceasefire stated: "It is with great regret, therefore, that we conclude the current Home Office treatment of prisoners is actually damaging and destabilising the peace process". In that report we also said: "The ongoing punitive treatment of Irish republican prisoners calls into question the sincerity of the UK Government statement which asserted publicly almost 18 months ago that in a ceasefire situation the British response would be generous and imaginative."

The British response to the prisoners issue was anything but generous and imaginative and has been a matter of extreme concern to us. An example of this was when we spoke with five republican prisoners in Belmarsh on 15 January, which included Paul McGee who is on a dirty protest. All of the prisoners had suffered various forms of chest infections and some of them had been hospitalised over the Christmas period. The heating in their cells was switched off during the cold spell and they claimed they were only being given the bare number of calories of food each day. Extra blankets which are provided during the winter were removed. The prisoners are continually disturbed, sometimes hourly, during the night and are suffering from deprivation of sleep. They are deliberately woken up two, three or four times in the night by prison officers checking to see if they are inside their cells. They spend 22 hours a day in their cells and only have two periods of exercise. One prisoner spends 23 hours a day in his cell because the course he is studying, a law qualification, is not recognised by the regimé of that prison; it is in others. Therefore, he is punished for this.

They have no family visits, of course, as they would only be allowed to see their visitors under closed conditions. I met Michael O'Brien in September with Deputy Flaherty and I do not see how anybody could tolerate bringing a family to visit a prisoner under these conditions. I felt extremely stressed in trying to communicate with somebody under these conditions. There is no way one could bring children there, for example. They have had no family visits for over 12 months, no access to natural light and their area of location is small, narrow and draughty.

Paddy Kelly, a former prisoner now in Northern Ireland who has suffered from cancer, told me when I visited him in September that what struck him most when he was brought to the hospital wing of the prison was the sight of grass and the sky. He said it was like winning the lotto; he had not seen them for a long time.

The prisoners are also being subjected to squat searches, regardless of the fact that they are confined to the special security unit and have no contact whatsoever with the outside world. A prisoner in Frankland Prison informed us that he has Krones Disease and also recently had shingles. However, since May 1995 he has not been examined by a doctor. In September 1995 he asked for and got a medical examination and was promised further examinations and tests but he has not received them. The prison authorities require him to wear prison clothes when going to a hospital. It has been the tradition of republican prisoners for decades not to wear prison clothes. Therefore, he does not go to hospital, which is the authority's excuse for not giving him the medical attention he needs.

The same situation applies in Full Sutton Prison, where Michael O'Brien is a prisoner. He required surgery a year and a half ago. When we inquired into this, we received two different opinions. The medical officer told us that he had not received this surgery because of the security situation while the prison governor told us it was because of a waiting list. That approach is totally unacceptable.

It is difficult to understand the approach of the British Home Office when one considers that the republican prison population played a key role in brokering the ceasefire and fully supports and continues to support the peace process. We spent an hour with seven prisoners in Full Sutton Prison. Three quarters of that time was spent talking about their concerns with the peace process while only a quarter was spent talking about their conditions. Their conditions were not as bad as Belmarsh but restrictions such as waiting six months for visits, for example, were totally unacceptable. However, they were so concerned that the peace process would survive that we spent most of this time talking about and relating our concerns to it.

This morning I received a letter from Michael O'Brien in Full Sutton Prison. He said "The issue of prisoners should have been dealt with but instead the situation got worse for us here in Britain." and "No one within the rank and file of the IRA or any political party in Ireland knew when or if there was going be all party talks. That is why the ceasefire ended."

I also received a letter by special delivery this morning from Paul McGee, who is on a dirty protest in HM Prison Belmarsh. It was posted on 31 January, just prior to the ceasefire. In a postscript to a lengthy letter, he stated "I think Mr. Major's response to the Mitchell report just about summed up the attitude of the British to peace in Ireland. I don't think they realise just how close to the brink they are. They are usually blind when it comes to the Irish anyway.".

Britain must be imaginative and generous in handling the prisoners issue. We have repeatedly called for a recategorisation of all political prisoners, which would immediately resolve the problems in the special security units. Out of a prisoner population of around 52,000 in Britain, around 10,000-12,000, the majority of whom are republican prisoners, are in the special security unit. We must have proper review board meetings for prisoners who have served their tariff. It is impossible to understand why this does not happen for prisoners who have served almost 21 years. Some 12 months ago, the Lord Chief Justice said that he had no problems with releasing these prisoners, yet two of the five prisoners involved in these hearings are still in jail.

Repatriation is also an important issue. Five files were forwarded from the Home Office to the Minister for Justice to be considered for transfer under the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Convention, which came into force on 1 November. These were dealt with judiciously by the Department of Justice and were returned to the Home Office. The Home Office should transfer these prisoners immediately now that all the paperwork has been completed. We cannot have any confidence that the conditions of republican prisoners in Britain will improve. The key solution is to transfer all those prisoners to the Irish State.

At the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation the prisoners' solicitor, Ms Gareth Pearce, who has been involved with republican and other political prisoners in the UK for many years, said:

In relation to political offenders we have a different attitude, a diametrically different attitude, to many countries. For instance, in France or in Holland or other countries, it might be said you have committed an offence for political reasons, therefore we will give you less of a sentence. But in Britain we say, we will give you more, much more if you have done it for reasons that are politically motivated and not tied up with personal reasons or selfish gain. Within the bands of sentencing for directly comparable offences and violence committed for political ends one can look at the spectrum and see other divisions too. I wasn't particularly conscious of this until very recently. I was sitting with a prisoner from the Middle East, charged with a comparable offence that many Irish prisoners have been convicted of. It was a Palestinian and I was talking about the prospect, if convicted, of a sentence and I found myself drawing bands and saying to the prisoner "Well, you will not be sentenced as the IRA. They are always in the top band. They'll get twenty five to thirty years at least while you could get fifteen to twenty five."

An animal rights offender would only get a minimum or a suspended sentence.

Michael O'Brien also said:

I know that you share the view that all of our energy should now be to redouble our efforts and try our hardest to get the peace process back on track. I know the picture looks bleak, but we should not lack the courage to keep up whatever work that needs to be done to get back to a position where we can look for another ceasefire. That task is not going to be easy. But it will have to be done, and it will involve taking risks.

Mr. Mooney

I applaud Senator Neville and other Members of the Oireachtas for their continuing interest in and compassion for republican prisoners in British jails. I have been involved over the past 15 years in more celebrated cases and I am not surprised at the litany of sadness to which the Senator referred. Such involvement has proven to be an enlightening process for many of my colleagues who come from further south of the Border and have not had to confront such intransigence as they have experienced in dealing with British officialdom in relation to Irish prisoners in Britain. It is not too long since we read of the horrific treatment meted out to innocent Annie Maguire by British wardens at a time of the month which is sensitive for women, and of the manner in which poor Giuseppe Conlon was tortured and eventually killed by the British prison system. Perhaps there might be an end to it through Senator Neville's remarks.

In the context of how easy it is to be critical and how we interpret attitudes and react to events, many of my friends in Border counties and I have been annoyed by the way Dublin based commentators have distorted the results of an opinion poll since the bombings. A figure of 27 per cent of those surveyed said they believed the IRA was justified in ending the ceasefire and this was seized upon as an indication that one in four voters support IRA violence. Some people, a former Member of this House included, have been tut-tutting in the pages of the Sunday newspapers about the alleged ambivalence to violence in this country. As someone who comes from a Border county and who has family in the North, I tell those commentators they have misread totally those findings.

Many would say the IRA stayed with their beliefs and I was reminded of the words of a Turkish politician who said "Do not break your word to terrorists; they do not understand it", whereas politicians are supposed to be more pragmatic wheelers, dealers and strokers. I have an aunt living in Northern Ireland who voted for Bobby Sands. Her vote and those of the others who supported him immediately branded them as fellow travellers of the IRA. My aunt is in her late sixties and hates violence. When asked why she voted for Bobby Sands she replied, "I voted for my own side. Do you think I should vote unionist?"

Conversely, I called recently on an old friend of my late father — a Protestant man who went North several decades ago. When living in the South he actively campaigned for my father, yet since moving North he votes unionist. Like my aunt in her way, he votes within his tribe as defined by the sectarian nature of the North; yet he would live happily in a united Ireland. The message to the commentators who write in newspapers from their southern fastness is that nothing is black and white in the North. A vote for Sinn Féin is not necessarily a vote for violence.

In response to a question on the IRA philosophy, Seamus Mallon, the deputy leader of the SDLP, encapsulated the feelings of civilised society when he said there is no logic to the resumed bombing campaign. However, a small group of men and women from this island has decided that not only is there a logic to bombing, maiming and killing but that it works as a political tactic. I suggest to this group of unrepresentative Irishmen and women that the evidence of the last 150 years has proved that it does not work ultimately.

While 1916 was, is and will always remain in the minds of nationalist Ireland a shining example of courage and self-sacrifice, any casual student of that period will know that Pearse and his colleagues embarked on insurrection in the full knowledge that they would be defeated and they hoped their blood sacrifice would arouse the Irish people to seek self-determination. It is a well known historical fact which bears repeating that the ending of the 1916 Rising was called by Pearse and his comrades in order to "prevent any further loss of civilian life". So much for those who claim the hereditary right to speak for Irish republicanism.

The developments which led to the setting up of the Irish Free State and, subsequently, the Irish Republic were exclusively in the political domain. The decision of the Irish people in 1918 to elect an overwhelming Sinn Féin representation to the British House of Commons was taken as a signal that Ireland wanted self-government and the Sinn Féin members acted accordingly in setting up the first Dáil. The sea change in the Irish political landscape which resulted in the elimination of the Irish Parliamentary Party was based primarily on the British refusal to implement Home Rule following the end of the First World War and the callous manner in which they staggered the executions of the 1916 leaders. The decision of the Irish people in an electoral mandate was not a call to war but rather a yearning for a political settlement based on parity of esteem between the Irish and the British colonial power.

The subsequent War of Independence was as a result of British oppression, the introduction of the Black and Tans and the extension of military rule to all of Ireland. That war ended with the signing of a treaty by the then leaders of nationalist Ireland who did so under great pressure following Lloyd George's famous threat of "immediate and terrible war". The acceptance of the treaty was a mistake according to my political philosophy, although I must confess that hindsight is wonderful. Subsequent events have proven that the insistence by mainly southern nationalists to accept the treaty, supported by northern nationalists who believed the boundary commission would return Counties Fermanagh and Tyrone to the South and would render the Stormont parliament unviable, was a political error of historic proportions.

I am of the belief that the absence of a strong Irish nationalist voice at Westminster in the crucial years from 1918 to 1922, during which the British Government, supported by a unionist rump, enacted legislation that was to prove detrimental to Irish interests, contributed to the political quagmire in which Irish and British politicians have found themselves since 1922.

I place physical force in its historical context in order to prove that physical force, or its modern euphemism "the armed struggle", has caused more grief, pain, anger and sorrow to the Irish people than any lack of political will on the part of the British Government. As someone said last week, it is easy to apportion blame. We must all reflect on the comments of Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, in the immediate aftermath of the Canary Wharf bombings when he asked rhetorically if he could have done more to prevent the ending of the ceasefire and then put the same question to David Trimble, Deputy John Bruton, John Major and all the others who have signed up to a peaceful democratic settlement in Ireland.

My colleagues from the Border counties have outlined the crumbling of the fragile structures so painstakingly put in place over 18 months. The people among whom I live and work on both sides of the divide are in a state of shock and disbelief. They ask how it can be that the peace has ended. Inevitably, fingers were pointed at "perfidious Albion", but mostly there was and is a yearning for peace that has for the first time in many decades raised a question mark about the role of violence as a means to a political end among those who have traditionally supported that philosophy. The Sinn Féin supporters with whom I have spoken were as mystified as anyone at the sudden breakdown of the peace.

The key to progress in this matter lies with the unionist parties in Northern Ireland and with the voters who consistently vote unionist MPs into safe Westminster seats. How many of us in this House looking at the safe unionist constituencies would not wish for such a political reality? Such a mandate should bring responsibility, but it brings complacency. In stark contrast to the voting patterns, opinion polls published in the North in the last week indicate there is overwhelming support among the unionist voters for all-party talks at the earliest opportunity. Yet the same people who support this important development would, if elections were called tomorrow, cast their votes for the same unionist leaders who, since the foundation of Northern Ireland, have refused to put their Christian beliefs into action and stretch out the hand of friendship to the minority community in their midst.

It is difficult for many people in the South to understand fully that mentality of unionism but it comes as no surprise to those of the nationalist minority who have had to live under unionist domination since 1922. I could not have put what it means to be a Catholic nationalist living in the northern state any more eloquently than our colleague, Senator Haughey, did in his contribution earlier this afternoon. By his own admission, he would not be an average nationalist. He is a successful businessman and many would suggest he would be above all of this and that it would not have any impact on him. Yet the passion and emotion with which he spoke about his experience in Northern Ireland gives an indication of what nationalists in the North have had to contend with since 1922.

The word "democracy" is thrown around like snuff at a wake, especially whenever unionist spokesmen expound their peculiar view of democracy from a northern perspective. The real face of unionism exposed itself days before the Canary Wharf bombing when John Taylor, Deputy Leader of the Official Unionist Party, and David Trimble, that party's leader, reiterated in speeches on successive days and, mark you, before the bombing, that no southern politician had any right to interfere, debate or discuss the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. As far back as 1920, James Craig, later Lord Craigavon, said the same thing to Éamon de Valera in secret talks in a last ditch effort by southern nationalists and by Éamon de Valera as President of the Executive Council before the split, to try to save the unity of this country. That came prior to the enactment of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, an Act which Deputy Albert Reynolds, as Taoiseach, brought back into the public domain after it had remained dormant for decades. I want to hear more from this Government about continuing the debate and maintaining that Act on the table of negotiation, because therein lies the fundamental problem which faced this country. It is from that Act and on a legislative basis that something may come which would be positive.

However, it is an indication of the permanent mind set of unionism that both Mr. Trimble and Mr. Taylor can dismiss publicly and to their supporters in Northern Ireland the legal reality of two internationally binding agreements: the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing St. Declaration of 1993. Both reinforce the agreement of both the British and Irish Governments that we in the South, as the guarantors of the nationalist community in the North, have a legal right to debate, discuss and involve ourselves in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland.

In his recent letter to the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, Mr. Trimble was at his word games again. He is good at word games but, being a lawyer as well as a politician, it probably comes naturally to him. He publicly stated that the parameters of any discussion with a southern political leader would not include debate, discussion or negotiation on the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. Deputy Spring was right to reject this further attempt to internalise a problem which must involve all three strands if it is to succeed in attaining permanent peace within the island and between the two islands. Good luck to the Tánaiste. I hope he holds firm in his view. The nationalist people of Northern Ireland deserve at least that. If Mr. Trimble's position is the declared position of unionism, an outside body or third party is needed to make it aware of its political and moral responsibilities, and since Mr. Trimble is a lawyer, the legal implications of their untenable position will not be lost on him.

It is, therefore, to London that nationalist Ireland must return to break the logjam in the peace process. I believe John Major is an honourable politician and has been from the beginning of this process. For a British political leader, he showed rare political courage in signing the Downing St. Declaration, and I believed Deputy Albert Reynolds when he said that he could do business with John Major. It will be left to historians to judge whether the change of Government in 1994 and the opposing of Deputy Albert Reynolds as Taoiseach at a crucial time in the peace process signalled the beginning of the end of the breakdown in that process. I hasten to add that my party has been careful to avoid breaking the recently fragile consensus in nationalist Ireland.

I applaud the Government's efforts to maintain the links with Sinn Féin, albeit at a level lower than Government. Here I must diverge from the views expressed by the leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy Mary Harney, as reported in today's newspapers, that her party opposes any further communication with Sinn Féin. As Sinn Féin remains the link between constitutional nationalism and those who believe in physical force to achieve their ends, if that link is cut I would ask "Who speaks to the IRA, who speaks for the IRA and who will convince the IRA of the need to restore the ceasefire?".

As a former emigrant, who lived through some of the worst excesses in the early 1970s which culminated in the Birmingham and Guildford bombings, I know what it is like to have to face into work on the bus in the morning knowing there are eyes piercing one's back or to go into shops and offices with one's Irish accent and be suddenly aware that people are treating you differently. Our Irish diaspora deserve better than to be ostracised as a result of the actions of a small unrepresentative group who believe the only way to settle an argument is through the barrel of a gun. Yet they call themselves Christain.

Mr. Doyle

A sombre Seanad listened to the interesting contribution of the Tánaiste today. I gathered two points from his speech: first, he showed understanding to Sinn Féin and Gerry Adams, which I feel is important; and second, he announced the details of his talks with David Trimble, which is another important dimension in getting the peace process back on the rails.

I visited Belfast the Wednesday before the bombing to attend a committee meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body. I recognised the peace and prosperity of Belfast, people were happy shopping on the streets; but, nevertheless, there was a sense that time was running out for the peace process because the men of violence were getting impatient. This arose from the decommissioning issue. There had been a number of difficulties which had been overcome and decommissioning was the last block to talks. Senator Mitchell's report addressed this issue, and I do not think we pay enough tribute to him and his two colleagues for their work before and after Christmas.

At dinner after our meeting I sat beside Sir David Mitchell, a most interesting Conservative member, whom I have known for a number of years and who is a former Northern Ireland Minister. We discussed the decommissioning issue. It is my feeling that the six principles in the Mitchell report should have been put to Sinn Féin-IRA. It would have led to an interesting debate and might have been the way out of the problem at that time. Unfortunately, the proposal for an election rather than the Mitchell principles was put to them, and of course that was quite unacceptable. If the other option had been taken, we might not have the present difficulties.

Senator O'Kennedy said that the unionists have never taken their place at the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, and this saddens me too. I could understand their reluctance to take their seats while there was violence in Northern Ireland, but surely they should have come forward and made their contribution when there was peace for 18 months. Indeed, the Leader made an important point today. He told us he had been speaking to someone who studies politics in Northern Ireland. That person's view was that unionists had been satisfied with the position which existed until recently — they had peace and did not want to go any further.

I want to pay tribute to three people who have played a major part in the peace initiative. First, I believe John Major has played a leading role. He has had to lead the Conservative Party, all members of which may not be of his view. He has been generous with his time and in his efforts to bring peace and reconciliation to this Island. I also must pay tribute — and I never felt I would say this — to the efforts of Gerry Adams in the peace initiative. I understand his difficulties and the Tánaiste explained them today. Finally, I want to pay tribute to John Hume's efforts. He has played a significant role in the peace initiative and has worked hard for peace in Northern Ireland. I suppose it must sadden him to see what has happened. When I spoke in the House on the Opsahl report, I said that I welcomed the informed discussions then taking place between Gerry Adams and John Hume. I believed that Sinn Féin should be encouraged, by means of informal channels of communication, to take its place at the negotiating table. This eventually took place.

Many people have suffered and have good reason to ostracise the representatives of non-constitutional politics. However, as I stated at the time, the alternative to talking is to condemn yet more people to suffer. Unfortunately, this has been the case in the past number of days. We cannot allow the peace and prosperity enjoyed by people, North and South, to be snapped from their grasp by irresponsible men.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Ms O'Sullivan

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Tuesday, 20 Feb 1996

Northern Ireland: Statements.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Feb 1996