Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 May 1999

Vol. 159 No. 12

Declaration under Article 29.7 of the Constitution (Extension of Time) Bill, 1999: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Andrews)

Last weekend marked the anniversary of the referenda on the Good Friday Agreement which were held North and South. We can all remember the sense of history in the making as we went to cast our ballots and the delight when the results were announced the following day. The margin of victory in this jurisdiction was, as predicted, overwhelming, but no less remarkable for that. Despite the nervousness which had crept into the campaign in Northern Ireland, the "yes" vote there was also decisive – 71 per cent overall with unprecedented majorities in favour in both communities.

Those of us charged with implementing the Agreement knew well that the euphoria of the day would prove fleeting and that there were very hard challenges ahead. However, we were strengthened by the massive democratic endorsement which had emerged from the first all-Ireland vote in 80 years. It has been said many times, but that does not make it less true or weaken its force, that the Agreement is and remains the people's Agreement.

The continuing high level of public support revealed in an opinion poll in The Irish Times last month showed that despite all the frustrations of the past year, the people in both communities in Northern Ireland are still in favour of the Agreement and still want it to work. They see that it has the potential to achieve, even if slowly and with difficulty, a new future founded on partnership and dedicated to reconciliation. It has the potential to bring the people of Ireland together in co-operation and common action for their mutual benefit, and to create new links among the people of these islands. It has the potential to underpin a lasting and unbreakable peace, and it points the way to a transition away from conflict.

The people also realise that there is no realistic or acceptable alternative. Those who planted the Omagh bomb last August, those who are now mounting sectarian attacks against vulnerable Catholic families, represent the bitterness and futility of the past. They offer a future nobody could contemplate without horror and disgust.

In like manner, those politicians who continue to oppose the Agreement offer no better way forward. It is true that they represent and speak to the fears and insecurities of a substantial portion of their community. However, having done so, they escape responsibility by avoiding the challenge of finding a way by which those fears might be allayed, those insecurities put to rest. As Professor Paul Bew put it yesterday, there is an absence of sustained argument on the "No" side. At best, they offer the scant comfort of a nostalgic rhetoric which refuses to accept the duality of identity and allegiance which is at the heart of the Northern Ireland problem. At worst, they seem happy to thwart the will of the majority of the people and indifferent to the consequences of political failure for the stability and prosperity of Northern Ireland.

In these circumstances, where people want the Agreement to succeed and where they know that nothing else worthwhile is on offer, it is not surprising that there is a mounting sense of concern at our collective inability so far to agree on a way to establish the Executive and the institutions. Hard though we expected the path ahead to be, I do not think any of us expected that we would still be stuck at this point one year on.

I fully share the widespread frustration and unease that we have failed so far to complete the implementation of the Agreement. In a couple of minutes I will say a little about our continuing efforts to resolve the difficulties, but it is worth recalling that we have, in terms of preparation for the new institutions and of real progress in other areas of the Agreement, achieved a great deal over the past year. In particular, arrangements are in place for the new North-South and British-Irish institutions to start working as soon as the Executive is formed and power is devolved. There is agreement on the number and functions of new Northern Ireland Departments, and the prospect of an exactly even allocation of posts between Nationalists and Unionists. The work of the Patten commission on policing and the criminal justice review are well advanced, as is the process of accelerated prisoner releases. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been created and work on establishing a parallel commission here is proceeding urgently. I was very pleased recently to announce an eight-fold increase, to £2 million, in the Department's reconciliation fund which gives practical effect to a commitment in the Agreement. There has also been steady progress on other issues.

Certain aspects of the Agreement can proceed independently of one another, and we are determined that they should continue to do so. However, the core institutional and constitutional arrangements are, in the words of the Agreement itself, "interlocking and interdependent". That is why it is impossible to move ahead with the other institutions unless and until the Executive is formed. That in turn brings us to the detail of the Bill before us today.

Throughout the negotiations which led to the Good Friday Agreement, there was acceptance of the need for a balanced constitutional accommodation involving changes both to Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution and to British constitutional legislation, notably the Government of Ireland Act and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. The fundamental principles were largely agreed between the two Governments in the Joint Declaration of 1993 and the Framework Document of 1995. However, there was a strong sense, above all on our side, that these changes should form part of an integrated overall settlement. When this happened, it would then be appropriate for the Government to ask the people to endorse fundamental changes to the Constitution, a document which has served us well since its adoption in 1937.

This co-ordinated and synchronised approach is reflected in the British-Irish Agreement. Just as a basic principle of the talks was that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed, a basic principle of the Agreement is that none of its core elements will become operational until all of them do.

As set out in the explanatory note prepared by the Department of the Taoiseach, the coming into effect of the changes to Articles 2 and 3, which were so overwhelmingly endorsed by the people last year, will be brought about by an interplay between the provisions of the British-Irish Agreement and Article 29.7 of the Constitution, which was approved by the people last year.

Subsection 3 of Article 29.7 provides that the definitive amendment of Articles 2 and 3 will follow a declaration by the Government that the State has become obliged under the terms of the British-Irish Agreement to give effect to the amendment. That obligation will in turn arise from the entry into force of the Agreement which specifically requires that the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 be given effect.

The formal requirements for the entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement have already been met by the completion of preparations for the creation of the North-South and British-Irish institutions. However, the Governments have not exchanged the necessary final notifications because the failure to agree on the formation of an executive has delayed the devolution of power to Northern Ireland.

In terms of the Agreement itself and of simple practicality the other institutions cannot operate without a functioning Northern Ireland leg. It is envisaged that the Agreement will be brought into force, and Articles 2 and 3 accordingly amended, on the same day as devolution takes place. To complete the picture changes to British constitutional legislation, as committed to in the Good Friday Agreement, have already been enacted as part of the Northern Ireland Act, 1998, and the relevant section will also come into effect on devolution day.

Article 29.7 of the Constitution also provides that the necessary declaration be made within 12 months of the section's addition to the Constitution, or within such longer period as may be provided for by law. The initial 12 month period is to expire on 2 June next. Originally, there was a firm expectation that all the necessary steps would have been completed comfortably within the timescale.

As Members will know, the British-Irish Agreement has not yet come into force. It is also clear that the conditions will not be right to allow for this by 2 June and, thus, to permit us to make the declaration. The Government is seeking to extend the 12 month timeframe by a further period of one year. Such an extension is necessary if Article 29.7 as a whole – and hence the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 – is not to lapse. This in turn would make it impossible for us to fulfil our obligations under the Agreement, the constitutional and institutional aspects of which are interlocking.

In the Bill we have opted for a clear-cut 12 month extension which is logical inasmuch as it uses the same period as provided for originally. As the Taoiseach said in the Dáil, it may be possible to make a case for a one month extension by reference to the 30 June deadline, but this would be tight and would involve a risk of having to return to this House and the Dáil again before the summer recess. It seems advisable to allow for the maximum possible flexibility.

This further period of 12 months, to 2 June 2000, is the period within which the declaration triggering the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 would be made. It does not defer this step for 12 months. It is our hope that it will be both possible and necessary to make the declaration much sooner, on or around 30 June. However, this in turn depends on a basis being found on which the Northern parties can agree to progress into a viable, inclusive and cross-community executive. We are making every effort to persuade the parties to take the forward steps required to make this possible. Intensive discussions are continuing with the British Government and with the parties, who are also meeting among themselves. These meetings have taken place both in Downing Street, under the leadership of the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, and at Stormont.

We all have to be aware that there remain considerable differences in the stated positions of the parties, in particular the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin, on the formation of an Executive and on the decommissioning issue. Each has, in its own terms and in the views of its supporters, a strong and compelling argument. However, this is not about winning arguments, it is about forging a partnership. The participation of both is essential to any future Executive. Therefore, they need to be able to move forward together and, crucially, to bring their constituencies with them. There is a gap of mistrust and misunderstanding to be bridged, notwithstanding the development of a higher and more regular level of contact between the parties. A last and decisive effort to bridge that gap, to find ways of creating trust and confidence, must be at the heart of the negotiat ing efforts in the period leading up to 30 June. All possible avenues must be explored.

As in any political endeavour, there can be no certainty of success. However, we must not lose our nerve at this difficult time. The fundamental elements point in the right direction, that of peace and agreement. There is almost universal agreement that there can be and will be no return to the bad old days of sustained and widespread violence. The Agreement has within it a great potential for change, while safeguarding the rights and interests of all sides. It is vital that all the pro-Agreement parties take a step back and assess the overall long-term interests for them, their supporters and all the people of Northern Ireland. They must have the courage and decisiveness to do the right thing.

The passage of this Bill will mean that we are keeping the door open to that possibility. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Manning

I welcome the Minister to the House. I compliment him on the fine job he is doing in his portfolio.

It is customary to welcome a Bill but I do not think any of us welcome this one because its existence indicates that all of the things we hoped would be achieved a year ago have not been achieved. There was a degree of understatement in the text issued by the Department of the Taoiseach which stated it was originally envisaged "that the Agreement would enter into force comfortably within the initial 12 months period provided for" or by 2 June 1999. Like many of the predictions made in the aftermath of the Agreement, in the hype and hyperbole, in the relief and excitement, there was a tendency to be over optimistic. An important part of the Agreement has still not come into existence and the process has not been completed. The Bill is necessary and has the support of all parties here, even if its existence is regrettable.

As the Minister pointed out in his speech, it is important, especially when dealing with the North, to have a sense of perspective. We have had problems in the North for the past 300 years. The achievements in the past year have been extraordinary, particularly when we compare them to previous measures. It can be seen in the list of achievements which the Minister outlined, the various parts of the Agreement that have been implemented or are about to be implemented. It can also be seen in the work that is ongoing on the Patten Commission, the human rights, the legislation on North-South bodies that went through these Houses some months ago. All of these things are now a reality.

At a psychological level we can see it in the frequent visits made by David Trimble down to Government Buildings, something that would have been inconceivable three or four years ago. David Trimble and Gerry Adams are speaking to each other and are on first name terms. It is the beginning of a working relationship. All of these things have happened.

I attended the rugby match in Lansdowne Road late last year when Ulster won the European Cup. It was wonderful to see the place awash with the red flags that are usually associated with some illegal loyalist organisations in the North. It was also wonderful to see the genuine welcome granted to the supporters. I was surprised most of all – and it was something I observed in my local pub and when talking to people in the area – to discover that it was the first time many of the Northern rugby supporters had visited Dublin. They went into pubs in a diffident manner expecting hostility and an unfriendly atmosphere but they were surprised by the welcome they got. If the Agreement had not been in place many of them would not have travelled to Dublin and the match might not have been held here.

The Agreement has worked in all of the small, popular and psychological ways. That is why it is so important at this stage that we proceed in a balanced, calm and measured way to ensure the remaining parts of the Agreement are put into effect. It is not going to easy. There was a central truth in the Minister's statement that the people want the Agreement. It can be seen in the opinion polls and in ordinary conversations that the people on this island, on both sides of the Border, by an overwhelming majority wanted this Agreement and they want it to work. It is the first time in our history that there has been such unanimity.

The Minister said there is no alternative. There is one but it is too dreadful to behold. The alternative is Omagh. The alternative is Drumcree in perpetuity. The alternative is continuing attacks and murders, such as that of Rosemary Nelson, and a continuation of the hell that has been public life in Northern Ireland for so long. In that sense there is no alternative. Too much has been achieved for there to be slippage.

The Governments are right to introduce this extending legislation and to provide for a reasonable amount of time and flexibility to get the process right. If I am critical of the Governments, it is for the unreal deadline which appears to have been imposed on David Trimble at the last meeting in London. He returned from London with a package he could not sell to his party, particularly at a time when that party is suffering from all the jitteriness which accompanies an election campaign. It is important not to set deadlines which cannot be met. They might be an attempt to put pressure on people but if those people cannot deliver or if circumstances are not favourable, such deadlines do more harm than good.

The immediate step to be taken in Northern Ireland is to ensure that everything is done to defuse the latent tensions which flare into reality during the marching season. I commend the Church of Ireland even though it came in for strong criticism from some Members of this House and from some journalists last week. I commend it for what it did during its synod to try to tackle a problem which is, partly, a Church of Ireland problem. It did not succeed but at least courage was shown. Given the extremely democratic nature of the Church of Ireland, it is always possible that its leadership will not be able to bring all its members with it. However, at least there is an awareness and there was an attempt to deal with the matter. That is why one must hope that the other talks being conducted under Mr. Blair, aimed at defusing the problem in Drumcree, will be successful.

The fact that the Agreement is being parked to a certain extent, although those words are not used, might not be the worst possible thing. People are tired. They have been working non-stop for a long time on the Northern peace process. The combination of a rest for some of those involved, if they can get such a rest, and seeing what the alternative is – Drumcree and the problem remaining unresolved – may well spur them into making the extra concessions which need to be made on both sides to achieve what the Minister rightly describes as not a victory for either side but a sense of partnership and agreement from the process.

It is important to remain optimistic when we discuss Northern Ireland. It is important in the context of what has already been achieved, the enormous progress and the huge input of ordinary people, Governments, the European Union and the American Government. That huge input is too valuable to be allowed to be frittered away at this stage. In that spirit, Fine Gael will support the Bill. We hope that long before the year is over agreement will have been reached. Meanwhile, we commend the Minister and the parties to continue the process of talking and seeking a resolution.

Mr. Lanigan

It is unfortunate that the Minister is obliged to seek an extension of time from the Oireachtas. However, I compliment him, his officials, the Taoiseach, his officials and the elected representatives in Northern Ireland and in Britain on the immense amount of work they have done over the past months. It is a stamina sapping job. When one considers that Government must continue working in its usual areas of responsibility as well as dealing with the Northern Ireland peace process, one realises how much work has been done by so many people in those months.

We live in dangerous times. I hope that between now and 2 June next year a full resolution will be achieved of all the problems associated with the Good Friday Agreement, that all the elements of the Agreement will be fulfilled and that we will see the end of the first phase of securing a peaceful resolution of the Northern Ireland problem.

In recent years a number of international agreements have been signed. Some were signed on the White House lawn, some in Ireland and some in Rambouillet. Unfortunately, none of these signings has been successful. The Wye River agreement which was signed by the Israelis, Palestinians and the Americans has not worked. In Rambouillet there was an attempt to sign a document which might have helped to deal with the Kosovo situation but it did not work. Unfortunately, it is easy to sign a document and then renege on what has been agreed.

I hope good sense will prevail in Northern Ireland in the next few months. I hope the hotheads will step back a little and consider the consequences of full implementation of the Agreement. I would not worry about short delays. The problems in Northern Ireland have been there for decades, if not centuries, and anybody who thought they could be resolved in a short period was defying the lessons of history. A huge number of the people involved are willing this Agreement to work. They are forcing themselves into positions where they are starting to trust the people on the other side. There is a start to the breakdown of the hatreds and animosities between individuals, the political parties and, indeed, members of the churches in the North.

The question of decommissioning is holding up the implementation of the Agreement. Certain people have a hang up as to whether decommissioning should take place now or within the two year period. It makes no difference to me whether it takes place now or in a short time. It must take place. However, the issue of decommissioning can be used by people whose attitude is "unless they decommission, we will not proceed with setting up the Executive". This is where the problem arises.

In South Africa there was no question of decommissioning when agreement was reached with the ANC. However, there is a growing body of opinion there that perhaps decommissioning should have taken place. There is a great increase in the use of arms and in violent incidents. If decommissioning had been part of the agreement between the apartheid government and the ANC, maybe this would not have happened. However, that is a large question.

People should not get hung up on decommissioning. It is likely to be symbolic rather than actual. If an organisation decommissions its arms, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it will buy more. One can buy arms throughout the world, in Europe, the Far East, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Germany and France. Decommissioning is a symbolic matter and I wish the people in possession of the arms would make that symbolic gesture and get on with the peace process.

The past 12 to 18 months have shown the people in the North what it is like to live in a peaceful atmosphere without the fear of bombs and bullets. The implementation of all elements of the Good Friday Agreement will be historic. Young people in the North will not allow a return of death and destruction and politicians on all sides should be encouraged by that. With the exception of a small minority, people hope that the present peaceful atmosphere will continue. Anyone who expects the extreme elements to disappear in the near future is foolish. There will be setbacks on the road to peace.

It is unfortunate that we must apply this 12 month extension, but it should be enough time in which to implement the Agreement. An extension to 30 June, which would be a tight timescale, might have caused people to jump in the wrong direction. Lengthening the period in which measures can be put in place will not put too much pressure on people. I hope we do not need to seek a further extension. The Good Friday Agreement is the only way forward for everyone in the North of Ireland and on the island of Ireland. I am glad the Minister has taken the initiative to extend the timescale.

Mr. Costello

I compliment the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the job he is doing on the international stage. I also compliment the Taoiseach on his competence, understanding and tenacity in relation to Northern Ireland.

We would like to be able to welcome this legislation, which provides for an extension of time to implement fully the Good Friday Agreement. It is unfortunate that this Bill is before us today. We had expected that with the goodwill and euphoria surrounding the referenda on the Good Friday Agreement, North and South, devolution proposals would be in place within 12 months. Unfortunately, that is not the case and we are now putting in place a 12 month extension in the hope that everything will fall into place in that period.

The Labour Party has supported the Government's policy on Northern Ireland over the past two years. I am worried that the extension of time, which is the same as that originally provided for the implementation of the Agreement, the devolution of powers and the establishment of the Executive, will be seen by people on both sides in Northern Ireland, particularly the extremists, as removing the pressure and parking the Agreement. This extension is so long that there is scope for those who have always opposed the Agreement to continue to do so, while the sense of urgency felt by those who support the Agreement will be lost. It would be a shame if the negotiations and the determination of all sides were allowed to go off the boil. If we suggest that the issue should be forgotten until after the marching season, it will be difficult to regain the sense of urgency in the autumn.

The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, has given a personal commitment to the Good Friday Agreement. He is determined to see it come to a culmination by the end of June. He has set that as his deadline and enunciated it abroad. My fear is that if there is no resolution by that time – there seems to be an implicit acceptance of that in this legislation – Mr. Blair will look elsewhere because he has other pressing engagements. We all remember what Mr. John Major did after the first ceasefire. He came in at the beginning but when he found himself under political pressure from certain quarters, he disappeared off the scene. He did not support the process and it became a non-entity. When the first ceasefire ended without a resolution, people went back to violence. The Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and all sides in the conflict must continue to show a sense of urgency.

I accept that the legislation is a legal precaution, although whether we should introduce it on these terms is another matter. We must take the precaution, otherwise the constitutional amendment, which was conditional on the devolution of powers to the Executive and the implementation of the North-South bodies, will lapse and we cannot allow that to happen. We should be careful not to give the impression that we, as politicians, are incapable of resolving the impasse.

On 13 December 1998 the Taoiseach made a statement to the House, which indicated the seriousness of the situation. He said:

After the overwhelming endorsement of the Agreement, which so clearly now embodies the will of the people North and South, I would have expected the Executive to be meeting at least in shadow form; likewise, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council to have held their inaugural meetings in shadow form. I would have expected more significant progress to have been made on the normalisation of the security, including a clearer start on the process of decommissioning paramilitary weapons.

Many of the Northern parties have done their utmost and have been frustrated at the lack of progress, beyond establishing the Assembly.

That is the current situation in terms of executive power. We have not moved one iota since last December. The Agreement is not just stalled until the 30 June deadline but has been for at least six months. That is a sad position upon which to reflect. Previous speakers have reiterated the positive achievements of both the Republic of Ireland and Britain. Both have impeccably implemented the legislative and constitutional changes required.

The British-Irish Council has been established – it was discussed in the House recently – Implementation Bodies selected, the Constitution has been amended, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have been appointed and substantial prisoner releases have taken place. We hardly hear a word about them currently. There has been progress on the human rights issue, while Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party have met, as have David Trimble and Gerry Adams. There have been discussions between David Trimble and the Garvaghy Road residents. The Orange Order has indicated that marches will take place locally this year rather than concentrating its brethren at Drumcree, which is welcome. Last week the Church of Ireland Synod took a stand on it.

These events are wonderful moves in the right direction and reflect the will of the decent people who voted for peace in the referendum but they do not reflect devolution of power and both communities coming together at political level to determine their own futures by making decisions, establishing structures and governing themselves. That is the biggest worry we face. There remain suspicion, an absence of trust, annoyance and frustration. It still exists among significant groups of people on both sides and the leaders find it as difficult as ever to bring their respective constituents along with them.

We witnessed David Trimble's embarrassment two weeks ago when he almost lost the leadership of his party. We are aware of the position of the leaders of Sinn Féin and their fears that they cannot bring their party with them on certain issues, the key one being decommissioning. They are still waiting at the highest level to see who will blink first. It is reminiscent of the wild west, the OK Corral and John Wayne. Whoever blinks first will be seen by his or her respective camp as having sold the past. We still have not fully moved beyond that stage in regard to decommissioning and the establishment of an executive.

I thought the solution would have been implicit in this legislation. Extension of time was provided for in the referendum on the amendment to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, which was approved 12 months ago. The claim to the entire island would be foregone in the interests of the people and unity could only be achieved by a decision of the people, North and South. Such unity would be by consent. Implicit in that was an absolute sea change from any previous position adopted by republicans. It was a change to a core tenet of the Constitution which was seen as the republican mantra. It was done with such gusto that unity by consent implied there was no need for arms and that the ballot box had removed the armalite from the political scene.

Only time will tell and time is still of the essence. Time appears to be a great deal longer in the context of Northern Ireland than it is in the context of people in other parts of the world. The problems of Northern Ireland require more and more time to resolve because of the frustrations, the lack of trust, etc. We are still on the correct path and the decision taken by referendum to change the Constitution automatically meant that the intellectual decision was taken in regard to decommissioning. I believe that in the minds of republicans intellectual decommissioning has taken place in regard to Articles 2 and 3 and it is only a matter of time before actual decommissioning takes place.

Is it right to extend the time for the enactment of the Bill by 12 months or should it be just one month with a renewal each subsequent month? It is a moot point and the Government took the right option. At the same time, I feel that if one month were provided for in the legislation, constant pressure would be kept on those who must make the decision to agree to run Northern Ireland themselves in co-operation with the Republic of Ireland and Britain.

Pressure is important in terms of Northern Ireland. It brought about the Good Friday Agreement. The Agreement was lost on Holy Thursday but was won on Good Friday. I wish to see pressure being maintained at all times. The decision to postpone the formation of an executive for one month creates the danger of people saying that the arrangements have been parked, that they can take it easy. The sense of urgency and determination could fall by the wayside. We could then be back to dealing with incidents such as the Omagh bombing, the murder of Rosemary Nelson, the Real IRA, arrests and convictions and punishment beatings.

It is unfortunate and sad that this Bill must be introduced to provide for an extension of time for the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. However, I recognise that the extension coincides with the deadline date for decommissioning and I expect that by this time next year, there will be good news to report.

Dr. M. Hayes

I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and their officials for the enormous amount of work that they have done, and are doing, in order to bring about a settlement in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the work of the Taoiseach, Prime Minister Blair, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam, and their staff. The amount of time that the Taoiseach has given to this issue is an indication of the commitment on both sides to try and reach a solution.

I find myself agreeing with most of Senator Costello's comments and in one sense I understand why the Bill is before us. I regret the necessity for it but I see why it must be so. All of us would like to have seen the institutions in place, none more so than the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties which support the Agreement. Those parties which supported the Agreement in the referendum are doing their best and have done an enormous amount to bring their people with them.

Like Senator Costello, I would worry if there was a sense of pressure being taken off. I can see why the details of how to progress this effort need to be sorted out to provide for the fact that agreement might not be reached in a month or two and to obviate the necessity to come back to the Oireachtas for subsequent extensions. Nevertheless, if there was any idea of this being put on the long finger it would be counterproductive and quite distressing. I believe that we are quite near to a settlement, that it is within our grasp and that it could be reached by the end of June. It would be a pity if the sense was given that somehow we did not expect it to happen or that it did not matter very much if it did not happen.

What is badly needed in Northern Ireland is a buildup of trust. The background of deep distrust and suspicion slows down developments. There is a tendency in some quarters to treat the Good Friday Agreement as a legal document when it is a political text. Political texts are construed in different ways and people have to bring their constituencies with them. It is not always possible on either side to deliver on the words and phrases.

The Unionists badly need to know that the war is over. They badly need to know that the policy of the armalite and the ballot box has been replaced by one in which the ballot box alone operates. If that could be conveyed convincingly and in terms the Unionists could accept and which their leadership could sell to their people, the modalities and specifics would become less important. That is the message that needs to be given. I believe the war is over and that the Sinn Féin leadership is committed to a policy of democratic methods only and is seeking its place in Government in Northern Ireland. That leadership needs to make it clear that the republican movement as a whole is with them in that. Specifically, the IRA, as an act of grace, could do something or produce some formulation to satisfy General de Chastelain and through him, the Unionist leadership. That would advance the process enormously.

I believe the process is irreversible. Anybody living in Northern Ireland sees the difference in the atmosphere and the buildup of trust Senator Costello mentioned is shown in small ways. People who would not sit in the same room 12 months ago are now sitting down together and are showing respect for each other. One of the encouraging things is that they are not slagging each other off in public. That gives me some hope that between now and the end of June a solution will be found.

It would be a profound mistake to take the pressure off and believe that this could be picked up again at the end of the summer. Having people in an executive and in Government would give the situation a degree of stability that would help the parties and the entire community to survive, whatever the summer brings. Without that stability the summer could be troublesome and old sores could be reopened. One does not know where exactly that would lead. I am glad that Senators are being careful in their language as all of us must be careful not to say anything which would make it more difficult for people to take the decisions they must and to arrive at the compromises they seek. I have deep sympathy for those on both sides who are very near the edge of their negotiating positions as they seek to find that extra bit of elasticity. I see it like that rather than as a poker game in which people are seeking to knock the others down.

Northern Ireland badly needs people of all parties in Government. There is almost a paralysis of administration as Departments and officials wait for new Ministers. Because they are reluctant to do anything which might appear to preempt that, there is a vacuum.

When looks back over the years at the times we took one step forward and two steps back, it is an enormous improvement to take two steps forward and one step back. Progress is perhaps unnervingly and tantalisingly slow for those looking on from the sideline but the important thing is that people get there by their own efforts. They should not be bounced into compromises and solutions which look well on paper but which are difficult to deal with politically. It is a fragile time but one of hope. There is a passage in The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald which describes beating against the current of the river and being in danger of being swept backwards into history. That is the position the Northern Ireland parties are in. They are beating forward slowly against this current and we must help and encourage them in every way to get there. The last thing anyone should do is to suggest that it does not really matter if they reach agreement this month or next. It could become progressively difficult in the short term. We now have a cast of characters who have been through a lot together and the set of circumstances here and in Britain in which there have been referenda produces a context and environment for agreement which might be difficult to recreate. It might also be quite difficult to reassemble that cast.

I commend the Bill and support those who urge keeping up the work. Please God we will get there before the summer.

Mr. Norris

It is always important for Senators to listen to people such as Senator Hayes, who has a wide and distinguished experience of Northern Ireland. I am rather touched that he quoted from one of my favourite books, The Great Gatsby. I know that wonderful, harmonious ending, which describes how we beat on, boats against the tide, with the idea that we are ever being pushed back but yet reaching out towards the future and the green light which epitomises hope.

That is what we must do. It is of course disappointing that we have had to seek an extension of time but if it is necessary that is what we must do. I am heartened to see the teams on all sides working so hard and each party acknowledging that, whatever the difficulties, the other parties are seeking a resolution. This is unusual language of moderation and tolerance, especially in the North. Also, British Prime Ministers in the past would traditionally not have permitted this amount of attention to be given to Northern Ireland. It is important that Tony Blair has stuck with it and that he continues to give it that amount of time.

Some generosity of spirit needs to be expressed in a gesture. Decommissioning is a red herring, as one can never really decommission. John Hume used a wonderful lapidary phrase about the borders being in the mind, not on the map and it is the same with guns. One can take guns out of the equation for 24 hours but these groups can rearm very quickly indeed. There is no effective decommissioning and as far as I am concerned if the guns are buried they are decommissioning themselves, though that may be at a more gradual rate than we would wish. However, they are out of action and presumably rusting. Neither side, particularly at the extremes, wishes to appear to lose face or to be humiliated and disarming is seen in that light rather than in the light of generosity. The context is volatile and very dangerous. We cannot forget the brutal murder of Robert Hamill, into which there must be an independent inquiry. I regret to say that the RUC's role stands in some considerable doubt in that case, although in other circumstances it has behaved very well. There are rogue elements in the RUC. The same doubt extends to the role of the RUC in the murder of Rosemary Nelson and the outrageous bombings in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974.

In the last week, I listened to a programme on RTE radio in which RUC men told very moving stories of injuries they had suffered, some of which cause considerable pain many years later. One man was shot while advising local citizens in Crossmaglen about compensation claims. He was injured in the spine and is still in considerable pain and suffering from post traumatic stress more than a decade later. We are asking great generosity of people who are in pain and whose relatives were killed in the most brutal circumstances. They will never be compensated. If we insist on maintaining a tit for tat attitude and on endlessly balancing the books of murder, we will never arrive at a stable equation and never solve the problem.

One of the RUC men interviewed in the RTE programme was asked if he had Catholic friends. He replied that he did not because he had very little social contact with them. Another man was a Roman Catholic. When asked if he had Prot estant friends he replied that he had mixed with Protestants in his first school but lost contact when he went to a different school. This man suspected that he had been set up by some of his neighbours. Such a thing is much less likely to happen if we dismantle the sectarian education system in Northern Ireland. I address that comment both to the Roman Catholic church and to all the Protestant churches who, similarly, have a vested interest in sectarian education but who do not attract the same level of criticism. I do not wish constantly to attack my own Church but it is a pity the Protestant denominations are not pressured on this matter in the same way as the Roman Catholic authorities.

One remembers the two lovely little boys who were shot at recently outside a bookmaker's office in Belfast. What kind of adult can do such a thing? The gunman, failing to locate an adult target, turned an automatic weapon on children. I am reminded of the photograph I saw in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem of the small Jewish boy in a Polish ghetto looking up into the face of an armed SS officer. Such behaviour is beneath contempt.

There must be a loosening of the situation, so to speak. One of the problems of Northern Ireland is the awful political constipation which has set in. Niall Tóibín told a story on the last edition of the "Late Late Show" which I will edit because I do not wish to be vulgar. He told of a child in Belfast whose mother believed in dosing him with syrup of figs. She called him to come in to take his syrup of figs. He refused many times but finally relented with the words, "I'll come in and I'll take my syrup of figs but I won't S-H-one-T-E." This appears to be the attitude of some Northern politicians. They will reluctantly drink the syrup of figs but they will not cater for any possible emergence from the situation. It is very sad and it affects both sides equally.

I have spoken with some feeling about Drumcree because I believe I should address people from a roughly similar cultural background to mine. I hope my friends of a more Nationalist persuasion will do the same to their contacts. The Orangemen have inflicted a poisonous invasion on a church of the denomination to which I belong, in apparent ignorance of the Bible. In the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which I cited the other day, Christ is incited by the disciples to go through Samaria but insists on going the long way round and avoiding the Samaritans. The Orangemen at Drumcree are not even following the Bible.

On the other hand, I despair when I listen to the voice of Breandán Mac Cionnaith. His accent is immaterial to my reaction; what he says is not. I do not wish to target him specifically and I know he is a necessary spokesman because others are afraid to lead their communities. I speak only of his attitude. David Trimble agreed to meet him, at some considerable risk to himself. Breandán Mac Cionnaith reacted to this in an RTE interview by saying, "Let me explain the situation . . . We have been looking for this meeting for nine years", and he went on to give the history of the last nine years. That was not an appropriate answer. He might have acknowledged that David Trimble's agreement to meet represented movement. The movement was small and not enough, but it was in the right direction. People on both sides must learn to give each other encouraging signals instead of being so dreadfully begrudging. A move from the other side is rarely acknowledged readily or with generosity. This generosity of acknowledgment is the lubrication of political dialogue and without it we will not move forward.

It is a pity that it is necessary to extend the timeframe of this legislation. If it is necessary we must, of course, do it. We are here to achieve peace and to save lives on behalf of the people of both parts of Ireland who simply want a decent ordinary life.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

Fáiltím roimh an Aire Stáit. Tá sé soiléir go mbeidh díomá ar dhaoine toisc go bhfuil gá leis in mBille seo. Tá an díomá sin bunaithe ar an dóchas a bhí cothaithe agus ar an dul chun cinn a bhí déanta. Bhí an-chuid daoine sa Tuaisceart a léirigh go raibh siad thar a bheith misniúil agus éifeachtach chomh maith. Ba chóir dúinn a bheith dóchasach toisc an dul chun cinn sin a bheith déanta.

Ní haon rud faoi leith an próiseas atá á phlé againn inniu. Tá an-chuid píosaí ann. Cosúil le teach a thógáil, tá bunchloch an-láidir ann i láthair na huaire. Tá na fallaí tógtha. Tá díon ar an teach agus táimid beagnach síos go dtí an maisiúcháin agus an phéintéireacht. Ní hionann sin agus a rá go bhfuil an obair simplí. Tá an-chuid iarrachtaí déanta le déanaí agus cheapamar go raibh dul chun cinn i ndán duinn. Ní mar sin a tharla. Ach tá daoine foighneach agus sin an chúis dóchais is mó atá againn. Tá daoine sásta leanúint ar aghaidh leis an obair. Ní theastaíonn ó éinne cúlú go dtí an áit ina rabhamar roimhe seo.

Tréaslaím leis na daoine a raibh baint acu leis an bpróiséas seo. Tírgráthóirí den scoth a bhí iontu agus tá dualgas orainn uilig tacaíocht a thabhairt dóibh i ngach rud a bhíonn á rá againn agus i ngach rud a bhíonn á dhéanamh againn. Tá an dualgas céanna orainn iad a spreagadh chun leanúint ar aghaidh. Níor chreid éinne, fiche bliain ó shin, go mbéadh sé ar ár gcumas a rá go bhfuil Gerry Adams agus David Trimble beirt, ag déanamh a ndíchill. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil muinín tar éis fás idir an bheirt chéanna agus idir an dá thraidisiún. Tá súil agam nach dteastóidh ó éinne caitheamh anuas ar thaobh amháin nó ar thaobh eile mar ní dóigh liom go mbeadh sin cabhrach díreach anois. It is understandable that many people are disappointed that the Bill is necessary. It is in contrast with the progress made in recent years.

We should remind ourselves from whence we came. If anybody had prophesied 20 years ago that even one quarter of what has been achieved would be achieved, no one would have believed them. We were influenced more by the past than by the vision of the future. That has now changed but one cannot wipe out hundreds of years of history and the tragedy, disillusionment and trauma that goes with it for both traditions in the North. There is an onus on us to ensure the momentum is maintained. A few years ago no one would have said that Gerry Adams and David Trimble wanted to achieve something for their communities that could be reconciled and harmonised. Immense progress has been made since.

One of the difficulties is that the process is seen as a single entity; it is organic. Its architects were wise to approach it in that manner. It was not a question of waking up one morning and finding that all had changed utterly. Nobody would have expected that. The simplicity of that type of political philosophy has been part of the difficulty. We are now confronted with the challenge of reality. It is no longer a matter of slogans or proclaiming aspirations, it is a matter of saying that we must do this to achieve the final result.

It requires much courage to change one's approach and emphasis and to forgive, whatever about forgetting. The new Ireland should be capable of embracing the aspirations of both communities. It can be enriching to find oneself in a situation where one has to think in terms of harmonising the aims of the different traditions on the island. We must salute those who have continued to believe, with patience and tenacity in spite of the difficulties, obstructions and misrepresentation, that the alternative is unthinkable and the prize great.

It appeared at times that it was an impossible task to overcome some of the obstacles. It is dialogue, where the parties involved have listened with patience and an open mind, although they may not have always fully understood from where others were coming, that has brought us to this point. If we are to arrive at a lasting and meaningful, not a sticking plaster, solution, we must see this as a partnership.

One of the best things that has happened is the decommissioning of mistrust. Progress cannot be made if there is mistrust. Nothing is more edifying than Nationalists and Unionists meeting together before the cameras, to the point where they call each other by their first names. This may appear superficial but it is a long way from the name calling of the past. Were it not for the European elections and the marching season, there is every possibility that the latest efforts made in London would have borne fruit.

Every citizen has an opportunity to create the right environment and atmosphere to overcome the impasse. In the same way as the negotiators and those who have played a part in the amazing progress that has been made have earned a place in history, so too will all those who obstruct and undermine the process for negative reasons.

This may appear simplistic, but there is no reason the final push cannot bring about the result we all seek. With regard to decommissioning, given generosity and increased trust, there is no reason words cannot be found to satisfy both traditions. I wish everybody connected with the process well. The future of the island and our relationship with our neighbour are dependent on a successful and positive outcome.

Mr. Ryan

Go raibh maith agat. Ní thógfaidh mé an iomarca ama mar tá cuid mhaith ráite agus níl mórán eile le rá. Tá cúpla rud a mhaith liom iad a bheith sa tuairisc oifigiúil. Cé go bhfuil cúis mhaith againn go léir díomá a bheith orainn faoin chonspóid sa phróiseas síochána faoi láthair ní hionann díomá agus deireadh. Tá ábhar mór dóchais ann fós.

Ar an gcéad dul síos ba chóir domsa, ar eagla aon mhí-thuisceana, rud amháin a rá.

It is implicit in everything that is said, but nothing in the entire catalogue of injustices that the minority population in Northern Ireland has suffered, individually or cumulatively, justified the killing of a single human being. I take a less benign view than others of the scale of that injustice and oppression. For many in the South the degree of institutionalised injustice within services that for many years we tried to pretend did not suffer from it was enormous, extensive, institutionalised and oppressive. This was epitomised by a friend of mine whose maiden name was Doherty and whose married name became Browne. Although she was not involved in politics, she found to her astonishment that the attitude of the police service changed literally overnight when her name changed. She went from being delayed, questioned, held up and pulled aside to being waved through. She did not expect this to happen because she did not take an interest in politics, but it was an experience she recorded.

The level of injustice in the North did not justify, should not be used to justify and cannot be used to justify the violence which took place. I have got into trouble in geographical circumstances where it would have been wiser not to get into trouble by saying this to people in Northern Ireland. However, for reasons on which we should all reflect, and not just in terms of condemnation, that conflict produced an appalling level of violence and one of the most ruthlessly efficient terrorist paramilitary organisations the world has ever seen. That organisation has effectively stopped killing and bombing people and in recent months it has stopped punishment beatings. I do not wish to praise the organisation for ending killing people, but the success of maintaining the ceasefire is a result of the achievement of the political process in this State, in Northern Ireland and in Britain. As Senator Ó Murchú stated, out of this has come a deepening sense of interdependence and a deepening sense among an increasing number of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland that there can be no solution which does not involve the free consent of the Catholic community and vice versa. The principle of consent to which we all subscribe within Northern Ireland is not just a principle of the consent of a majority to partition of this island, it is a principle of consent in terms of a divided community, and as our former colleague, John Robb, used to say, in terms of a redefinition of consensus, an understanding of consensus and an exploration of what consensus means. I often asked the former Senator Robb what he meant by consensus. He always said it was something one perpetually explored, that if one produced a rigid definition of consensus one would sometimes find a situation in which one needed a consensus and the consensus one needed was not covered by the procedure; it is not as simple as majority rule. Consensus is a working towards each other. This is beginning to happen, even in the case of this most thorny and difficult of issues.

Even if this is a side issue to some people, it has become an issue of great symbolism, not necessarily the symbolism of decommissioning, but the symbolism of a gesture of trust. What we are seeking is a gesture of trust from one community to another where those gestures fit together. I do not know what the gesture of trust is. If we knew what it was, we would not have the stalemate which has existed for months. The real problem is a matching gesture of trust, made by one community to the other, which represents to the recipient community in each case precisely what they want from the other community in order to take the necessary step. It is a considerable step for northern unionism to have Martin McGuinness as part of their Government. It is also a considerable step for northern republicans to accept much of the symbolism of what is essentially a British state as part of the system of governance in which they will participate.

It is not such a surprise that a divisive issue arose in this process. I know the need for momentum is enormous but it could never be an artificial momentum which simply ducked these issues. If we had moved into a situation of having an executive and cross-Border institutions in place without this level of matching gesture of trust being sorted out and refined, the issue would have arisen after the institutions were set up. This could be more difficult to resolve in a society in which normal politics was consuming more and more resources and it could have been potentially more explosive and damaging to have this breakdown of trust manifest in a particular issue.

A wonderful development as a result of the peace process is a learning by all of us of the need to think about what we do and say. People from my tradition had a tendency for many years to blink at the suggestion that one million people in Northern Ireland did not wish to be part of this State. We used language – I say "we" deliberately – which was pacific but quite threatening. That is a peculiar contradiction. We were pacific in the sense that we said we would not dream of coercing, but in the next breath we used language which implied some form of coercion, although we did not call it coercion, or some form of shov elling affair which would not involve nasty coercion such as shooting people, but which would effectively achieve the same purpose without their consent. There are only two ways of making a choice, one is by giving people a free choice and the other is by taking it from them. We have now moved to the concept of free choice.

I am not as depressed or gloomy as some people. I believe the momentum towards the rejection of the use of violence as a political weapon within the Nationalist community is almost complete. Of course this could be reversed but I believe there is enormous momentum in that direction within the leadership of the republican movement. The fact that only a splinter group within Protestant paramilitaries is still attempting to carry out acts that are indescribably dreadful is also a good sign. However, it is fundamentally necessary that the security forces appreciate that the perception of a substantial minority of the population of Northern Ireland is that they have not been even-handed and that they are still not even-handed. This may seem to many in the security forces to be profoundly unjust and, given our history it is, perhaps, hard for them to take. However, unless they move from the perspective which people have of them, they will at best make mistakes and at worst cause great harm. Therefore, there is a need for the security forces to realise that regardless of how they see their role, a large section of the population in Northern Ireland does not see their role in the same light as they see it.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Dr. Moffatt)

This is a short and simple Bill and for reasons the Minister for Foreign Affairs explained when he opened this debate, it is necessary. It extends by 12 months the period during which the changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, consequent on the Good Friday Agreement and as endorsed by the people in last year's referendum, can be made.

I thank all of the Senators who contributed. Obviously, the support which the Agreement has received and continues to receive from all sides of the House is one of its greatest strengths. I assure Senators the Government is grateful not only for this ongoing support, but also the for co-operation of both Houses of the Oireachtas in agreeing to expedite so efficiently the passage of this Bill.

The Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution provided for several things. It allowed the State to be bound by the Agreement, it provided for the functioning of the institutions under the Agreement and it inserted a mechanism for the amendment of Articles 2 and 3. Crucially, in terms of the debate we have had today, it allowed in a sensible way for the period to be extended during which a declaration can be made by the Government that the changes to the Constitution should take effect. In straightforward terms, that is what we propose today.

Clearly, we would have preferred not to have had to introduce this Bill. It is, without doubt, disappointing that we have yet to see the Agreement enter into force. In practical terms, that will not happen within the 12 month period originally specified, despite the considerable progress that has been made. Therefore, it now falls to us, as legislators, to ensure that the amendment does not lapse on 2 June and that it remains possible to implement the Agreement in full.

The Agreement contains provision for a set of interlocking and interdependent constitutional and institutional provisions. As in the talks, nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, so in the Agreement none of its core elements will become operational until all of them do. The legislative requirements for all of these are now in place. However, the entry into force of the British-Irish Agreement and the making of our constitutional declaration await an agreed outcome to the current impasse which will allow devolution to occur.

We are continuing to work intensively with the British Government and the parties to secure such an outcome. There is little more that can be usefully said on the issues we have to resolve. However, I assure Senators that the most strenuous efforts will be made in the run up to 30 June and I urge all parties to redouble their attempts to understand the needs of their prospective partners and to look critically at their own positions.

In bringing forward this legislation, the Government is ensuring that, once the parties reach agreement on the formation of an executive, as I firmly believe they wish to, nothing can prevent the necessary amendments being made to our Constitution. Ultimately, we want to ensure the will of the people is implemented in full. They want to see the Agreement succeed and become a reality. This Bill is a necessary part of that process of implementation and, therefore, I commend it to this House. I thank Senators again for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and passed.

Sitting suspended at 4.45 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.