Deputy Jim Higgins is in possession and has seven minutes left.
Anglo-Irish Relations: Statements (Resumed).
I, like thousands of other people yesterday, was very disappointed with the Taoiseach's statement to the House. His contribution bore the hallmark of classic defeatism. It was another missed opportunity, another sad chapter in the classically inept handling of Anglo-Irish affairs since he became Leader of his party in 1979. Where is the type of inspiration and confidence which led in the mid-seventies to a Conservative British Prime Minister, the Taoiseach of a Coalition Government, the leader of the elected Unionist Party in the North of Ireland and the leader of the Nationalist community in the North of Ireland sitting together at a conference table and working out a power-sharing structure, putting in place an agenda for democracy and for restoring peace to Northern Ireland? They failed only because of the weakness and lack of backbone of the British Government in failing to underpin it. Where is the type of vision which led to the establishment of the New Ireland Forum? Where is the credibility and the negotiating skill which led to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
The Taoiseach quoted Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Peter Robinson in support of his contention that devolution does not work. It is appropriate that he should do so because Mr. Molyneaux, Mr. Paisley and Deputy Haughey were the only party leaders in the entire western world to oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement. They were wrong then and they are pitifully wrong now. The unanimous and preferred option of the Forum Report was wrong, even before the ink was dry on Mr. Haughey's signature; bipartisanship went out the window that day. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was wrong; bipartisanship was shamelessly shattered before the world on that day. Now devolution is wrong; bipartisanship has again been shattered. It is not because these are not viable, pragmatic options without a prospect of working but because they are not the Taoiseach's own creation. He seems to believe that he has a monopoly in relation to what is right for both parts of this island.
The Taoiseach's statement yesterday was laden with the same sad tried and tested jaded jargonese of the Ard-Fheis — challenge, care, sensitivity, dialogue, reconciliation, putting down walls and building bridges. He claimed that he and his party do not act or speak harshly or undertake initiatives which are not carefully constructed and thought through. This should be amended to state that they do not undertake initiatives. There was no initiative whatever in his speech yesterday. There is reference to a write and invite campaign, done before the world. This is another example of megaphone politics. What a lack of political know-how. The momentum started by the Taoiseach's late father-in-law, Seán Lemass, in stretching hands across the Border had been badly decelerated and I believe his father-in-law would have been gravely disappointed at the lack of progress in Anglo-Irish affairs under the leadership of Mr. Haughey.
The Taoiseach's statement yesterday was a disappointment but equally disappointing was the attitude of the Progressive Democrats. Where were the great mould breakers? It seems they have taken everything back on board and that their view in relation to Northern affairs is very much under the baton of the Fianna Fáil Press Office. It is now again a case of uno duce una voce. The point I wish to make is that devolution is a stepping stone; it is part of a process, it is a dialogue. Unless you start talking, you will have no co-operation. Unless you have talking, co-operation, dialogue and mutual trust, you will not have progress. This is what Deputy Dukes seeks to do in his approach as outlined in his proposal and his amendment yesterday. This House should debate a motion on bipartisanship, devolution and Article 4 of the Treaty. Yet this opportunity of doing so has been classically rejected, rebuffed and thrown out of the window.
I hope when we come to review and monitor our progress this time next year in relation to Anglo-Irish affairs, we will have a more responsible, more constructive and overall a more tangible record of progress in relation to the handling of the sad affairs of Northern Ireland.
Anglo-Irish relations for the past 20 years have been, inevitably, strongly influenced by events in the Northern part of this island and we can expect that this pattern will continue in the foreseeable future. For as long as the present status of Northern Ireland is maintained, we can be sure that the question of how Northern Ireland is governed and what cognisance is given to the aspirations of each of the two distinct political traditions will dominate the relationship between the Governments and the peoples of this island and of Britain.
Political aspirations are, of course, at the very heart of the matter in the North. I must confess to a little envy, as the Taoiseach did yesterday, when I cast a glance towards mainland Europe and see the barriers between divided peoples there being removed. If the physical border between Hungary and the West can be dismantled, if so many breaches can be made in the Berlin Wall as to render its continued existence virtually meaningless, is it too much to expect that there would be some movement towards removing the barriers which remain between North and South, and between Unionists and Nationalists, on this small island on the edge of Europe?
Western Europe is moving rapidly towards the reduction of border frontiers throughout the Twelve member states of the Community. It is widely recognised, and not just within the European Community but throughout the economically-developed world also, that this coming together, this lowering of barriers, can only improve the quality of life and the prosperity of the citizens of the member states. It is in the interests of all of us to ensure that this increased prosperity, this expected improvement in the quality of life, will extend to all Irishmen of whatever political persuasion, on whatever part of this island they reside.
With the reduction of barriers between peoples in Europe, surely the time is right to evaluate critically the reasons deep political divisions remain in the North. Apart altogether from the inescapable fact that we have to share this island together, I would suggest that Nationalists and Unionists have a very great deal in common with one another. We both maintain strong family ties. We both have a strong church-going tradition. Our enjoyment of company and conversation and our common sporting endeavours as exemplified by the match against the All Blacks last Saturday are everyday examples of things that bind us together. By concentrating on what we have in common and by overlooking our differences in the past we can help to create a climate where we can live side by side in peace, if not immediately in complete harmony.
The armalite and the bomb make no contribution to peace and progress on this island or to the unity of its people. Quite the reverse. To those people who continue to use violence in furtherance of their political aims I say: "Stop and stop now. Surely you must realise that you cannot win militarily. Somebody among you has to have the gumption to recognise that a military campaign with the purported purpose of uniting Ireland can only divide the Irish people further".
The Irish and British Governments are working closely together through the mechanism of the Anglo-Irish Conference to heal divisions in this island. The Anglo-Irish Agreement provides for a process with numerous facets. Two very important facets, which I as Minister for Justice am very much concerned with, are security co-operation and legal co-operation. Very closely related to these two subjects are two other areas of the Agreement, namely relations between the security forces and the minority community and confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
The campaign of violence which is having such an appalling toll in loss of life ensures that effective security co-operation remains a vital ingredient in relations between the two parts of Ireland. Our Government are deeply committed to playing their part to the full in the fight against murder and terrorism perpetrated by paramilitaries of whatever hue. Excellent work is being done in the co-operative effort against terrorism and great progress has been and is being made.
The Northern Ireland security forces have had some notable successes this year in preventing a number of attempted major terrorist outrages and, of course, they continually pay a very high price in loss of life and limb — as evidenced by the horrific murder of three soldiers last weekend.
On our side the Garda continue to be successful in making regular seizures of arms, ammunition and explosives which are intended for causing death and destruction in Northern Ireland. In the past three years alone, the Garda have seized 675 firearms, over 143,000 rounds of assorted ammunition, almost 7,000 lbs. of explosives including over 700 lbs. of the deadly explosive semtex, as well as large numbers of mortars, grenades and detonators in addition to various bomb-making materials. There is no doubt but that this good work by the Garda has succeeded in preventing still further loss of life and suffering on the part of our fellow Irishmen and Irishwomen in the North and for this the Garda deserve our thanks and appreciation.
We are, of course, aware that the Provisional IRA are still in possession of large supplies of sophisticated weaponry and explosives. The Garda have been successful so far in seizing the quantities of armaments they have recovered because they enjoy the support of the community they serve in carrying out their task. I would ask the general public to continue to give this valuable assistance and to let the Garda have any bit of information about any thing suspicious they might see that might be connected with the Provisional IRA or terrorist activity. There is an onus on us all to do what we can to see that the lethal weapons and explosives that are now in the hands of the terrorists are not used to murder and maim our fellow human beings.
The additional security costs arising from the Northern Ireland situation are a major financial burden on the State. It is estimated by the Government Departments concerned that the extra security costs in 1989 arising from the violence in the North will be nearly £180 million. Since 1969 onwards, it is estimated that the Exchequer has incurred expenditure of over £1.5 billion on additional security costs as a result of the Northern situation. Adjusting that figure for inflation, we are talking in 1989 prices of additional costs of about £2.5 billion for security as a result of the troubles of the last 20 years.
Apart from the fact that scarce Garda resources are diverted away from areas where they are badly needed because of the security situation, it is a matter of deep regret that such enormous expenditure has been incurred in such an unproductive way. One cannot help but reflect on the major benefits which would have accrued to the State over the last 20 years from the investment of £1.5 billion in such vital areas for the development of our economy and the improvement of our overall well-being as roads, communications, education, health services and the provision of employment for our young people.
It is a sad irony that the Provisional IRA who purport to have the objective of uniting the island of Ireland continue with their campaign against the North-South rail link. In the process they have put the lives of passengers on the trains at risk, endangered the jobs of about 400 workers and caused social and economic hardship to ordinary people North and South. These are the same self-styled proponents of a united Ireland who some years ago destroyed the North-South electricity interconnector and thereby more recently contributed to preventing the installation of a gas link. The net result of that mindless action was that the Government here had to make a very large investment in extra power station generating capacity in order to cater for peak electricity load times — a need which would have been met much more cheaply and on an all-Ireland basis by means of interconnector facilities.
These costs have been borne by the Exchequer during times of strict financial stringency when the Government have been forced in the national interest to take severe and unprecedented measures in certain areas of Government spending. They have been taken during times when productive investment in our general infrastructure has been vital for our overall economic progress and for the creation of jobs for our young people. There is no doubt but that our society has suffered enormously as a result both of the extreme costs which we have had to bear in financial terms but also in terms of the destructive influence which the evil campaign of the men of violence has had on our general quality of life.
I have illustrated the financial burden which the State has carried due to the campaign of violence of the Provisional IRA. However, let me also emphasise that the level of Garda commitment to security will be maintained. It will be maintained because of the duty of the Government to do everything in their power to protect all the people of this island from the men of violence.
There is another very important consideration which should never be lost sight of. The ultimate objective of the Provisional IRA is to take power in Ireland — North and South. What is involved, therefore, is the very security of this State. The Provisional IRA have never accepted our institutions of State or our lawfully and democratically elected Governments. We should never lose sight of the essentially anti-democratic nature of that organisation. Nor is the threat we face confined to the Provisional IRA. There is also the Official IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Irish People's Liberation Organisation. Of course, there is also the threat posed by Loyalist paramilitary organisations who have shown themselves ready in the past to bring terror to Dublin and some of our towns.
Effective security co-operation, of course, is not just about matters of a specialist or technical kind. In order to function most effectively and provide the optimum service, a police force must enjoy the trust and confidence of the community they serve. That is a fundamental and self-evident prerequisite for good policing. Meaningful co-operation between police forces must also be based on mutual understanding and trust.
One of the aims of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to improve relations between the security forces and the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. It would be fair and I think Deputies will agree, to say that a certain amount of progress has been made towards fostering that aim—a more even handed approach by the RUC, improved handling of the marching season and so on. Progress has not by any means been as great as we would like, though I do not want to get involved here in reciting a litany of items on which we would have liked to have seen more progress. Suffice it to say that we will be raising some of them again for discussion at future meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference.
Unfortunately, as we all know, progress in this area received a very serious setback a few months ago with the leaks of lists of persons suspected of illegal activities to members of Loyalist paramilitary groups. This has been a matter of the gravest concern to the Irish Government and to the public generally. Some of my colleagues have dealt at some length with the wider aspects of this whole issue. I will confine my remarks to two specific aspects.
First, the notion that a member of the security forces involved in such activity should be retained in his post is something which we find incomprehensible. Measures have been taken on the British side to prevent a recurrence of such a retention. Any repetition would, of course, have the gravest repercussions for the Anglo-Irish process. Second, I can tell the House that the British side in the conference have been made aware in no uncertain terms about the concerns of the Irish side about information passed by the Garda to the RUC and the need to ensure that its security is protected. The security of all sensitive material is essential to the continuance of the assistance being provided by the public to our community-based Garda force. It is absolutely essential that our people are secure in the knowledge that information handed to the Garda will not end up in the hands of Loyalist terrorists.
As announced at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference in Belfast on 18 October, new safeguards on the handling of security material such as photo-montages have been introduced and it will in future be an offence to retain such documents without authority. Furthermore, improvements have been made in the process of screening UDR recruits and revetting existing members and a working group of officials has been set up to look at the question of further effective development of the policy of inquiring as rapidly as possible so that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, there should be a police presence in all operations involving direct contact between the British Army or UDR and the community. The Stevens investigation into the leaks is continuing and its report will not be solely directed to the bringing of charges in individual cases but will also make general recommendations on matters such as improving procedures for the distribution and handling of sensitive material. The Irish side, of course, have also been pressing in the Anglo-Irish Conference for a comprehensive inquiry into all issues affecting relations between the security forces, in particular the UDR and the community.
It is absolutely imperative that these measures produce positive and tangible results and ensure that there can be no recurrence of leaks to paramilitary organisations. Leaks of the kind and on the scale that we have seen have been unhelpful to the mutual co-operative effort in the fight against terrorism. Decisive action to deal with them and to ensure the security of all sensitive material is essential.
I want to turn now to the area of legal co-operation to ensure that fugitive offenders are made amenable to justice. There can be no question of persons who commit serious crimes in the North and Britain escaping the consequences of their actions by seeking refuge in this State or vice versa. The means are available whereby such persons can, and are, made amenable to the process of justice provided sufficient evidence exists to connect them with the offences alleged against them. I want to make it absolutely clear that there are no safe havens in this State for the perpetrators of crimes of violence. I was very glad that the tenor of remarks made by the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a few days ago acknowledged as much.
The extradition arrangements we operate with Britain and the North provide the means by which a person can be returned to the jurisdiction in which the offence has been committed. Those arrangements have been in place since 1965 and now operate subject to the new safeguards introduced by way of the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, to ensure that extradition operates reasonably and fairly. They have served both countries well in the period since 1965 and, as the report on the operation of those arrangements in 1988 which was recently laid before this House demonstrates clearly, continue to operate effectively.
That report and experience of the safeguards mechanism demonstrate that the arrangements we operate with Britain and the North provide a workable system of extradition and that many of the technical difficulties which were encountered in the past have now been eliminated. As importantly, the report also shows that, the safeguards involving the Attorney General's new functions have been implemented successfully and are working well — contrary to the impression some sought to create at the time of the passage of the 1987 Amendment Act. The fears which were expressed about those safeguards then have been shown to be unfounded.
Before leaving the subject of extradition I want to mention that these arrangements are part of a two-way process from which we also benefit. The existence of the arrangements means that we can secure the return of persons from Britain and the North who have perpetrated crimes in this jurisdiction. For example, 22 persons were extradited to this country from Britain in 1988. Those who call for the suspension of these arrangements would do well to remember that fact.
Extradition is not of course the only, nor necessarily, the best means for tackling the problem of the fugitive offender. Our law also provides another method by which persons who are alleged to have committed serious crimes in the North and who are found in this jurisdiction can be brought to trial here, that is, the provision for extra-territorial trial contained in the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, 1976. UK legislation provides for the corresponding situation and allows for the trial of persons in the North for offences committed in this jurisdiction. The record of prosecution under this legislation is impressive. Of 15 persons tried in this State under the 1976 Act, 12 were convicted. These include convictions recorded in two cases this year for possession of explosives and for escape from lawful custody. Similarly the record of prosecution under the parallel UK legislation is equally impressive with nine out of ten persons tried in Northern Ireland being convicted. The Government are convinced of the value of this legislation and remain strongly committed to its use in appropriate cases.
Legal co-operation is, of course, inextricably linked with confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. Article 8 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement states that the two Government agree on the importance of public confidence in the administration of justice and that the conference shall seek measures which would give substantial expression to this aim. Successive Irish Governments have put forward various proposals in this regard within the framework of the Inter-governmental Conference. The Government continues to maintain their proposal for three judges to sit in the Diplock Courts, constantly monitors the situation relating to confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and advance further proposals under this heading as appropriate.
In conclusion and to sum up, I would like to place on the record our commitment to security co-operation against the people who pursue their political aims through violence. This commitment has been given freely. No nation can afford to tolerate the campaign of violence that this island has been subjected to these past 20 years. Until those waging that campaign realise the futility and the bankruptcy in political terms of their actions, we in this part of the island will have to make a very substantial investment in security. That investment is for the purpose of saving the lives of people of both traditions in Northern Ireland but, let there be no mistake about it, it is also very much for the protection of people in the South. It is our earnest wish to see our country reunited, but seeking to achieve that result through the barrel of a gun is not the way forward. To pursue that goal through violence only postpones the day when all Irish people can be reconciled. Now is the time for the madness to stop.
Stirring words.
I am glad to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I intend to begin my contribution by doing something that, as far as I can recall, I have not done before in the House or outside it, and I imagine I am unlikely to do in the future. I am going to praise the Taoiseach because I believe that the speech he made in the debate yesterday represented a considered and rational approach to the current situation in Northern Ireland and in relations between the two countries. There were no references to failed political entities, no Bodenstown tub-thumping, no appeals to sectarian instincts, no trumpeting of the over-riding national objective. On the contrary, his appeal to Unionist opinion had the look and the feel of a genuine desire to move closer to dialogue on an equal and non-coercive basis.
I can only believe, and hope, that the spirit of perestroika and the upsurge of democracy and hope that has infected Eastern Europe in the past few months, has begun to permeate our consideration on this island also. If that is true, there will in time, I hope, be a moderate response from the North of Ireland to the Taoiseach's moderate appeal of yesterday.
For my own part, I welcome that fundamental change in emphasis, and I hope that the right signals are sent and received from what I believe was an important and ground-breaking speech. There were elements of the speech with which I disagree fundamentally, and I will be returning to them, but its overall tone and content was most welcome and refreshing.
On the other hand, I believe that in time Deputy Alan Dukes will come to regret the effort he made yesterday to introduce a divisive element into the debate, and the intemperate nature of the language he used against those who chose not to follow him. Among other things, he expressed astonishment at my position, having regard to the fact that I was intimately involved in the negotiation on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and was present at its signature. The implication was that somehow, in declining to follow his lead, I was letting the Agreement down. I have to admit to a degree of surprise at the fact that Deputy Dukes did not appear to know my position on these matters. He has certainly spent a lot of time in the past couple of years reacting to the various speeches and proposals I have made.
The essence of the disagreement that has arisen in the House in the course of this debate, assuming, that is, that it is a real disagreement and not a party political charade, appears to revolve around the issue of devolution. It would, perhaps, be helpful therefore if I restated, for the record, my attitude to devolution.
I served in the Government that negotiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In the time that I remained a member of that Government after the Agreement was signed, there was a number of meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference. Those meetings concentrated on a number of issues, including the administration of justice, the reform of the UDR, and a range of economic and social issues, including health and cross-Border co-operation in areas like roads and energy. Progress was made in some of those areas, and in others progress was painfully slow. But devolution did not feature on that agenda, and certainly not as a priority. I will refer later to some of the matters that did feature.
There was a reason for the absence of devolution from the agenda. Devolution, if it ever happens, can only be sustained on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community. That was recognised and enshrined in Article 4 of the Agreement. The need for cross-community acceptance and support is stressed again and again in the Agreement itself. Article 5 recognises the difficulty of achieving this acceptance, so does Article 10.
What this means is very clear. The first priority in the North of Ireland, now as it was then, is to secure a basis for finding and sustaining agreement across the community. John Hume, for instance, has said several times — I paraphrase him — that if Unionists and Nationalists can find a way to sit down around a table and work out an agreement that is mutually acceptable to them, nothing else would matter.
The search for cross-community acceptance is what must occupy our time, the search for a political way forward through dialogue and negotiation. Because this is true, it simply misses the point to keep repeating that all roads forward lead through devolution. We did not believe that at the time of the New Ireland Forum, and we do not believe it now. All roads forward lead through cross-community political dialogue, understanding, and acceptance, and it may well be that if we can build the platform to sustain such dialogue, we may find a political formula that goes beyond devolution, or that stops short of devolution, or that places devolution in a totally different framework. For that reason, devolution is not now, as it never was, the be all and end all of policy for any Irish Government.
To make devolution an end in itself is a mistake. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was a carefully negotiated document— in so far as we could make it so, there is not a word out of place in that document. And it states explicitly that devolution is the declared policy of the United Kingdom Government. The Irish Government's support for devolution, which is also declared in the Agreement, is clearly set against the background of the other Articles of the Agreement.
Because I have always believed in the Agreement as a framework for building dialogue, I have taken the view that it is worth taking risks in order to try to reach out to the people with whom we want to have dialogue. I have been criticised for doing so, but that is of little concern. I believe that the Taoiseach, in abandoning —I hope for all time—the rhetoric of old, is also taking a risk, and I believe that that deserves support and commendation.
But I have to say that I hope he is doing more than writing letters to Northern MEPs. The reaction of Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Paisley on the radio this morning to his invitation to talks about the structural funds was sadly both predictable and inevitable. But there was also an underlying suggestion that if the Taoiseach wants to do business, it is possible to find different ways of doing business.
In other words, I hope that in addition to the public actions, there are efforts being made to build private bridges. I know from my own contacts that there is a growing number of politicians in all communities in the North who recognise the sterility and the futility of continually saying "no surrender", who recognise the phrase "no surrender" as itself the greatest admission of defeat of them all. They recognise that the climate is changing in Britain, that the days when one side or the other can exercise a veto are running out. This debate will I hope mark a change of climate here in the Republic, and will lead to an atmosphere in which everyone, for once, begins to recognise that there is a genuine all-round commitment to moving forward through negotiation.
That may be unduly optimistic—but let it be so. I believe that without optimism, without the hope that a corner can be turned, there is no future for politics on our island. When George Bush can talk to Mikhail Gorbachev about ending the cold war and building a peace based on mutual respect, when Afrikaaners can talk to the ANC, when Helmut Kohl and Willi Brandt can together celebrate the end of the Berlin Wall, when Lech Walesa and Adam Micnik can lead the whole of eastern Europe towards a new horizon of hope, when all of these things are going on in the world, when the world itself is struggling towards a common understanding of shared problems, like the state of our environment and a growing determination to deal with those problems on a co-operative basis, how then, in the midst of all this, can we here turn optimism aside?
My optimism is tinged with realism. I know that we have a long way to go and many barriers to cross before we can honestly say that we have made progress towards resolving a problem that reaches back into the mists of time, and that has conditioned our culture and our sense of ourselves in an irrevocable way. I believe that, for example, the Taoiseach painted far too rosy a picture of the kind of economy and society that we bring with us in the search for dialogue. We are a long way from a "society whose rising levels of prosperity by itself can provide a powerful incentive to unity". That remark, made by the Taoiseach in his speech yesterday, simply is not true of a society that has 250,000 unemployed, that is losing a generation of young people to emigration and that is run on the basis of policies which are aimed specifically at creating social division.
The experiences of the past few years in terms of increasing inequality and disadvantage here in the Republic have to be reversed before we can hold ourselves out as a model. They can be reversed— I have no doubt about that — and they can be replaced by policies that will promote equality and social justice throughout our island, without losing sight of the need to maintain productivity and efficiency in our economy.
When Ian Paisley asserted on radio this morning that "the people of Ulster cannot be bought", he was speaking as the elected representative of a proud and independent people. But we too are a proud people. We are a people with a culture that has informed and educated the rest of the world. We are a people who have contributed in no mean or small way to the building of powerful economies in other parts of the world. We are a people who have contributed to the maintenance of peace in many troubled corners of the world. We are a people of ideas, of resourcefulness, of courage, of loyalty, of commitment to our neighbours, a people full of community spirit. We are a people full of the best instincts governed sometimes by policies that often make no appeal to those instincts.
In short, we too have a lot to offer. We can sit down at a table with people of a different cultural background, with different identities and with different historical loyalties and aspirations. We can sit at that table secure in ourselves, secure that we are the equal of any other people and unafraid to recognise and respect their different hopes and traditions.
We are not a people that need violence to make our way. We have built in this Republic a country that can support its own, that can develop and grow, that can offer the right of dignity and security to every one of our citizens. We have chosen policies that get in the way of those objectives, but we can still fulfil those objectives. We do not need to coerce anyone into talking to us, and we are strong enough, and proud enough, to be able to make concessions to our neighbours, to be able to treat our neighbours as equals and as friends. We do not need to be afraid to negotiate because we cannot compromise the people that we are.
That is why I have always argued for taking risks, and for taking—and making —opportunities to open the windows to dialogue. There is no apology for that. With the windows closed and misted over by bitter history, we cannot even see our neighbours, let alone talk to them. Open windows, let fresh air in.
I want now to say a few words about some of the events of the more immediate past, and to do so as frankly as possible. The release of the Guildford Four, welcome as it was, raised a great many questions in all of our minds. Perhaps there were two questions that were raised more than any others—first, if this could have happened to the Guildford Four, how many others are there? Secondly, how could it have happened in the first place?
It has been said in the course of this debate, as it has been said before, that relations between this country and the United Kingdom can never be normal as long as the Border remains. It must be added that relations between our two countries can never be normal as long as the suspicion remains that Irish citizens in Britain cannot secure their constitutional right of equality before the law.
It has emerged in the course of the dramatic events that have unfolded since their release that they were more than innocent. These were not people convicted on the basis of confessions that were wrongfully procured—they were actually framed. Confessions and statements were altered to suit the perception of the police and the prosecuting authorities as to what was most incriminating, details were added to increase the damage, the statements of witnesses who could have helped to clear the four were suppressed and their defence lawyers were hindered at every turn. There was a considerable conspiracy to secure the convictions of the Guildford Four, and the result was that they emerged, 15 years later, as the victims of the grossest act of misfeasance in British legal history. There was misfeasance in law enforcement and in the administration of the law on a scale that surpasses anything that has yet been discovered.
British justice emerges from the aftermath of the Guildford Four case battered, with faith in its impartiality weakened, perhaps fatally, and the rule of law undermined. It will take many years, and a great deal of effort, on the part of the authorities and the police to restore the rule of law in Britain to its rightful place.
There are many other implications of the case as well. In the first place, it is clear to anyone with eyes to see that at least the same doubts hang over the convictions of the Birmingham Six as surrounded the case of the Guildford Four. I remember a time, not so long ago, when my own view of the Birmingham Six case was that we might never know for sure that they were innocent—but I believed that they had not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a cornerstone of our law and of British law that where there is a reasonable doubt, it must be accompained by an acquittal. The existence of a reasonable doubt was, in my mind, sufficient ground to plead for clemency on their behalf. Things have changed since that debate took place in this House. I, for one, am absolutely convinced now that the Birmingham Six are innocent. I believe that they have been the victims of a gross and continuing miscarriage of justice, perpetrated by the British Judiciary, prosecuting authorities, and police. There is no doubt in my mind on this score.
Two major events have made me change my mind from a position where I had a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the Birmingham Six to one where I am now convinced of their innocence. The first thing that made me change was the release of the Guildford Four, with everything that told us about the capacity of the British system of justice to be perverted. The release of the four revealed for us all the appalling vista that Lord Denning referred to in his infamous judgment about the Birmingham Six. It showed that the police are capable of conspiring, that the prosecuting authorities are capable of turning a blind eye to the needs of justice and the Judiciary are capable of joining an establishment witch hunt. It is ironic in the extreme, even though it adds weight to the case of the six, that Lord Denning has now added his voice to their demands.
The second thing that changed my mind was the suspension of members of the West Midland police, together with the tacit acknowledgement by the British authorities that many of the convictions secured by their methods were now unsafe. I know that the investigation ordered into their activities does not go back far enough to include the Birmingham Six convictions, and I believe the reason for that is clear. I believe that the British authorities have consciously decided that they will avoid the embarrassment of another appalling vista by simply ignoring the Birmingham Six case.
But we cannot settle for that. Knowing what we now know, we cannot stand by and allow the case for Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerry Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, Billy Power and Johnny Walker to be forgotten. We have to keep agitating, keep pressing, keep taking every opportunity to put the case before the public in both islands.
We have to learn lessons. During the past month, one of the key issues which has arisen is the question of extradition of Irish people to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. We have argued consistently, and I do so again now, that it is not possible for the Government to simply refuse all extradition requests, but we have also argued that no Irish citizen should be extradited to a system of justice about which we have reservations without first applying the requirement that an Irish court be satisfied that there is at least a prima facie case to answer. In the face of what is now an officially admitted fact, that the British system of justice is capable of perversion, the case for a prima facie requirement is now unanswerable. The Labour Party are examining ways of re-opening that issue here in this House.
I would go further and say that one of the early priorities of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to secure significant improvements in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. One of the obvious yardsticks for measuring confidence in the administration of justice and the determination of the establishment to improve that confidence is the representation of the Nationalist community in the superior courts in Northern Ireland. At the time the Agreement was made there was only one member of the Nationalist community in the Court of Appeal in Belfast and none in High Court. Up to recently, this figure had improved dramatically with four members of the Nationalist community in the High Court. Clearly a more perceptible representation of both traditions in the courts in the North has helped to improve confidence. There have been other factors too. Recent judicial decisions, such as the decision in the McKerr inquest, have been favourably commented upon.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy, but I wish to inform him that his time is almost exhausted. He might now bring his speech to a close.
I will in about three minutes if that is okay by you. In overall terms, there has been a clear improvement in the perception of the Nationalist community about the right of equality before the law in Northern Ireland. This has happened at the same time as that perception has deteriorated in relation to the British Courts. This, of course, raises the question which I must pose to this House: is it possible that there is now a strong argument for applying a different extradition regime as between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain? Many people hold the strong view that we should stop extraditing people to Britain altogether. I have to say that I find many cogent arguments in support of that view, including the ones I have already outlined, but I would also confess that I have not come to a final view on the issue.
There are two arguments in favour of our extradition arrangements continuing unchanged. The first is our strong international obligations. That is a powerful argument. We have to decide whether we can continue to pursue those obligations, even if it means placing at risk the constitutional right of our citizens to equality before the law. The second argument against making any change in our extradition arrangements is that such change in some way plays into the hands of the Provisional IRA and facilitates the development of what has recently been called a safe haven for terrorism on our island. That is also a very powerful argument which is only somewhat weakened by the apparent belief of the British Prime Minister that Ireland is already such a safe haven. Her views cannot be allowed to influence us unduly one way or another in considering these arguments, particularly if we can demonstrate the truth of the assertion that the British system of justice has a long way to go before it can be trusted with the constitutional rights of our citizens.
I said a few moments ago that there have been positive developments in the system of justice in Northern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One could also, at one time, point to gradual but steady improvements in policing arrangements in the North. For instance, at the time I left office some 30 per cent of UDR patrols in the North were accompanied by members of the RUC.
I have to say that the time has come to call another speaker.
I will conclude my contribution to this debate by referring to my recent discussions with the Leader of the British Labour Party who has shown himself to be committed to unity of the Irish people by consent and to doing everything possible in economic, political and social terms to build the conditions necessary for that consent. That view is enshrined in British Labour Party policy and shared fully by the party as a whole. Finally, it boils down to a question of our confidence in ourselves and commitment to dialogue which will become more and more important as time goes on.
I listened attentively to what Deputy Spring had to say. I acknowledge his recognition of the positive and pragmatic approach adopted by the Taoiseach in this House yesterday. Indeed Deputy Spring made a very positive contribution to this debate this morning, even though I would not agree with everything he said. For instance, I would not agree that the economic picture is as gloomy as he suggests. In this debate it is important that we recognise that our economy has made a remarkable recovery during the past two years. Whatever gap there may have been between ourselves and Northern Ireland in the past I believe that gap is now rapidly closing so far as the economy is concerned.
This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on the situation in Northern Ireland, not just on the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. This issue has been debated in this House so often during the past 60 years that it highlights the impact it has on our nation as a whole. The more one listens to the debate the more one comes to recognise the need for political progress. I had the honour and privilege to be a member of the Forum for a New Ireland where the direction constitutional Nationalists would wish to take was spelt out clearly. We should all recognise that Northern Ireland is the only part of the European Community where the normal rules of democracy do not apply. At a time when we are all very pleased by the developments taking place in Eastern Europe we are faced with the frightening prospect that in years to come, perhaps not all that far away, Northern Ireland will be the only black spot on the map of Europe. Again, this highlights the need for political progress.
During the past few years there have been a number of positive developments on the economic front. We have also seen the abolition of supergrass trials and the implementation of fair employment legislation. Despite what Opposition Deputies have said, there has been a fair amount of progress on the social side in a number of areas. In the area for which I have responsibility, that of Health, I am glad to say excellent practical co-operation is taking place, on a North-South basis, between hospitals, medical personnel and Government officials. I myself have met my Northern counterpart on several occasions.
A joint working party at official level has been established. It has the following functions: to co-ordinate action for co-operation on health matters already agreed by Ministers; to provide an umbrella for regular planned meetings between health officials and departmental agencies; to provide a conduit for information and a forum for the initial consideration of new ideas to secure co-operation. This working party since its establishment has also arranged meetings between the chief executive officers and general managers of health boards on both sides of the Border. Recent items which have been discussed include the White Paper on the national health service, the revised general medical services contract here, the structural initiatives. North and South, on health promotion and a wide range of medical and health issues, such as AIDS, drugs, alcoholism treatment and hospital services developments.
Examples of co-operative initiatives which have been undertaken include major accident planning, life promotion education programmes, for example, AIDS, anti-smoking, lifestyle, cancer registration, manpower and purchasing of supplies. In addition, there has been an exchange of services in relation to areas of work, such as heart-liver transplants, donor organs, bone tumour services, eye banks and high technology services.
To give some practical examples of how this is working: patients from Northern Ireland by arrangement come to Dublin for treatment on the lithotriter to have their kidney stones crushed by the high technology equipment that is available at the Meath Hospital. Arrangements have also been made for children to go to Belfast for total body irradiation which is necessary before bone marrow transplants. Formerly they had to travel to Glasgow for that procedure. The major mumps/measles/rubella campaign was launched simultaneously in the Twenty-six Counties and in the Six Counties in recognition of the need to contain these illnesses throughout the island and to try to eradicate them from the island. That is a very practical approach. Arrangements for hip replacement operations for people from the North-Western Health Board area have been made in Altnagelvin Hospital for people mainly from Donegal. There have been regular cross-Border meetings between CEOs and managers to synchronise major accident planning, and there is regular liaison between the Republic and Northern Ireland in relation to ambulance training. With the similarity of issues which affect health and health services on this island, I have no doubt that there will continue to be developments and initiatives on either side of the Border which can usefully form the basis of further discussion and co-operation.
I met my counterpart, Mr. Richard Needham, on a number of occasions and like me, he has a very positive approach to developing health services on the island. We recognise that a border does not exist in the area of health. We recognise the need for development and the need to use scarce resources to get the maximum benefit for all the people of the island. A new Minister for Health has been appointed in Northern Ireland recently and I have arranged to meet him in the coming weeks. I look forward to continued co-operation. As far as I am concerned there should be no border in health and health care anywhere in the world. This is very much in keeping with the European idea and the provisions of the Single European Act, and it is in this context that I find a very real hope for the future resolution of the Northern Ireland problem and for Anglo-Irish relations generally.
It is fundamental to any society that there should be confidence in the institutions of State. Nationalists never had confidence in the institutions in Northern Ireland and they still do not have confidence in them. Unfortunately, we have to admit, that is not without just cause. The judicial system has already been referred to. The whole reason and basis for the UDR has been called into question and my experience and the experience of many people I meet from across the Border is that the harassment of Nationalists continues. While we recognise that there must be sensitivity to the minority on the island there must also be sensitivity to the minority in the Six Counties.
I shared the joy expressed about the release of the Guildford Four, and like my colleagues on all sides of the House, I look forward to an urgent review of the Birmingham Six case and to their release. The case has been well made and there is a wide volume of responsible opinion which is growing daily not alone here but in Britain, Europe and around the world, that the time has come for an urgent decision to be made in this case.
In my constituency there are specific problems, for example, the number of look out posts that have mushroomed along the Border —where the British Army moved in and took over acres of land from farmers and erected look-out posts which cause irritation and anxiety not alone to the farming community who lost the land but to the people of the area generally. When we are sensitive to the needs of the minority on the island, the British should be sensitive to the needs of the Nationalists of the Six Counties.
The blocking of cross Border roads is another issue which is causing concern. This has created serious problems for farmers on both sides of the Border, both Nationalists and Unionists. They have to travel miles to reach their land. This does not make a contribution to security. Thirty years ago it could have been rightly claimed that a lot of the incidents that occurred in the Six Counties originated on this side of the Border, but that cannot be claimed now as evidenced by the prisoners in Northern Ireland jails. They are from the Six Counties and the incidents originated there. I doubt the value of blocking the cross-Border roads which not alone affects farmers but which is devastating for the economy of a number of towns on this side of the Border.
Clones and Belturbet are two towns in my constituency which are affected. The Border starts at the speed limit on two or three of the major roads out of Clones. On three sides the town is cut off from its natural hinterland with the result that the economy of the town has been devastated. Clones is a fair size town with 2,500 people, but now they do not have a petrol station and business is at a very low ebb. I understand that An Post vans, for instance, now have to travel 15 miles to Monaghan town for diesel, sometimes involving overtime for drivers. This is all the result of the unnatural boundary and cutting off the natural hinterland of Clones. This is destroying the town.
The Aughalane bridge outside Belturbet on the main road to Enniskillen should not remain closed as it does not make any contribution to security. I fail to understand the logic of the Provisional IRA who say they oppose the closure of cross-Border roads and call for support for reopening minor roads while at the same time they supported the recent bombing of a new bridge — the Moy Bridge — on the national primary road from Dublin to Derry between Monaghan and Aughnacloy. I do not understand the logic of people who say they want to keep the lines of communication open and then support the bombing of a new bridge, thus causing not only inconvenience to people who wish to travel from North to South, but also a great deal of expenditure —£90,000 for repairs — to the taxpayers. There are other areas where there are opportunities for development in the economy. Cross-Border co-operation has developed over the years. There are opportunities for agriculture, industry and tourism that should be developed. Farmers on the Northern side of the Border recognise how much better off their counterparts on this side are because we are conscious of agriculture as a basic industry whereas the British Government do not push to the same extent.
I do not want to cover ground that was covered by my colleagues yesterday and today by going into the question of devolution. Like Deputy Spring, I fail to understand the Fine Gael approach to devolution. When they were in Government they did not promote it. The 11 communiques that were issued following meetings between 1985 and 1987 contained no reference to devolution. In view of the points made by Mr. John Hume in Newcastle West, and Mr. Molyneaux's statements on 22 October and 1 November, I do not understand why we could not have had agreement on the nature of the debate here yesterday. There are economic opportunities, but the thrust has got to be towards finding some political solution to make political progress so that we can rid our nation of violence and bring peace and stability to the island.
I fully agree with the Minister for Health about cross-Border roads especially Aughalane Bridge which is the last previously manned crossing that is still not open. The Minister is looking for logic in the actions of the IRA. There is perfect logic there; they want to cause as much destruction and disruption as possible for the communities on both sides of the Border to create the chaos in which to continue to pursue their evil ends. The security argument about cross-Border roads in modern times is far outweighed by the damage that is being done to the business community on both sides of the Border. I agree that the ordinary living styles of farmers on both sides of the Border should be addressed at every meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference.
I thought yesterday's contribution to this debate by the Taoiseach was extremely disappointing. The arguments he used are both selective and spurious. He lists all the difficulties about Northern Ireland and seems to suggest that because there are difficulties nothing can be done. The fact that there are difficult decisions to be made is no excuse for inactivity. The hallmarks of the Taoiseach's speech were defeatism, lack of clear political objectives on the part of the Government, and a seeming unwillingness to engage in a process that takes time, patience and, above all, imagination.
His invitation to the Northern MEPs to meet him and discuss possible incentives in the first half of next year is a good idea but the way in which the Taoiseach handled this was hamfisted and, because it was issued in public, got the predictable response from the two Unionist members that we heard on the radio this morning. If the Taoiseach was sincere he would have issued the invitation privately and then used his contacts in Northern Ireland to assure Dr. Paisley and Mr. Nicholson that there were no political overtones to his offer. He has successfully killed what was a very good idea by making it public in this House yesterday.
The purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to begin a process whereby representative political structures can be established in Northern Ireland which would have the support of the majorities in both communities. The end of the process should be the harmonisation of social, political and economic life in Northern Ireland.
It is quite clear that in the last two and a half years the Irish and British Governments have lost the initiative with regard to progress and change in the North. Despite the Taoiseach's protestations I believe that of late Anglo-Irish relations have not been characterised by frankness and normal political exchange. For some time now both Governments have not been communicating effectively with each other nor with the people of Northern Ireland. This lack of clarity of purpose has led to a slowing down in the movement towards reform of society and institutions in Northern Ireland.
There is a number of worrying signs of this inactivity. The first is that security issues have come to dominate the agenda at intergovernmental conferences. The second is lack of movement towards some form of shared government structures for Northern Ireland. It is extraordinary that the joint chairman of the Anglo-Irish Conference and Minister of an Irish Government should announce that the next meeting of the conference is going to be devoted to security matters. This is precisely what we resisted when the British wanted only security matters on the agenda.
The recent remarks of Mr. Brooke, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, may signal an end to the impasse and the opening up of communication. He makes a number of points that are worth noting. He posits the view that if Sinn Féin reject violence and demonstrate a clear commitment to the democratic process they will have a place in the discussion on the future structures of shared Government in Northern Ireland. Constitutional Nationalists have accepted this position for some time even though the IRA have operated a policy of murder and intimidation against the stated will of the majority of constitutional Nationalists in Northern Ireland. There has been some misunderstanding about his remarks in that regard; but I welcomed them at the time and still do. We have consistently held the view, certainly in this party and I believe it is common all over Ireland, that we want people to abandon force as a means of achieving political ends and to come and sit around the table. There is a number of examples where that has happened and I believe that is for the good of future peaceful progress and democracy in this country.
I want to interpret Mr. Brooke's comments that the IRA could not be defeated militarily in a different way than has been done, because that reflects something that I believe myself, that is, a recognition that the roots of the problem in Northern Ireland lie in injustice, inequality and political neglect. He rightly points out that progress must come through political, economic and social development. If the Irish and British Governments concentrate on those then in time, perhaps a short space of time, the security problem will cure itself. The over-emphasis on security by both Governments which I have complained about plays into the hands of the Provisional IRA. One must concentrate on economic and political development and then the security problem would be far easier to deal with.
Both Governments must identify practical measures to improve the situation of all the people in Northern Ireland. Aspiration is no substitute for action. Talks about talks do not constitute dialogue, and rhetoric cannot replace policy. It seems to me that the Taoiseach and his colleagues would rather be involved in the crisis management of recent Anglo-Irish exchanges than engage in the slow, hard grind of reconciliation, confidence building and economic development. Fianna Fáil do not understand the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is only part of a process. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a final solution to the problems that best society in Northern Ireland. The true nature of the Agreement is that it provides an agenda for change, a process for progress. It is a dynamic for political evolution. It is not a rigid and fixed institution incapable of recognising and accommodating changing circumstances and positive developments. Therein lies its essentially democratic nature and potential. The Agreement demands a great deal of hard work by both Governments in order to realise this potential.
The fact that a united Ireland is a preferred solution for 90 per cent of the people of this State does not absolve us of the responsibility to act now. We must do what we can to improve the situation of both communities in Northern Ireland without abandoning any aspirations we have about the future. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is only part of the process of bringing about a system in Northern Ireland which has the confidence and loyalty of all the people. Central to this process is the notion of a power sharing administration in Northern Ireland, and the onus is on both Governments to suggest structures. The initiative must come from them. Article 4 (b) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement underlines the commitment of both Governments to a form of power sharing in Northern Ireland which "would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community". The community can hardly react to or approve of structures which do not exist. That is the essential misinterpretation of Article 4 of the Agreement by the present Government. The structures they suggest — and the obligation is on both Governments to suggest those structures — must come from the Government but they must be such that they will get widespread acceptance by both communities. It is not going to be easy. It is going to be slow, but the process must be started and the Governments must take the initiative in that regard.
The reality on this island is that there are two traditions and cultures with different loyalties and commitments. The challenge to all of us is to find institutions that represent both traditions and inspire confidence and loyalty. We must also find ways of accommodating the different views of how society should be organised and governed in a divided community. That is the challenge of Article 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that is a challenge both Governments cannot ignore as they have been doing for two and a half years. Spurious arguments being used by the Taoiseach and repeated by the Minister for Health today are that it was not on the agenda of the Anglo-Irish Agreement for the first 12 months. There were six or seven meetings during 1987 — the only effective year of the Agreement while we were there — which were concerned with a whole range of things which were successfully drawn to a conclusion, and I will deal with them in a minute. Devolution, although not on the agenda, was certainly a subject of communication through other streams and other means of communications between the British Government and the Irish Government at the time. The fact that it did not formally appear on the agenda did not mean it was not going to be pursued or was lost sight of.
In order to achieve this form of Government and confidence in a divided community we must all learn to make concessions. We cannot all reach our ideal solution. In the case of the people of the Republic we must be prepared to look at options other than our ideal of a united Ireland and for many of us this is difficult and painful.
Virtually every speaker has referred at some time during the debate to what is happening in eastern Europe and relating it to the breaking down of barriers on this island. I remind the House that Deputy Austin Currie and Deputy Liam Kavanagh were members of the New Ireland Forum which in itself was a breaking down of barriers by the Nationalist community on this island before the words perestroika and glasnost were ever heard of here. That was a major change by Nationalists on this island, North and South. I regret Deputy De Rossa was not a member of the forum; that time The Workers' Party's contribution would have been invaluable. It was a change of direction by the Nationalist community and was recognised as such. It was the first indication that Nationalists were recognising that on this island there were a million people whose views had to be accommodated, in whatever form. For Nationalists in Northern Ireland it means a willingness to be open to solutions that fall short of their ideal and to continue to work through democratic means for a just and fair say in the running of their society.
Perhaps the most difficult choice of all faces the Unionist community, many of whom feel besieged by British indifference, by the murderous intent of the IRA and by what they insist is the Republic's single-minded commitment to a united Ireland. I have begged them publicly and privately on numerous occasions to read the report of the New Ireland Forum and find out that that is not so. The ability to change and accommodate reality is crucial to the survival of all the people. Over the last 20 years people in the Republic had to change their views on how Northern Ireland should proceed towards peace and stability. As I have said, in 1984 the New Ireland Forum brought together constitutional Nationalists to face the reality of the Northern situation and to identify the way to proceed towards peace and reconciliation. The forum helped to bring about the changed attitude necessary for Nationalists to consider options other than a united Ireland. I would like to remind the Taoiseach that he put his name to the forum report and he shares the responsibility of all democratic politicians on this island to explore all the means and mechanisms which would facilitate peace and reconciliation.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not anti-Unionist. It does not seek to exclude, dislocate or disinherit the Unionist community. On the contrary, the Agreement clearly recognises that a condition of genuine reconciliation and dialogue between Nationalists and Unionists is mutual recognition and acceptance of each other's rights. This central element was acknowledged as far back as the forum report which affirmed the right of Unionists to effective, political symbolic administration and expression of their identity, ethos and way of life in a new Ireland. We must not lose sight of that. The four Nationalist constitutional parties on this island signed that document, including the Taoiseach.
I think the Agreement has been a positive force for political debate within the Unionist community. The simple fact that the Agreement was in place and both Governments demonstrated their determination to maintain it was the overiding factor which concentrated the mind of Unionism and forced a rethink of future political realities which must take account of the roots of political instability and social decline in Northern Ireland. The response from the Unionist community is more positive and significant than ever before.
Of course, there are criticisms, misgivings and even fears. However, there is a recognition of the need for change. The working groups in documents such as An End to Drift and The Way Forward have encouraged Unionists to define their role as a community in securing the future of Northern Ireland. A number of recent reports and interviews also indicate that some leaders of the Unionist community are beginning to explore different mechanisms and options. Peter Robinson, Deputy Leader of the DUP, referred to a community of interests between the communities in Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic. John Taylor, former MEP, has suggested a committee system for Northern Ireland similar to one operating in Strasbourg.
So far I have been speaking about the attitudinal developments the Agreement has brought about which have been of a fundamental and positive nature. In addition, however, a veritable catalogue of practical improvements have been introduced under the auspices of the Agreement. Many of these reforms were secured at the initial stage of the Agreement and demonstrate the potential of the Agreement to facilitate change and progress. Among those I want to cite the repeal of the Flags and Emblems Act, improved powers for the police and the Secretary of State with regard to processional marches — there is no doubt that had a beneficial effect in July and August — the preparation of legislation to control incitement to hatred, the elimination of the so-called supergrass trials that caused such great concern to Nationalists, North and South, for a great number of years and which have not been heard of since the Agreement was signed, the rescheduling of certain terrorist offences which will revert to ordinary court juries and not be tried before the Diplock courts as previously and the curtailing of extended periods of time between arrest and trial, another scandal that operated three or four years ago when the time between the arrest and the trial and the trial and the appeal could often extend over four years.
There has been a whole range of proposals for reforming measures granted under the Emergency Provisions Act, practical, qualitative measures which have contributed to improving relations between the Nationalist community and the security forces. Progress has been made in that regard and we have acknowledged the change in the attitude of many members of the RUC. Unfortunately, that building of confidence and trust has been badly damaged by the revelations of the leaking of documents to members of the paramilitaries on the Unionist side.
I hope the Stevens inquiry conducted by a man who I understand from recent contacts is extremely fair-minded — will be thorough and will go into considerable depth over a long period to bring into the open many of the incidents he has been asked to investigate. I understand there is absolutely no question of his being influenced in any way except to bring in the fairest possible report. I am very glad about that. Another reform is equality legislation to regularise employment practices and eliminate discrimination against the Nationalist community. While the legislation for that was originally flagged and signalled as far back as September 1986, I think it has only just now come into effect. The fact that legislation is on the books is not the end of the matter; it needs to be carefully monitored to ensure that the intention of that legislation is scrupulously obeyed.
I have documentation here from the North of Ireland — the third report of the equal opportunities unit, dated October 1989 — about the number of Catholics employed and I regret to say that in some of the Civil Service departments in Northern Ireland, for example, the Department of the Environment, the number of Catholics employed is less than 6 per cent of total employment. Even though the legislation is on the books it needs careful monitoring to ensure that its intent is obeyed. A range of measures has led to improved housing and a greater regard for the Irish culture and language. I was in Belfast on Tuesday last and I was glad to see the Divis Street flats disappearing and new housing being erected in their place. That certainly marks progress. In relation to the International Fund you may be interested to hear this as it shows the mind of Sinn Féin and the IRA: there was a considerable grant from the fund to the establishment of an industrial estate involving a number of youths in the Pole-glass area. I went to see it because it was connected with the International Fund which in turn is tied in with the Anglo-Irish Agreement and I was met by a picket of Sinn Féin members outside the gate with placards saying: "Barry go home". Their attitude to a united Ireland is very odd indeed: I should go home, that I had no right to be in the North of Ireland. That was the implication of what they were saying even though I was visiting something that was a direct result of what had happened in the Republic, something from which the community were benefiting. To refer to the point I made about Dr. O'Hanlon's remarks, what the Provisional IRA do not want is a normal society, they do not want political or economic progress in the North of Ireland.
I should like to make one thing clear that all these changes have been brought about by the United Kingdom Government in the exercise of their powers in relation to Northern Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement did not introduce those changes, it merely provided a framework, within which attention could be focused in all the areas which required urgent attention and reform. That is the key point. Article 1 of the Agreement clearly states, in relation to the status of Northern Ireland, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement for the first time since 1922 gave the Irish Government the right to suggest changes that are beneficial to the Nationalist community.
One of the casualties of the IRA campaign of terror has been the fairer operation of the British judicial system. The case of the appeal of the Guildford Four clearly demonstrates what can happen when prejudice and anger win over justice and fairplay. The Birmingham Six case must be examined and the wrong done there redressed. Those of us who seek one particular office have a responsibility to pursue progress and change through the democratic process. This means exploring every means and mechanism that will secure for the people of Northern Ireland peace and security so that as a society they can participate to the full in the political process.
With the permission of the House I seek to share my time with Deputy Cowen.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome, as do all Deputies, this opportunity to debate Anglo-Irish relations. It is very timely and important that we do so now. The standard of debate has been very high.
It is clear that the task facing all of us with a responsibility towards achieving some progress in Northern Ireland is not an easy one. The Taoiseach has already articulated in comprehensive terms the overview of how the Government see the way forward. He highlighted in his statement the vital role which cross-Border co-operation, particularly at economic level, can play in this process. I would like to take this opportunity to refer briefly, in the few minutes available to me, to a number of issues in this regard which come under my own remit in Tourism and Transport.
The House will be aware that the two State agencies in the tourism sector, Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourism Board have been co-operating for many years in a fluid and informal way. I believe that this is a most useful and sensible arrangement. Against the background of the traditional importance of tourism for Ireland as a whole it simply would not make sense in the context of the size of our island to have two entirely unrelated and unco-ordinated approaches to the marketing and direction of tourism. In this regard, I should say that the two agencies recently acted jointly in what is known as a "bucketshop" outlet in London to sell Ireland as an onward destination for foreign tourists in Britain. I understand that the rate of inquiry has been good and I consider this to be an excellent example of the mutual benefits of good co-operation between Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourism Board.
I very much welcome also the strong role being played by the International Fund for Ireland in the development of cross-Border tourism. Among the projects which the Fund has become involved in is the restoration of the Ballinamore/Ballyconnell Canal, in the Cavan-Leitrim-Fermanagh Border area. Preliminary work on this major project is well advanced. When completed it will mean the linking of the Shannon and the Erne, the two major waterways in Ireland. I believe that the project's potential in terms of boosting the tourism industry, not alone in the Border area but throughout the island, is enormous. With the possible involvement of EC Structural Funds in the project, it serves as a telling indicator of the major benefits which flow from solid cross-Border co-operation.
The International Fund for Ireland has also contributed almost £2.5 million to joint marketing initiatives aimed at selling all-Ireland holiday packages in the United States and continental European markets. A further £1 million has been contributed towards the development of a tourist information and reservation system operating on an all-Ireland basis. This envisages a state-of-the-art computerised system for Irish tourism, North and South, putting it to the forefront of automated selling in increasing visitor numbers and revenue, with the consequent benefit of additional revenue in this sector. This system will create a lasting practical bond between tourism interests on both sides of the Border, linking direct consumer selling to a degree not considered possible until now. I hope that it will mark the beginning of a major long term co-operative effort in the joint marketing of Irish tourism.
In the transport area, I greatly welcome the new Aer Lingus Dublin-Derry air service inaugurated last month. As the Taoiseach said at the inauguration ceremony, this new air link is important not just in the exciting opportunities which it offers for the people of Derry and the north west but also in what it symbolises. A deepening and expansion of cross-Border contacts and ties at the economic level are vital to progress on the wider issues in Ireland and I believe that the new Aer Lingus service has an important contribution to make in this regard. We all know the economic and psychological significance of the rail link between Belfast and Dublin. It is a vital corridor for trade, commerce and social intercourse between the communities north and south of the Border. It is operated on the basis of mutual trust and co-operation at Government level and by two companies, Iarnród Éireann and Northern Ireland Railways.
The bombing of that line is incapable of justification. It is sheer lunacy for any group to seek to interfere with civil and democratic rights of freedom of movement. The perpetrators threaten the lives of the people they pretend, or would wish, to represent. The people of Ireland, North and South, abhor these activities; it is time they ceased. The railway link between Dublin and Belfast will be maintained. We have many things in common in the North and the South. Of particular significance is our shared peripherality. It is a problem for both the North of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Our island location and the consequential heavy reliance on sea and air transport imposes major cost disadvantages on both our economies.
The small size of the Irish markets — less than 2 per cent of the EC's total population compounds the problem of peripherality as it makes producers in the North and South more dependent on exports.
In the run-up to the completion of the Single Market at the end of 1992 and the opening of the channel tunnel in June 1993 the problem of this island's peripherality will be even greater. We need to do everything possible to overcome the scale of this problem. It is a common problem for both our economies for which we must ensure common solutions. Such solutions are best formulated in the context of the programmes for transport peripherality that are now being finalised for EC aid.
I would like to use this opportunity to invite transport interests in the North to deepen discussion with our transport interests, on matters of mutual interest.
However important such endeavours in the economic area are, the reality remains, nonetheless, that it is in the political sphere that the most fundamental changes will have to take place in Northern Ireland. I would like to say, however, that it is clear that new thinking and new ways are needed because the old moulds have patently failed. The need for greater mutual understanding is patent and urgent. We all have our fears and our grievances but none of us has a monopoly on either.
Surely it is time for us to begin in earnest the process of dialogue which clearly represents the only acceptable way forward. While acknowledging our past, surely today our greatest commitment must be to the future?
Ireland needs to be marketed as one tourist entity which will provide major opportunities for us. We can do more together than separately because tourism is arguably the fastest growing industry in the world. In regard to transport I must underline the nonsense of trying to tackle peripherality separately on both parts of the island. It is also sheer nonsense to try to attract visitors to this island on the basis of it being in two parts. Clearly, therefore, there is much to be done in the areas of tourism and transport in a practical, hard-headed way, because they offer exciting possibilities to work together. I look forward to starting that work and completing it as soon as possible.
I should like to thank the Minister for agreeing to share his time with me. Contributions from Ministers in this debate have shown that there is an increasing awareness that in 1992 we will have to deal with shared problems in a more coherent way with our nearest neighbour. That is an important development and we hope there is an increasing recognition on the other side that the problems in Northern Ireland are not simply in the security context but in regard to tourism and transport as outlined by a previous speaker. The Minister for Health also outlined national problems that could be dealt with on a shared basis.
The fact that we intend to set up an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is welcome and it will give parliamentarians in this House an opportunity to be part of a forum where we can impress on our colleagues in the British Parliament the need to move on many of the issues to which our Ministers referred. It will give a practical expression to the role which can be played by parliamentarians.
Up to now the Executive and the Defence Forces dealt with these problems on a daily basis and under the Secretariat in the Anglo-Irish framework, the problems are dealt with from a Civil Service point of view. They have been very competent in making sure that day to day problems are dealt with and not allowed to fester and assume exaggerated importance, causing a flash point between the two sides because of misunderstandings that may arise if matters are not dealt with properly.
Some Opposition speakers tended to blame the Government for some degree of inactivity and the shortcomings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Without reopening that debate, which took place almost four years ago, the Anglo-Irish Agreement framework gives Ministers a forum to raise matters between the two countries, to see Mr. Brooke or the Foreign Secretary and impress on them the need for certain reform but I agree that on policy issues we have not seen the rate of progress we would like. In other words, the political momentum does not seem to be there to the same extent in relation to those — admittedly more intractable and long term — problems and are not dealt with as effectively as at the Secretariat level of the Anglo-Irish framework where day to day problems are dealt with. We do not see this rate of progress in relation to the major policy issues, particularly in relation to security.
There were specific references in the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the need for UDR patrols to be accompanied by the RUC and the need for increased confidence in law and order forces in the North. Unfortunately, there have been major breaches of security despite the fact that the framework is in place and it has done nothing to help in building cross-community support. There is also a reluctance to deal with the major issues in an innovative and courageous way. In some cases one gets the impression that the more intractable the problem becomes the more the Anglo-Irish Agreement is used by the other side as a stalling operation. Through no fault of any member of this or previous Governments who have worked under this Agreement there is a continuing hesitancy on the part of the other side to deal courageously with major issues.
The report of the New Ireland Forum was mentioned but the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not provide a permanent solution to the problem. It is a new channel where we hope to deal with some of the issues that have arisen. Chapter 4 of the New Ireland Forum report states quite clearly that if we want to see the rate of political progress required to bring about democracy in the North we must deal with the fundamental problem, the constitutional veto which Unionists have. Not alone is that not dealt with in the Anglo-Irish Agreement it is not even renegotiable under the Agreement. I do not want to be acrimonious but I strongly feel that until that fundamental issue is dealt with we will continue to have problems in relation to political progress. The issue is that there is an inbuilt majority within Northern Ireland which says: "no, no, no and only on our terms." That is the continuing problem and it will remain until Unionists face up to political reality and accept the fact that they must live on this island with us. Only at that stage will we be rid of an exclusivist dogma and reach some sort of accommodation. Until the problem of the constitutional veto is dealt with, further progress will not be possible on the major political and national questions.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is in place and must be worked in good faith to achieve everything we can. We see opportunities arising for parliamentarians in 1992 and for our Ministers in relation to various EC policies. We have an opportunity to identify the degree of common interest we have and we must use the special relationship which exists to enable people to live in peace and harmony. The political problems cannot be solved until the fundamental issue is faced up to, but we must ensure as much community support as possible is engendered by our policies and actions and by our good faith.
Throughout my political career I have been a strong believer and advocate of consensus on Northern policy among the major political parties in the Republic. My presence in this House and on these benches has not changed that conviction. I believe consensus to be not only in the best interest of both communities in the North but in the national interest as well. I, therefore, welcome the high degree of consensus which has emerged in this debate so far, despite prior speculation to the contrary. There has, of course, been an element of party politicking but we are all party politicians and it has not been excessive. I hope to concentrate on the positive and in the limited time at my disposal to emphasise what I consider to be the main political issues.
Devolution, for and against, has been a major theme in nearly all the speeches so far. No one has attempted to define what is meant by devolution. I will come to my definition shortly but before I do so I should like to put the general concept in context.
The Northern Nationalist has no ideological or historic attachment to what he understands by devolution. It is to the contrary because by devolution he tends to think in terms of the old Stormont Parliament and Stormont Government. The Unionist, on the other hand, tends to be biased in favour of devolution for precisely the reason the Nationalist is against it. However, for many Unionists in 1989 there are the complications of the recognition that devolution inevitably means power sharing and is in conflict with the competing campaign for complete integration with Britain.
I favour a local administration in Northern Ireland because I believe the litmus test of any new constitutional or institutional arrangements will be the extent to which they will help bring about reconciliation between the two traditions in the North and in this island and also because I am convinced that working together as partners in Government will certainly help to bring about that reconciliation which I believe is central. Working together in Government means tackling together the immense political, economic and social problems of Northern Ireland, sharing the responsibility which Government brings, compromising with the reality of day to day problems and having to be sensitive to each other's traditions and symbols. All of these realities which I experienced as a Minister in the power sharing Government of 1974 are the basis on which reconciliation can be built.
I recognise that the risks are high but the reward is peace and stability and the inducements must be commensurate. There is little point in power sharing or, as the Unionists prefer to call it, responsibility sharing, unless there is real power and real responsibility to share. Part of the reason for the lack of enthusiasm for devolution among some politicians to which the Taoiseach has referred is the fear that the power would be, to use a phrase, Mickey Mouse and the role one of effectively administering British Government policies in Northern Ireland, which at this time and unfortunately for some time in the future would of course be Thatcherite policies. Any Administration in Northern Ireland would have to be guaranteed sufficient freedom of action with the necessary fiscal and budgetary independence to tackle the enormous social and economic problems which afflict the area.
There is another fundamental factor. Any Administration which could not enforce its own decisions would be a eunuch. Policing and the impartial administration of the law have always been the Achilles heel of any possible settlement and represent an issue of the utmost difficulty which I do not underestimate. However, it cannot be ducked and could not be ducked in any other constitutional arrangement. The issue of policing has to be faced up to fairly and squarely.
There is, of course, no suggestion on my part that there can be any purely internal solution to the Northern Ireland problem. That reality is accepted, even by Unionists who would very much prefer the position to be otherwise. As all the major parties in this House and the SDLP confirmed many times, there are other essential dimensions to the problem, North-South and Anglo-Irish, which ensure that any solution would have to be based on the interdependence of them all. The final package would be a product of the involvement of representatives of constitutional Unionism and Nationalism and of the sovereign Governments in Dublin and London. There is a responsibility on those of us who sincerely believe that a historic breakthrough is possible to take the initiative. It is not enough to say "you will be surprised how accommodating we will be when you come to the negotiating table". You have to get them there first. It is not good enough to suggest that because there has been no response so far, nothing can be done. If we in the North had stopped trying every time Unionists said "no", the old Stormont Parliament would still be there and one-man one-vote would still be a distant aspiration.
I believe, and I think I have reason to believe, that ambitious proposals of this nature will be reciprocated. There are those in the Unionist community who are facing up to the reality of their changed position since the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was slightly surprised to hear Deputy Cowen, for whom I have enormous respect, picking out, of all of the issues he could have picked in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the suggestion that it had not faced up to the Unionist veto. Nobody ever suggested that the Anglo-Irish Agreement in itself was a solution. It has been emphasised time and time again that the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides a framework in which a solution can be achieved. I predicted on the night of the Agreement, in a discussion on television — the now Minister for Foreign Affairs was present and he described the Anglo-Irish Agreement as the satellite of constitutional nationalism on this island — that the effects of the Anglo-Irish Agreement might be seen more in the changed relationship which it would force between the Unionists and the British than in any change it would make in Irish nationalism itself, and that has turned out to be the case. Those same people whom Deputy Cowen rightly referred to as having used the veto, who used the veto so effectively in the 1880s, 1912 and 1974 when the power-sharing Executive was brought down, have not successfully used the veto on this occasion. The British Government and the Irish Government have said: "No, you will not bring this down this time." I would like Deputy Cowen to remember those remarks.
As I was saying before I went off on that tangent, I have reason to believe that ambitious proposals of the nature I have suggested will be reciprocated. There are those in the Unionist community who are facing up to the reality of their changed position since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that is the position where they can no longer use the veto. Many of them want to be out of their political cul-de-sac. They recognise the necessity of ensuring a guaranteed position for their tradition on this island. It takes two to tango. Maybe the problem is that the music played here is not recognised in the North as tango music——
Céilí music.
——or that it is not being played loudly enough or the beat strongly enough to attract the dancers on to the floor.
Very briefly I will refer to some of the other matters which came up in the debate. I was lucky enough to be able to hear all the speeches. It is unfortunate in another respect that there was so much in those speeches that I should be speaking on for nearer to an hour than 20 minutes. I will just concentrate very briefly on some of the major points which either came up or were interesting by their absence. The SDLP made a proposal to have a referendum on a package of agreement North and South on the same day, thus giving the new institutions created an authority never before assured to any political institutions in this country. I believe that would be an essential part of any political strategy. I do not think the importance of that proposal has really been understood here in the South. Those of us in the North know that when the Provos are challenged, as in the discussions between the SDLP and Sinn Féin, as to their mandate for their murderous campaign, their only answer is in relation to the election of 1918. They say that 1918 was the last time a mandate was given to the Irish people, the last time the Irish people gave a mandate to anyone, and they claim some sort of an apostolic succession from 1918.
What has been suggested by the SDLP in terms of a plebiscite North and South would result in the first occasion since 1918 that the Irish people have had an opportunity of voting together on a political matter. Any endorsement they would give to a political package would be of supreme importance indeed. It would give an authority to the institutions thus created greater than that which has been given to any institution North and South. It would also give a mandate to those institutions and to the people responsible for them to do whatever is necessary in order to ensure that those institutions would not be attacked by anyone while there are so-called Nationalists on one side and so-called Loyalists on the other. It is a matter of very considerable importance for the future and it is essential to any lasting agreement.
As one who participated in the SDLP talks with Sinn Féin last year, I of course welcome the Brooke speech on possible political involvement of Sinn Fé in the aftermath of the IRA murder campaign. It is not easy for someone like myself, who has seen at close hand the victims of IRA violence, to sit down and talk to people who at the very least have a close association with those who have been responsible for that sort of thing. I understand the reluctance of Unionists to even consider being involved in discussions with people who have been responsible for the murder of what they would describe as their kith and kin. Unfortunately it is one of the realities of political life. It is the price that sometimes has to be paid that I think it is a high price that I, for one, would pay in order to switch off the violence.
When will the Provos realise that British national self-interest — Britain has always been guided by its conception of its national self-interest — is now seen by Britain as lying in a peaceful and stable Ireland playing its part beside Britain inside the European Community? Britain, as the former Secretary of State, Mr. Tom King, made clear, has no longer any strategic or economic reasons for remaining in Ireland. Recent events in the USSR and central Europe have only served to underline his argument in relation to strategic considerations. The Provo campaign, apart from being immoral, is also self-defeating. A campaign designed to force the British to leave Ireland is now contributing to keeping the British here. When will they have any sense?
The penultimate point I want to make relates to the RUC accompaniment of the UDR. The House will be aware that I have had some difficulties in raising questions on this matter this week. This is a matter about which the Nationalist community in the North are very dissatisfied. They attach very great importance to that part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which says that except in the most exceptional circumstances the UDR will be accompanied by a member of the RUC. That has not been happening in an increasing number of cases. The question I put down last week — and which I intend to table again — relates to an incident which happened at 5 p.m., in broad daylight, on a summer's afternoon one mile from Armagh on a main road between Armagh and Benburb when, in circumstances when there was no security threat, no riots, no shootings or bombings, the UDR, unaccompanied, were stopping cars. I know from personal experience that that was the case because I was one of the people they stopped. There is no justification for the UDR being unaccompanied in circumstances like that. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to use this incident as an example and to provide me and, in particular the Nationalist community in the North with a reason for the non-accompaniment of the UDR on occasions like this.
I am optimistic about the political future of the North. There are stirrings in the political undergrowth on both sides of the traditional political divide which were not there previously and which indicate that political movement is occurring. The people in the North of both traditions deserve our support. They have shown great resilience, fortitude and courage and should not be asked to carry their burden for one minute longer than necessary; "live horse and you'll get grass" is not good enough. The least we in this House can do for them is to ensure that a peaceful and lasting solution to the Northern problem is our number one national priority. We should seize every opportunity to advance that objective.
I think all of us would agree that while the Northern problem remains unresolved a strain will be put on Anglo-Irish relations. The fact that the Northern problem has not been resolved makes it imperative that we should maintain the best possible working relationship with Britain. There have been, and probably will continue to be, difficulties in our relationships between governments are basically the same as those between individuals: points of conflict will arise and it requires maturity and goodwill on both sides to resolve them. In such relationships it is not sufficient to claim one's rights. Both sides must meet their responsibilities.
One of the most significant events in modern Irish history was the establishment of the New Irish Forum. This enabled different viewpoints, both political and religious, and the relations between the two traditions on this island to be teased out in public. This was a very necessary step in our political development. The report of that Forum, of which I was proud to be a member, states quite clearly that all the parties of Dáil Éireann plus the SDLP in the North are firmly committed to the principle that while the ideal solution is unity this can only be achieved by consent. While commenting on the New Ireland Forum I believe due tribute should be paid to those people of the Loyalist tradition who came down here and put their case to the Forum. While regrettably they did not come as representatives of the Unionist Party the fact that they did come was most heartening. Hopefully we will see the day when all traditions will sit down together to work out how best we can share this island between us.
While the Anglo-Irish Agreement falls short of what we hoped for it is a formal agreement between two sovereign Governments with a formal secretariat in Belfast. This formal acceptance of the right of the Irish Government to have a say in the affairs of the North is significant. However, we must be realistic. The Agreement provides a structure through which progress can be achieved. It does not automatically produce results. Results depend on the two sovereign Governments working the Agreement to its fullest. The Agreement has been in place for four years but to date the results on the ground have been fairly thin. Indeed, the prime achievement to date is that it has remained in place.
I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Ministers involved since the Agreement was put in place and to their counterparts in Britain. It is regrettable that so much time had to be spent discussing security and events which occur almost on a weekly basis and so little time was devoted to discussing economic matters. I believe that at the end of the day economic matters will have a very big bearing on the response of the different traditions to various proposals.
From this point on the Agreement must be seen to be producing results, otherwise public confidence in it will be further eroded. It is in the interests of both Governments and of all sides in the North that the Agreement yields results. The more the Agreement is seen to work the more the men of violence on both sides will be isolated. It is most important that those men from both communities who are perpetrating atrocities on a continual basis are isolated. Violence in the North will not be stopped by counter-violence. That has been clearly evident from events during the past 20 years. Only talk between all political parties and religious creeds will stop this violence. The Northern troubles are like a long running strike and they can only be ended by all parties getting around the table. Sending in more troops with better equipment is not the solution. Indeed it can have the opposite effect because it is only an extension of the violence.
In order to ensure that the men of violence on both sides are isolated it is essential that the Catholic population have confidence in the law and in the even handedness of the security forces. Some progress has been made in this regard but much more needs to be done. The Government and Ministers must press more firmly about the unfair application of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Britain. The tiny percentage of those arrested who are charged with any offence seems to indicate that it is more of an information gathering process than anything else. It may not be realised by the British Government that in some ways this action is regarded as more serious than the action taken by the RUC when they haul in Catholics for questioning. The action taken by the British Government is seen as anti-Irish while the action taken by the RUC is simply seen as anti-Catholic. The British use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is an abuse of the legal process.
I represent a constituency from the northern part of the country where there is a very high percentage of people of the Protestant faith. I am happy to be able to represent them. I seek their support at election time and I believe I get a fair percentage of their votes. I realise that they are forthright people and I am aware of their thinking on the problems that stand in the way of a settlement in the North.
If a working framework to accommodate both traditions can be hammered out I am satisfied that the good relations which have always existed in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan will surface in other areas in the North. The only way they will surface is if we have cross-Border co-operation and development in a meaningful way. The major changes that have taken place in Eastern Europe in recent months are clear evidence that if the people wish to put violence and hatred behind them it can be done through the combined efforts of both sides. The time has come for an effort to be made for a major breakthrough in this respect.
The Taoiseach in the course of his speech stated:
I believe that it might be helpful if at this stage we were to prepare a paper setting out our thinking on how, in the context of our common island status in Europe and the shared challenges of 1992, the areas in which a common approach might be developed for the benefit of all Irish people, North and South.
The Taoiseach announced that a paper would be prepared and put forward in a non-political context. I welcome that move because a considerable amount of work has been done on both sides of the Border by various committees. They have identified areas of common interest and highlighted the areas in need of development. Many studies were carried out at a substantial cost and most of them were part-funded by the EC. Three reports, each containing many worthwhile proposals, have been produced: the Erne Catchment report, the NIRDO-EC report and the EC Social Committee report. For example, in the EC Social Committee report there is a suggestion that pig and poultry demonstration units be established and that pilot farms be set up on milk, beef, hill farming and sheep production. The report also suggested that industrial zones should straddle the Border.
I should like to appeal to the Unionist interests in Northern Ireland to consider the benefits that would emerge from joint efforts in research and development. A lot of goodwill exists between the researchers and that could be harnessed to good effect. The EC have suggested that the pilot farms along the Border could be used for the information of farmers and producers on both sides. That makes good economic sense because there is a lot of duplication in research and development on both sides of the Border. A joint effort would reduce the overall costs considerably and it would be a great plank to bridge the stream. Those suggestions should be examined closely by the Ministers involved in research and development in industry and agriculture.
I was pleased to hear the Taoiseach mention the preparation of a paper because down the years we have not had any follow up on the various reports and proposals. There was no follow up on the proposal that there should be a corridor of development on both sides of the Border. It was a pity that that proposal was neglected on both sides of the Border. The Border counties have more in common with each other than there are divisions between them. The goodwill that exists on both sides should be harnessed.
There are many other suggestions that should be looked at. For example, we should look at the area of third level education. In my constituency we have more students that we can accommodate while across the Border there are many vacancies in third level institutions. If our students could take up those vacancies it would be a great way of building up friendships. Any friendship built up at third level generates more goodwill than in any other sphere of life. Such a development should take place on a structured basis. There should be an allocation for Counties Cavan, Monaghan, Louth, Meath, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal and arrangements made to accommodate those students across the Border.
In the last week the British Prime Minister made a statement about safe havens. To me, a Member from a Border constituency, that statement sounded very hollow. It is my belief that from the day the troubles commenced Governments in the Republic adopted a responsible approach to security. The number of Army and Garda personnel drafted to Border areas is evidence of that. The Government had to meet the cost of their salaries and spend a huge amount of money constructing and improving Garda stations and Army barracks. A new Garda divisional headquarters was established in Monaghan town and the building is at least four times as large as would be required in normal times. The Government also constructed a new Army barracks there and in Cavan town a new army barracks will be opened next year. Cavan town is also a Garda divisional headquarters.
There has been a lot of criticism about the amount of money spent on Border security but we must remember that in the mid-seventies there were incursions into the State by bombers and that snatch squads were operating. The bombers set off explosions in Belturbet, Clones, Monaghan and Dublin. My maiden speech in Dáil Éireann in May 1973 dealt with the activities of snatch squads and I referred to the fact that such a group had crossed the Border within a short distance of where I live. At that time pressure was exerted on me, and other public representatives, to have an increased Army and Garda presence along the Border. That was the reason the strength of the Army and the Garda along the Border was increased and they will remain there for the protection of the local people.
For many years Monaghan County Council, in conjunction with Tyrone County Council, have been pressing for the replacement of Bailey bridge on the national primary route between Dublin and Derry. A dredging operation a few years ago damaged the foundations of the bridge and there was no option but to erect a new bridge at a cost of £250,000. Approach road alignment on both sides cost another £250,000. However, a short time after the new bridge was opened a bomb caused £84,000 worth of damage. It is sad that there is such irresponsibility. The damage to that bridge caused a great disruption to the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and this State and interfered with the passage of through traffic from Donegal. I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Collins, who took quick action to ensure that the necessary funds for the repair of that bridge were forthcoming. We are all anxious to keep all lines of communication between North and South open and many of us hold the view that roads should never have been cratered or lines of communication broken. At meetings of local committees I have always contended that all roads should be kept open. It cost £84,000 to repair the damage and it is a shame that the future safety of the bridge is in question.
The troubles have left scars along the Border areas and no place more so than Cavan and Monaghan. The towns of Belturbet and Clones have been devastated. Trade has dropped off and people do their shopping on the famous "Golden Mile". Mr. Ray MacSharry, the former Minister for Finance, introduced the 48 hour rule, and this stopped the coaches going to Lurgan and Newry, but the problem remains for those areas along the Border. The chambers of commerce and the public representatives have been disappointed by the extent of the assistance given to those areas. We have an urban renewal programme, and this would benefit those areas. The Minister for Foreign Affairs should examine ways and means of helping areas in these towns.
Over the past number of months I have received continuing reports of hold-ups and delays at Border checkpoints. This happens sometimes because new regiments coming into the North are not properly briefed. The majority of people coming across the Border are law abiding citizens, going to work or doing business. When people are delayed unnecessarily going to funerals or football matches this does nothing to foster goodwill. I appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to take up this matter with the appropriate authorities. Of course, we can appreciate the tension under which the security forces operate, but instead of making the job easier for themselves they are making it harder.
I would like to refer briefly to biomass production. The research into biomass production has been discontinued following the drop in oil prices, but one never knows when one needs an alternative source of energy. Fermanagh County Council carried out a survey in Counties Fermanagh, Tyrone, Monaghan and Leitrim on the feasibility of willow plantations. I wonder if this could be examined again as I think it has great possibilities for County Leitrim where the land is most suitable for biomass production.
The first thing that needs to be said about this debate is that the contributions from speakers — I read the speech which the Taoiseach delivered yesterday — have been marked with a degree of openness and willingness to look at the problems which Northern Ireland faces with some degree of realism. However, that is not to say I agree with everything that has been said or that attitudes have yet reached a point where they take on board the realities in Northern Ireland.
Last Saturday and Sunday I took the opportunity to spend some time in Belfast and to talk with members of The Workers' Party who live and work in Belfast and other parts of the North. These discussions brought home to me that the concerns of the average person living there differ little from those of people in Dublin, Cork, Galway, or any other town or village on this island. Their main concerns are jobs, wages, health, education and the environment, but obviously they are also concerned about the need for an end to fear from the death squads that roam the countryside in Northern Ireland. People in the Republic often forget that Northern Ireland is populated by real people, who have real fears, hopes and expectations, who are no different from ourselves. It is important that we bear this in mind when we try to tackle the political questions that Northern Ireland gives rise to.
It is now four years since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed — the latest attempt to produce a formula for political progress in Northern Ireland. However, we must ask ourselves what political progress has been made in that period. The Agreement has led to a certain complacency in the Republic that an acceptable solution has been found, that progress is being made and that all we have to do is sit back and keep quiet until the Unionists fall into our arms. As a result many people have unconsciously developed unrealistic expectations and interpretations of what we have achieved in the past four years. The reality is that very little progress has been made.
The problem of terrorism remains. There has been no effort to implement a system of devolved government. The Unionist parties, excluded from the discussions that led up to the Agreement, are still excluded from participation in an open process of discussion and dialogue. It is time we asked ourselves why we are at such an impasse. After 20 years of murder and bombing, which has achieved nothing but the deaths of 3,000 people who could still be working to build up their communities, we are still failing to achieve peace and progress in Northern Ireland. Is it simply that the Government in Westminister and most of the political parties in Northern Ireland and Leinster House have blinkered themselves to new thinking or a positive approach to the problems of Ireland and Northern Ireland?
We can see the effects of new thinking and action throughout the world. The current changes in Eastern Europe have been referred to many times and they offer new hope to the world that dialogue, negotiations and compromise are the basis for the way forward. The same can be said about the ongoing peace talks in Nicaragua. Only last week the leader of the victorious SWAPO party in Namibia Mr. Sam Nujoma, emphasised that he will work with people, regardless of colour, to build a democracy.
Where are the new politics of compromise and negotiation on these islands? It is sadly lacking in the approach of recent Irish Governments and the constitutional Nationalists generally. Let us consider the approach of Fianna Fáil. Their leader, the Taoiseach, has described Northern Ireland as a failed political entity, yet he still expects a serious response when he asks the Unionist parties to join him in talks without pre-conditions — come into my parlour said the spider to the fly. Does the Taoiseach not realise that implicit in the statement that Northern Ireland is a failed entity is a denial of the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland State, and that it is, therefore, impossible for Unionists to come and talk with him on that basis. There is an implicit precondition in his position. We must also consider the position of the SDLP leader, Mr. John Hume, and I will quote from an article which he wrote for The Irish Times on 14 August last:
We must make clear to the Unionist people that we have not the slightest interest in conquest or domination. To do that I would like to see the Irish Government invite the Unionists to a conference table to discuss how we share the island to our mutual satisfaction.
Perhaps if Mr. Hume or the Irish Government were to make some concessions on the operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which excluded the Unionist parties at every turn, and if either of them made serious moves towards the establishment of a devolved government in Northern Ireland, then the call for talks could be taken seriously. If the SDLP were prepared to talk to the Unionists on the basis of reaching an accommodation between the democratic parties within Northern Ireland and establishing devolved structures, there could be progress but that would involve a change from the current Government-SDLP and British strategy of forcing the Unionists to see reality — we have heard this phrase used in the Dáil today. the concept of working together to achieve progress is the type of new thinking of which neither Fianna Fáil nor the SDLP seem capable.
In his speech yesterday the Taoiseach referred on numerous occasions to new thinking on the part of the Unionists but demonstrated no evidence that he or his party were doing any new thinking. In his speech he spoke of an all-island state, a sovereign independent Irish State, to accommodate all traditions. He also spoke about the need not to undermine our overall aim and objective. Government policy is in keeping with our ultimate objective of unity. The Taoiseach gave no indication that there has been any rethinking on the way Unionists perceive what our, the Taoiseach's or the SDLP's objectives are.
When we speak about our aims and objectives we are speaking about a specific project. We are not talking about an aspiration to revive the Irish language, for a united Ireland or to live until we are one hundred years old. We work with an aim or objective in mind. If our objective is a united Ireland, asking people to come and talk to us when we can talk about the way in which they can fit in in a united Ireland is not the way forward or does not amount to new thinking. It amounts to locking ourselves into old thinking while expecting others to adapt some new thinking and come to meet us.
It is important that we take a look at this new rethinking. It is a phrase which is going to be used a lot in the foreseeable future, in view of the developments in Eastern Europe. What is it? What is its nature and essence? What is the essence of what is happening in socialist countries? What is it that gives the words and actions of Mr. Gorbachev such power to literally change the political and economic face of our continent and the capacity to make what was regarded as impossible yesterday's achievements? For me, it is his ability to cast aside preconceived ideas and to pinpoint the real feelings of people, to respond to them, to act out of character and take unexpected steps.
I think Mr. Gorbachev has taken to heart what John F. Kennedy said, I think, here but perhaps it was in his presidential address at his inauguration. When people explained to him why certain things could not be done, he would reply "why not?" Mr. Gorbachev has taken that approach in relation to politics and put it into effect.
New thinking does not demand that others change to meet our position. Instead we should seek to change ourselves and make our actions match our high-flying rhetoric about democracy, freedom and human rights. What does it imply for us in relation to Northern Ireland and our economic and social life? What are we prepared to do to adopt this new thinking and what price are we prepared to pay? Rather than adopt new thinking, are we prepared to hold on to our old comfortable certainties and continue to mouth statements that our ultimate objective is unity? Are we prepared to stand aside and cling to our certainties and watch Northern Ireland slowly, bloodily, and sordidly sink into a political and economic slum?
I have not heard any references to Articles 2 and 3 — perhaps there were yesterday — which lay claim on Northern Ireland. I would not be the first to argue that Articles 2 and 3 should be re-examined. I am not going to argue specifically for a campaign to change Articles 2 and 3 but what I am going to argue about is the need to look at the politics and political culture of the Republic which give sustenance to Articles 2 and 3. What do they imply about the way we think? What we are saying is that in some way what was started on this island nearly 75 years ago, in 1916, has not been completed and that we want to extend the sovereignty and independence of this State — these terms were used although not in the same way — to cover Northern Ireland.
Have we yet sat down to ask ourselves what is the material basis for such an approach to the politics of this island or Europe? Is it any longer valid or a justification for promoting or maintaining a sense of grievance? Surely we must recognise that the economic and social conditions which exist today on this island, in Britain and in Europe are not the same as those which existed in 1916, the twenties or thirties. In any event, it is not good enough to keep referring to the Forum report of some years ago and saying this was the way in which the Nationalists on this island addressed the question of a united Ireland.
The Forum did not address the fundamental question of why we are demanding a united Ireland which gives sustenance to people like the Provos to murder, maim, and destroy, not just people on this island but also in Britain and in Germany or in whatever country they nominate a target.
It is time that we questioned the Nationalist position, thereby clearing the ground and our minds for the compromises which are necessary if people are to live and work in peace with our neighbour on this island. Whatever we may say or do the most potent weapon the Provos have, apart from their capacity to murder and destroy, is their appeal to Nationalist myths and culture which states: "We are only doing what was done in 1916, 1919 or 1921" and which causes so much confusion among ordinary decent people who abhor what the Provisionals are doing. I believe we would get a ready response from most people in the Republic to such new thinking. By embarking on such a reappraisal of ourselves and our inherited attitudes we would effectively deprive the Provo piranhas of the water they swim and survive in.
The inertia of old ways and ideas is also to be found in Unionism. Many of them have taken refuge in the promotion of closer integration with Britain, though there have been notable exceptions to this. The emergence of the model conservatives and the decline in the vote of the DUP, who have favoured their own form of devolution, signify an unfortunate withdrawal from the political battle to achieve democratic structures in Northern Ireland. I would emphasise that it is that direction to which Unionism will gravitate if the current strategy of forcing them to face reality is pursued. They will not fall into the arms of the people or Government of the Republic; instead they will be driven inexorably towards greater and closer integration with Britain as their perceived safe place to hide.
It is true that their treatment in the negotiations on and implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was a disgrace. The refusal of the current leaders of Unionism to come out of the political sulk in which they have engaged since 1975 has won them no friends. It is time they asserted a positive approach to political life in Northern Ireland. Why not today issue a direct invitation to all the democratic parties in Northern Ireland, without preconditions, for talks in Northern Ireland about Northern Ireland? Why not take us all at our face value and take a significant initiative? Such a generous move could break the current logjam. At the very least it would expose those who are simply posturing and those who have hidden agendas and can start a new process of reappraisal for all of us. Such a fresh approach from Unionism would be a significant and mould breaking concession which could lead to the ending of the entrenched positions which have developed from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It would certainly demand a response from us in the Republic and a commitment to the development of a democratic culture in Northern Ireland, and would help to build a conscious effort to marginalise the philosophy of terrorism.
I am glad that recently there has been an increasing acceptance by parties in the Dáil of the need for devolved Government, but this must be built on and the conditions created so that it becomes an irrestible demand and until the one notable and major exception, Fianna Fáil, are also committed to its introduction. In relation to devolution the Taoiseach in his speech yesterday referred to devolution as implying that there are some people who are arguing that the only way forward is through devolution. I do not see it in that light. The establishment of devolved structures would very likely be a good way down the road, but by committing ourselves to devolution and to giving the people of Northern Ireland a role in governing themselves we would effectively give them hope for their future. By standing back from devolution we are effectively mocking their right to have some role in their future, we are giving them up into the hands of the paramilitaries on either side and saying that only the British or the Irish Governments have a right to decide on their future.
I do not see devolution as part of progress towards some other objective. The implied objective in the Taoiseach's speech is obviously unity. I see devolution as part of a process of democratising Northern Ireland but in so far as democracy is a developing process anyhow, I will not gainsay what may be the ultimate conclusion of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to their future. To see devolution being proposed simply as a way of progressing towards some other objective is to misunderstand what devolution is about. I argue that devolution, that is a democratic system of government in Northern Ireland which is representative of the community there, is necessary in order to help to create the democratic culture I spoke about. It has to be a part of that process. We have to stop saying, for instance, as part of developing this democratic culture, that terrorism cannot be defeated. The British Government and spokesmen for the British Government are notorious for saying that they cannot defeat the Provisional IRA. We have to stop talking about failed entities, which implies that the Northern Ireland State is illegitimate. We have to take whatever actions are necessary so that it is possible for devolved institutions to be established and to survive. We have to look at article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and make it more transparently supportive of the fact that the Northern Ireland State will remain part and parcel of the UK for as long as the people of Northern Ireland want it to remain so. We have to recognise clearly and unambiguously the legitimacy of the current status of Northern Ireland. If article 1 was looked at as more clearly recognising the status of Northern Ireland. there could be a major shift in the position of the representatives of the Unionist people in Northern Ireland.
There are other points that I do not propose to repeat in relation to our attitude in the South, but I am glad that a positive approach to tackling the evil of terrorism has begun to assert itself in the Republic. The broad range of support for the recent peace train from the political, trade union, cultural and religious areas and the growing support for the ICTU campaign on the rail line presents a strong message that the people of Ireland reject murder and mayhem as a means of solving our problems.
I will divert here in relation to the peace train and the campaign which the Provos have generated in response to the peace train, this so-called North Monaghan-South Tyrone community association, who are claiming that they want to have the by-roads and unapproved roads reopened. Other speakers have already referred to the Aughnacloy Bridge which the Provisionals are intent on destroying, which is in direct conflict with their aims in relation to the by-roads. It is interesting to note that the person, Mr. McKenna, who wrote to me inviting me to participate in what he called the peace bus to have these roads reopened, was a polling agent for a Provisional Sinn Féin candidate in Dungannon in the last elections. Yet they are claiming not to be influenced in any way by the Provisionsals.
The peace train initiative with which I was very happy to be involved, which mobilised a wide spectrum of the community both North and South and not just in the Republic, actually created a real unity of purpose between people to work towards peace. That was a very significant development which I hope will be built on. I hope that other such initiatives will take place and will succeed eventually in marginalising the Provisional IRA and their fellow travellers.
We must now take this positive attitude a step further. No one political party will marginalise terrorism by itself. It is up to each of us in this House, in our parties, to develop and promote means of strengthening the democratic culture. The demands for peace and democracy are the primary demands of the people of this island. The British Government must also stand indicted on their failure to take political initiatives with regard to the establishment of structures which would remove the political vacuum in Northern Ireland. Instead, they have emphasised a simplistic reliance on security measures, as the only means of tackling the problem. Security measures are essential but progress in Northern Ireland will involve an inter-relationship between political and security objectives.
The recent statements by the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Peter Brooke in which he seemed to hold out the prospect of future talks with Provisional Sinn Féin, were dangerously ambiguous in a number of respects. The position of The Workers' Party is that Sinn Féin should only secure a place in the normal democratic process when the Provisional IRA have called off their murderous campaign and have clearly and unequivocally rejected terrorism. This is not the same as saying that a ceasefire will secure a place for them at the negotiating table. All democrats should support that position.
The significance of Mr. Brooke's comments which were a partial reiteration of the traditional British position lies not so much in what he said but in the way it will be interpreted by the Provisional IRA. The grave danger that the Provisionals see his comments as an indication that they are making progress and that democratic resistence to terrorism is weakening, and that what is required in securing a place for themselves at the negotiating table is an intensification of their murder campaign prior to a temporary ceasefire has unfortunately manifested itself, as the recent upsurge in their activity has shown. The spate of recent attacks shows that those who believe that the Provos will voluntarily give up their murderous campaign are very naive indeed. The hope that some British and Irish politicians are placing on the possibility of a split in the Provisionals is also misplaced. There are no hawks or doves in the Provisionals, only those who are prepared to engage in or support a ruthless campaign of terror. In addition, some of the most prominent "political" spokesmen for the Provisionals are also the most vociferous supporters of an intensification of the so-called armed struggle. As we enter the last decade of this century, there is a need for both the Irish and British Governments to display restraint and flexibility to overcome the present impasse.
It seems to be all too easy for an incident in the security area to upset efforts to secure political progress. The example of the leaking of security documents earlier this year should be borne in mind. On the one hand the British Government were slow to accept that the leaks represented matters of very serious concern and on the other, the Irish Government did not appear to accept the progress made in recent years in securing community support and acceptability for the security forces, and especially for the RUC.
In addition, the frequency of holding meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference and even the actual agenda seems to have been determined by such outside factors showing to an appreciable extent that the conference is simply reacting to issues rather than laying down terms for long-term progress and political development. Such a situation can only benefit the terrorists. It confirms that no new political ideas are on the table and that no new initiatives can be agreed between the two Governments.
One of the saddest aspects of life in Northern Ireland is the continued existence of segregated education where children from the earliest school going age have their differences inculcated and confirmed so that religion determines who their friends and associates will be for most of their young lives. I spoke to a young person in my home last night, a young person from a rural part of Northern Ireland who is now living in the Republic. She pointed out to me that when she was young she knew, almost by instinct, because of received ideas and so forth, which people not to talk to, what shops not to go into and what dances not to go to. That is the kind of spirit in which so many of our people in Northern Ireland are still raised. One of the most ugly manifestations of the sort of sectarianism which results from segregated education are the Berlin type walls, ironically called peace walls, which divide many Catholic and Protestant areas of Belfast because of the sectarian murder campaigns of the Provisional IRA and the UVF.
I must again emphasise the firm belief of The Workers' Party that making urgent moves to bring about integrated education structures in Northern Ireland are vital if the scourge of sectarianism is not to be further entrenched in yet another generation of Northern Ireland schoolchildren. Implementing such a policy will not be easy. The physical segregation of people into Catholic and Protestant geographical areas is certainly an obstacle. Nevertheless, there are large sections of the population which have not been driven into ghettoes based on religion, where a policy of integrated education could help ensure that schoolchildren are not inculcated with the apartheid mentality.
To bring progress in this regard I would recommend that a standing advisory committee be established in Northern Ireland to advance this idea. While progress towards fully integrated education may take time, I see no excuse whatever for the continuation of segregation of teacher education in Northern Ireland. This is the only area of third level education where students are separated on religious grounds. Steps should be taken immediately to bring about an appropriate merging of St. Mary's and Stranmillis teacher education colleges.
In the process of bringing new thinking to our approach to problems in Northern Ireland, the European dimension will play an ever more important part. In many respects the advent of a Single Market and a single cohesive Community serves to further undermine the old arguments about the Border and challenges those espousing both Nationalist and Unionist ideologies to reassess what they mean in real terms.
It is now five years since the report commissioned by the European Parliament, the Haagerup report, was published. I think it would be generally agreed that the efforts to follow up on many of the suggestions and proposals in that report have been less than might have been expected. The report comments on page 74 that the process of political reform should be "accompanied by substantial internal political reforms substituting the former one party rule and the present direct rule with a system of participation in Government by both communities. This in turn should lead to some form of devolution."
The British Government have treated Northern Ireland despicably when it comes to dealing with the EC for developing funding. Their application to the Structural Fund for projects in Northern Ireland is to a very large extent simply a shopping list of projects which have long been in the pipeline. As such they are adopting an approach little different from that of the Government here, who have attempted to use the Structural Funds as a substitute for Government spending. To give just one example from Northern Ireland, the cross-Border rail link now going ahead has been planned for the past ten years; it is not a new project at all. One way of improving the access to claims for EC funding by institutions and groups in Northern Ireland would be the establishment of a Northern Ireland Office in Brussels which would ensure that the real requirements of the area in European funding terms could be addressed.
There is also a need, in the absence of devolved government to look at the idea of establishing a grant committee at Westminster, similar to that operating for Scotland, which could deal in specific terms with the needs of Northern Ireland and ensure that the area's many social and economic problems receive adequate attention. The present Westminster procedure of orders in council for dealing with many Northern matters is totally inadequate and, indeed, undemocratic.
To conclude, all of the many problems which Northern Ireland faces could best be dealt with if Northern Ireland political representatives were given scope to tackle them in Northern Ireland political structures. Industrial policy, education and the environment are among the areas where we could hope to see real progress through the efforts of a devolved government with indepth local knowledge.
Are we prepared to give new thinking a chance, or are we once again to be confronted in the nineties with the traditional catchcries and postures which are clearly offering no solution or hope to the 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland or, indeed, to the 3.5 million people in the Republic?
I wish to express my disappointment with the attempt of the Leader of the main Opposition Party to stifle this very significant debate. The speakers today have been very constructive.
Deputy Dukes wished to push the Dáil to agree or disagree with him on one dimension of Anglo-Irish relations, that is, devolution. I am pleased that he did not have his way as the debate has been one of the most wide ranging, significant and constructive for many years. Politicians on all sides have understood and accepted how critical are the times we now live in on this small but troubled island. I have to warmly acknowledge the constructive role adopted by Deputy Spring, the Leader of the Labour Party, in supporting a broad, comprehensive discussion free from any restrictions or distractions.
I can only hope that much good will come from this debate. I have no doubt that our neighbours across the Border are listening carefully to what we have to say. The debate has shown that all parties have sharpened and refocused their thinking on the various elements of this complex issue. Yesterday Deputy Spring explained the difference between the ideal and the objective. He said that all political objectives in a democracy are ultimately steps on the pathway to an ideal. The ideal we seek is a free, independent, democratic Ireland, united in a common purpose, amongst the diverse groups that make up its population. The ideal may not be achieved in the near future. We regret that but we continue to work towards it.
In the meantime, we must seek to alleviate the suffering of the people in Northern Ireland. Unionists and Nationalists alike continue to live under threat of death, injury, fear and prejudice. We may believe we know the best way forward whether it be by way of devolution, direct rule or something in between but all these options have already been tried, indeed imposed, on the people of Northern Ireland in many different shapes and forms, and all of them have proved inadequate. It is not these structures that are the cause of the problems. It is surely the attitudes and differences of centuries that are at the root of the problem, and the major factor compounding this historical division is the presence of an outside agency in the affairs of Ireland. In view of this analysis of the situation it must be utterly futile to seek a solution, even on an interim basis, which ignores the perceived attitudes and the British factor and concentrates exclusively on the possibility of establishing a devolved government. Indeed, a devolved government or power sharing administration may well be necessary at some stage but it can have no hope of success until a major movement has been achieved in calming the bitter passions which have been fed so assiduously by the bigots and gangsters who maim with bombs and words on both sides of the divide.
The Fine Gael Leader in asking us to focus on the question of devolution is adopting a very narrow perspective. The Taoiseach has, quite correctly, identified again the need to establish a broad framework that will accommodate the crucial North-South and East-West relationship. His analysis is correct, based on years of debate and discusson. I will refer later to it, particularly in the light of the European dimension. The stressing by the Taoiseach of the broader framework is crucial to this debate.
If this debate is to do one thing I hope and pray it will awaken political leadership of all persuasions North and South to address the one great challenge of our time; how can we, North and South come together and agree on how we should share the island? I am convinced as political barriers fall all over the world that it is not beyond our capacity to break down our own traditional barriers on the island and decide to talk about how we want to live together in peace without British interference. The Taoiseach yesterday in another significant and positive speech extended the warm hand of friendship to the Unionists. If the present leadership will not respond — I hope they will — there has to be a young leadership of good faith and good conscience among the Unionist people of Northern Ireland who, yielding nothing of their ancient heritage and values, still recognise present realities, who deplore the state of affairs in their province which is so greatly of their own making and who have the courage and generosity to work with their old enemies to build new structures and relationships. I appeal to those good people of the present age, people whose fathers and mothers may well be past changing, to assert themselves, to join in the spirit of hope and freedom that is springing up around them. The bitter hatreds of war-torn Europe are being laid aside. It is not an easy process. Great ideals once unquestionable are being questioned. History is being stood on its head. In our own country it is no longer acceptable to say, "Not an inch". Accept the Taoiseach's genuine offer of co-operation and you are on your way to your rightful inheritance in a free, pluralist and prosperous Ireland.
Dr. Paisley's initial response has been negative. However, I am convinced Dr. Paisley, Mr. Molyneaux and the other Unionist leaders would lose nothing if they collectively responded to the Taoiseach's overtures. They might even gain a little peace and hope for those they profess to serve and they would not lose face. The world knows them for their staunch Unionist principles. They would not risk that reputation but they might prove they have strong hearts as well as unyielding backbone. There are no traps, no pre-conditions. It is not a question of us taking over them or them taking over us. As for our part in Dáil Éireann, we must ensure the Government are in no doubt that we support their efforts. They must also feel secure enough to take risks, to extend further the hand of friendship even if it leads into previously uncharted territory. The charted territory over which we have travelled up to now has yielded nothing except death and sorrow, so courage is called for. We must not be afraid on either side to push forward. The Anglo-Irish Conference is obviously a useful mechanism of communication and is dealing with many serious issues such as the recent evidence of collusion between members of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries. The conference is in a sense dealing with the symptoms of the troubles on this island.
Quite rightly, the Government since 1987 have sought to direct the attention of the conference to economic issues and the question of fair employment. We must not rely too heavily on the agreement, and that is why the North-South and East-West relationship referred to by the Taoiseach yesterday must be fostered and developed. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can be a landmark on the road to all-Ireland reconciliation, but the danger I see is that if we all stand by regarding it as the panacea of our problems it will not be the hallmark of our aspiration but the graveyard of our hope. I appeal to the Opposition to put party politics aside and instead of politicising North-South relationships in this Chamber——
You did not think of that in 1984.
——to work on an all-party basis for North-South reconciliation throughout the island. The operation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement at Government level does not and must not absolve Irish citizens from seeking better relations between both parts of the island. It does not absolve us Deputies from advancing that cause. How many of us have taken any initiatives to increase our knowledge and understanding of attitudes north of the Border? How many of us travel north of the Border? Occasionally I do but not as much as I should. These questions must not stop here. The same questions can be put to all voluntary and sporting organisations and similar bodies who in a normal society would transcend a border of the type we face.
The Taoiseach has referred to the East-West dimension. The British-Irish parliamentary body provides the necessary forum to ensure a better understanding between backbench politicians in our two countries. There are many British politicians with a deep knowledge and interest in Irish politics who have a genuine interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. To bring together politicians of different persuasions on both these islands who will undoubtedly have at times conflicting views cannot but be productive. The establishment of this interparliamentary body is to be welcomed warmly.
The most outstanding issue in our relations with the British Government at present is the unresolved case of the Birmingham Six. The call for their immediate release is supported within and without this country. Only yesterday the European Parliament voted three to one to review that case. Even though the Home Secretary, David Waddington, said last night he would not re-open the case and would not refer it to the Court of Appeal, he said the terms of the inquiry being carried out into the Guildford Four case by Sir John May would be very wide ranging and that he would be in a position to consider and make a recommendation on new appeals machinery. I understand the case of the Birmingham Six can be raised at this inquiry. I agree with the shadow Home Secretary, Roy Hattersley, who said last night in the House of Commons that a new review body is required to deal with appeals. He suggested that non-judicial assessors be included in any such new body rather than have it confined to members of the Judiciary. Having had the sad experience of observing the Birmingham Six appeal at the Old Bailey over a two day period, I have to support strongly the viewpoint expressed by Roy Hattersley. The judicial presence, the whole structure of the appeal had its own overpowering atmosphere. The tensions showed on the faces of the six men who sat through this cumbersome process with great dignity. The families of the six men, too, felt very frustrated and helpless under the weight of the appeals procedure. This archaic system must be changed. However, having had some involvement with this case, I believe these six men cannot afford to wait for the Guildford Four inquiry that might bring about these new recommendations on a new appeal machinery. That could take up to one or two years. I ask the Home Secretary to find some means to free these men. The judicial process is lengthy and tedious. These men have spent almost 16 years innocently behind bars. I ask the British Government to respond now as they did, to their credit, in the case of the Guildford Four and free these men. It would greatly improve relations between our two islands.
The European dimension has been referred to and, in that context the effect on Ireland, North and South, of the new Europe that will emerge from the internal market and the changes in Eastern Europe. The falling of the economic barriers will have profound repercussions on our economies. Let us look positively on these new opportunities. We will have to look at the means of co-operation in agriculture, energy, investment, transport and tourism. I have always felt it would be of considerable benefit if we could sell the island of Ireland abroad as a major tourist attraction. As I have said in the past, if we could have Kerry and Antrim on the same promotion literature it would be a very positive development.
That brings me to the question of violence. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Brooke, was clear in saying, as has been referred to by others, including Deputy De Rossa, that if IRA violence were to cease dialogue could be opened with Sinn Féin. That is a correct analysis of the present situation. If violence stopped a new political climate would exist on this island. I am convinced that we have the capacity as a people to sit down and chart a new course for ourselves in this country. Deputy Currie said it was a high price to pay to have to talk to Sinn Féin. He was right to participate in these talks at the time. The SDLP aim was to bring about peace and, as I said earlier, there will always be risks in political initiatives and this was no exception.
I am very pleased to have been involved in this debate. There has been a high degree of consensus in this Chamber over the last two days. The Taoiseach has spelt out clearly where we proceed from here through a broader framework. This is required to bring about lasting peace and stability on this island. His initiative in preparing a paper on how we on this island, North and South, might combine to participate as an entity in the Single European Market is to be warmly welcomed.
I welcome the constructive debate and I hope that we, as an island, will have much to gain from our deliberations.
Deputy Kitt in commencing his contribution cast some doubts, as has been done by Members of the Government party throughout the debate, on the bona fides of Fine Gael and our approach to this debate. I should like to reassert that the Fine Gael purpose in proposing to direct this debate into a motion on devolution is based on our very serious concern that there has been a slowing down in progress in the area of Anglo-Irish development, particularly on the political front. We feel the need for a new initiative from the two Governments in relation to Northern Ireland and, we repeat our view, that nothing that has happened in the last 48 hours has led us to believe that there will be any serious improvement in the time and in the priority which the Government will give to this issue over and above what was given in the last few years when the Fianna Fáil Party were in a minority Government and since the formation of the new Coalition Government.
We believe the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been bogged down largely on security issues and that there has been no progress on the broader poltical structural front. Many of the contributions to the debate — I have not heard it all but I have heard about two-thirds of it and I have read summaries of other people's contributions or I have seen their speeches — have strayed away from that central issue. Deputy Currie, with his own particular experience, was able to direct our minds a little more concretely in that direction. I would like to make sure that my contribution concentrates on what we in Fine Gael see as a priority movement on the political structures.
The Taoiseach, in his contribution yesterday, gave many reasons why he did not accept our approach. The net substance of his contribution was that he did not see any room for political progress other than some improved arrangement in relation to economic matters. That has been said consistently throughout the debate; nothing has led me to feel that the Government share our sense of urgency.
Four years have now passed since the signing of the Agreement and there has been no further political moves. The Government's activities have been confined to working the agreement and even that only at a lethargic pace. The only occasion on which there has been a series of meetings is when there has been a political crisis as occurred recently. The Taoiseach clearly said yesterday that he envisages no new political initiative. This is tacit acceptance of the status quo and I am very concerned about that. When there is political stagnation in Northern Ireland the vacuum is inevitably filled either by the increasing drift towards direct government or the drift towards violence. Neither of those directions is in our interest. There is an obligation on politicians on both sides of this House, on both sides of the water and on both sides of this island, to keep the sense of urgency which Deputy Currie asked for in his closing remarks.
Fine Gael are asking for a new initiative. Deputy Garret FitzGerald stated at column 2573 of the Official Report of 19 November 1985, after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that its preparation involved a series of negotiations over a period of 18 months involving two Summits between the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, four informal meetings between those two personages in the fringe of various European meetings, three joint meetings at the level of Tánaiste, ten meetings at ministerial level and 35 meetings of the negotiating group and many other informal meetings.
When that is contrasted with the level of activity on the Anglo-Irish front it is clear that there is no urgency and that the kind of attention which is required to bring about any change is not being given to the problem at present. We are looking for an initiative which will seek to take the pace of progress on to a new level that will demand and be given that kind of commitment.
I would remind Members that the Anglo-Irish Agreement brought great hope and confidence to the people of this island. It brought great hope and confidence to the Nationalist community not in a sense of triumph but in a quest for peace. What has happened since is that the structure created then which was never envisaged to be an end in itself seems to have become an end in itself. The primary responsibility must rest with the Irish Government rather than with the British Government because the resolution of this problem is of even greater concern to us than it is to the British Government. We are concerned that there has been stagnation.
Much has been said here about the Eastern European situation. The Taoiseach made comparisons with the Eastern European situation which went down extremely well in some journalistic circles. I would consider the comparisons to be about as nebulous as the claims Mrs. Thatcher made earlier this year when she suggested that countries of Eastern Europe were all attracted by the beacon of light of democracy from her kingdom and that this was what had inspired the breaking down of barriers and the great changes there. I remember finding the most extraordinary statement that that lady had gone a good deal over the top in recent times, and there has been further evidence of that.
The Taoiseach's offer to Northern Unionists has nothing in common with Mr. Gorbachev's transformation of European and world politics because it offers the Unionists the opportunity to do all the giving. What started the initiative? What transformed European politics? What transformed world politics about Mr. Gorbachev's action was not words of invitation or the wishes we have heard expressed here or the calls on people to open their hearts and minds but his unilateral ceding of power and ceding his sovereignty to the countries of Eastern Europe on the one hand and in the case of world politics his unilateral decision to reduce armaments. The very issue of division, the issue of arms control became the process which was to unite and transform world politics and lead to a response. That is the kind of initiative we should have. We should show the same courage and open the doors as Mr. Gorbachev did. That is all that was required.
I am convinced that it is that kind of courage and initiative that is needed to open the doors in this country. We should not allow, as the Taoiseach did yesterday, Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Paisley, to set the pace of the debate. The say "no" to devolution although I heard Mr. Paisley refer to it this morning as something about which they might talk to us. The Taoiseach argued that they will not have devolution; therefore we cannot talk about devolution. That is like allowing the Erick Honeckers of Eastern Europe to set the tone of the debate in the politics of that region. Mr. Gorbachev allowed the cessation of various states. In Northern Ireland, the vast majority of people want a way that will allow them to run their own affairs and to develop a proper relationship with this part of the island while maintaining the relationship with our neighbouring island. That will require a package framed by the British and Irish Governments which will involve ceding sovereignty from both of those countries, an offer which nobody in Northern Ireland can refuse.
Apart from Deputy Currie, nobody has looked at what the package might contain. In Eastern Europe, there were not any magic new issues, the issues which once divided people then united them. In world politics arms control, which had been a divisive issue, eventually united people. Therefore, it will require, something more than an invitation to Unionists to make a major move. How much time have I left?
The Deputy has about nine minutes left.
I will share my time with Deputy McGahon.
Acting Chairman
Is it agreed that Deputy Flaherty will share her time with Deputy McGahon?
It seems a pity to miss any of Deputy Flaherty's gems but we agree.
Fine Gael and The Workers' Party share the fundamental view that a devolution package is needed. Fine Gael feel that such a need is urgent, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that the two sides could work on that package. The pace of that work should compare with the pace of activity evident when there was a serious commitment on this part of the island before the signing of the agreement.
Many of the contributions have concentrated on economic issues. While these issues are valid and useful we can debate them at any time. Talking about them misses the whole point, purpose and function of this debate which is to look for political initiatives and a method of moving forward politically. Social, economic and cultural exchanges can take place at all times and we hope that this will be done. There is less difficulty in those areas, the impasse is in non-political progress.
After the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Deputy Garret FitzGerald said in this House:
The responsibilities of the Conference will extent to a whole range of matters .... Both Governments support the policy of devolution on certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on a basis which would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community on a basis of power sharing of participation at Executive level. To the extent that devolution on this basis proves practicable, the Conference will not have to concern itself with these matters but, should it prove impossible to achieve devolution on a basis which secures widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland, or, if devolution once achieved is not sustained, the Conference will once again become a framework within which the Irish Government may, where the interests of the minority community are significantly or especially affected, put forward views on proposals for major legislation and on major policy issues which are within the purview of Northern Ireland's department and which remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
This vision of how Anglo-Irish relations would proceed in the period following the agreement clearly anticipated a great deal more progress than has been made and provides a model on which we would structure progress. The model includes the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the intergovernmental arrangements envisaged to maintain the links between the two sovereign Governments and issues not covered by devolution could continue to be dealt with.
Fine Gael feel that the level of progress has been very slow. Indeed, when Deputy Dukes announced his membership of the parliamentary tier he was subjected to a slap on the wrist for being pre-emptive. However, we are in a hurry in regard to Northern Ireland and we have been since 1979. From that time up to 1985 we have been producing documents on a yearly basis setting out our views in this area. I am a little unhappy at the close of this debate and I do not anticipate that the final contribution will show that there is a prospect of the Government taking the Anglo-Irish situation as seriously as this side of the House would like in terms of time and attention. I hope I am wrong.
Deputy Tom Kitt congratulated the House for having a broad debate on the subject which covered biomass production and so on. However, we lost an opportunity to focus on the kind of political structures we could put in place and what kind of initiatives could be taken which would give substance to our dreams. This will require courage and imagination and I hope my contribution has not just entertained Deputy Roche but that it has given him food for thought. This has been the case in all the contributions from this side of the House.
The prime mover of this debate, Deputy Dukes, reminded me of a small boy who took his £10 — his life's savings — and went down to Moore Street on the eve of Hallowe'en. He decided to invest all his money on one bright firework that would light up the sky, outdoing all the other little boys on the block, proving finally that he was the champion, the bright light, the best lad on the street. When the big night came our proud young hero carried his super whiz banger onto the green with a smug and confident grin. He had already assured his friends — because at that time he still had a few — that tonight would be the night and that he would be the hero. After the alarms had been sounded our bright hero stepped on to the green, lit a match and put it to his monster firework. There was a hushed air of expectancy in the watching crowd but the super whiz banger went fizz, phut, phut. It lay on one side and gave a final gasp. It was a dud, like Deputy Dukes.
Fine Gael pushed for this debate. They promised great things, a major breakthrough, a major new initiative, a departure. They promised but they did not deliver. They produced a dud. The bi-partisan approach to Northern Ireland issues was put at peril in this debate by an ill-prepared leader of the Opposition. Following a typically untruthful, distorted, revisionist view of Anglo-Irish relations over the past five years. Deputy Dukes revealed one thing more clearly yesterday than ever before, the plain truth that he is now and always has been clueless on the issue of Northern Ireland.
It is often said that during the life of the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Deputy Dukes was one of the Ministers who found the Northern Ireland issue to be tiresome, a matter about which he was not really interested. Until yesterday this was merely speculation; it was rumour, innuendo hinted at by those in his party who have little time for Deputy Dukes. Until yesterday there was no proofs in the matter. One could speculate but one could not be sure. After the pathetic performance yesterday by Deputy Dukes there can no longer be any doubt in this matter. The crude over-simplification on which his thesis was based and the fundamental misreading of the position in Northern Ireland are profoundly disturbing. It proves not only that Deputy Dukes is unfit ever to lead the Irish people but must surely provoke profound questions on the benches opposite as to his capacity to lead anything.
It is worth reminding ourselves that Deputy Dukes high profiled this debate. He chose the ground and sought to set the agenda. He had three weeks to prepare what even he must have realised was to be a critical speech, yet he failed to deliver. He did more than simply fail to deliver. As today's edition of the Irish Independent states, he struck a blow at 12 years of a bi-partisan approach in this House on the Northern Ireland issue. He has consigned his party to the sidelines with only the sad figures of Deputy Mac Giolla and of the returnee from Brussels for company today. As the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party said yesterday, Deputy Dukes chose to play party political football with the most vital issue that faces this nation. As a result he has finally sent himself and his party to the sideline.
The whole débacle for Fine Gael was well summarised in today's Irish Press by their political correspondent who stated:
Fine Gael's attempt at yesterday's Dáil debate on the North to embarrass the Government on devolution and to drive a wedge between the Coalition partners was seen to have failed last night.
How right she was.
I turn from the general to some specific points arising from yesterday's debate. Central to the whole of what Deputy Dukes said and to the new Fine Gael policy on Northern Ireland is devolution. It is their policy.
What is your party's policy?
Deputy Dukes was very helpful in this matter. He identified the three key elements on which the process of devolution depends. He said there should be full participation by both communities. None of us disagrees on that. He went on to say there should be participation and sharing in the process of Government. In less bureaucratic terms, there should be power sharing. Finally he said there must be cross-community support. Does Deputy McGahon or any Member of this House believe that those three vital prerequisities exist in Northern Ireland? It would be fundamentally mistruthful and a grotesque distortion of the truth to suggest that they do. They do not. Deputy McGahon knows that. Deputy Dukes and his party labour under the pathetic and radically mistaken belief that statements and re-statements of the obvious can pass for policy on Northern Ireland. If there was cross-community support for a power sharing Government in Northern Ireland, a willingness to share power and full participation in the process of Government by all the communities in Northern Ireland, we would have no problem. The reason we have a problem is that those three prerequisities manifestly do not exist. The elements are signally lacking.
There remains at best a suspicion and more commonly a firm belief in Nationalist circles that they are excluded from the process of Government. The drum-beating rhetoric on the opposite side in Northern Ireland shows that there is a belief that this is so and should remain so — that the Nationalists should never get their hands on the seat of power. There is no evidence to support Deputy Dukes in his vain thesis that any major group or even any serious individual on the Unionist side is interested in the sharing of power in the sense he outlined. There is no evidence of cross-community support for the ideas he proposed. Until the evils of employment discrimination, partisan security arrangements and the evils of a mistrusted judicial system are addressed in Northern Ireland, there is no possibility of the policy proposed by Deputy Dukes ever meeting any chance of success. Not only do the prerequisites of devolution not exist but there is no evidence of any pressure in Northern Ireland for the type of devolution espoused by Deputy Dukes.
In the Taoiseach's speech yesterday a series of challenges were put to the Leader of the Opposition. Deputy Dukes was asked to produce some evidence but other than the classical distortions he typically comes up with he could not produce evidence of any enthusiasm on the part of any main political grouping in the North of Ireland for the policy he espoused.
Another challenge placed before Deputy Dukes which he and his party failed to deal with related to why he has become so "hung up" on devolution. We heard the statistics about the negotiations for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. So what? If something is being negotiated, obviously people meet. What counts is what one does with what has been negotiated. That is where Fine Gael have failed. Deputy Dukes was asked why, if he now thinks that Fine Gael have found the panacea, they were so deficient on the issue of devolution between 1983-87 or even in the 18 months they were in office after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One searches long and hard while they were in Government for any type of enthusiasm for this policy. Deputy Dukes failed to provide a convincing response on this point. His failure adds inevitable fuel to the suspicion that Fine Gael's only real interest in the topic is to use it as a crude and unsuccessful political bludgeon.
Time will only allow me to touch briefly on some other points arising from his speech. There was the tiresome repetition of the claim that Fianna Fáil in Government have not worked the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We heard it again from Deputy Flaherty. I have dealt with this jaded piece of Fine Gael revisionism on several occasions. There were more meetings during the first 18 months of Fianna Fáil's term of office than in the preceding months when Fine Gael were in power and could have operated the agreement. In spite of two elections here and one in the United Kingdom, the pace of meetings was greater under Fianna Fáil than in the previous period. Of more importance than the repetition of jaded untruth was the treatment by Deputy Dukes of the Taoiseach's invitation to the Unionists to come here to talk on an open agenda.
There has been a great lack of leadership on the Unionists side in this matter. The courage on both sides which led to the Lemass-O'Neill meeting in January 1965 has been conspicuous by its absence for the past 20 years in Northern Ireland. Sadly, Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Paisley have become prisoners of their own rhetoric. They lack the courage to make decisions that will help their people. In spite of the risk of public rebuff, the Taoiseach has had the political courage to repeat his invitation to Unionist leaders to meet us on an open agenda, to discuss with us the future of this island and what the future holds for us all.
I know that Members on the Fine Gael benches opposite, including Deputy McGahon, share my view that we on this island have far more in common than keeps us apart. That is a truth which never should be denied. The only way we can realise all those things we have in common, the only way we can realise a future for all the people on this island that we represent, is by having the sense to come together and come to grips with our destiny. What did Deputy Dukes have to say? He threw cold water on this, and shame on him for so doing.
Three years ago the Taoiseach, in his Bodenstown speech, spoke of the unthinkable. He suggested that leaders of all the Irish traditions could no longer continue to ignore each other when the leaders of a divided Germany would come together. That was three years ago. If it was unthinkable that we could continue to ignore each other than, how much more unthinkable is it now? When all around the world borders are falling, differences between nations are being resolved and people are getting together to see how they progress, how can Deputy Dukes, the Leader of the Opposition, the man who deep in his heart must have an aspiration to be leader of the Irish people at some stage, cast cold water on this suggestion that we could meet, speak and explore possibilities, as the Taoiseach said yesterday? The most fruitful thing said here yesterday was the suggestion to the Unionists to try to factor out issues on which we cannot agree, but surely, even in the context of a united Europe, there are factors on which we can agree?
Deputy McGahon knows as well as I do that when you speak in private to Unionists in the North, as he has done more times than I have, they say they discuss all these issues we have in common. They see a common agenda before us in Europe. They know they suffer greatly from being put on the back burner so far as British negotiators in Brussels are concerned. What the Taoiseach sought to do here yesterday was not just to reiterate his open invitation to Unionists but to identify an area where the Unionists can surely have no suspicion that they can come together with us.
How sad it was this morning to hear the knee jerk reaction from the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party to the Taoiseach's invitation because this impacts on his people. How sad his lack of courage. There was a little more hope in what Jim Nicholson had to say this morning. He, at least did not say no, no and absolutely no; he said he would think about it. I hope he will think about it long and hard and I hope he will take up the challenge.
The challenge that faces everybody in politics is to come up with realistic and workable solutions. The challenge that faces us all in politics is to have a dream, to have an objective that we can work to. Whether it is a green or an orange dream does not matter: the challenge in politics is to have a vision. If anything was illustrated by this extraordinary debate in the last two days it was this difference. People ask what is the difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. In a sentence I will tell them. We have a vision and they have absolutely none. They produced a formula yesterday which embarrassed even themselves.
You did not want the Agreement at all and you still do not want it.
You have a vision and we will test it.
The reality is that it is a measure of just how marginalised Deputy Dukes has become that he should see fit to attack the Taoiseach's initiative in this regard. It is to the resounding praise of the Labour Party that they did not fall into this trap and march in the direction Deputy Dukes tried to move this House. There can only be movement forward if we can all agree to keep the bipartisan arrangement which has existed here. The disingenuous and untruthful introduction to Deputy Dukes' contribution yesterday was staggering and to his shame. To the degree that Deputy Dukes' contribution and his subsequent attacks have made it more difficult for Unionists to say yes, they will be rightly condemned by the Irish people.
As I have said, above all else in politics if we are going to achieve something we must be realistic but we must have an image of what we want. The images that were trotted out here yesterday were extraordinary. I am glad Deputy Currie is here because he must know the truth of all I have said — the lack of demand, the lack of sympathy among the Unionist or the Nationalist population for the direction in which his party would seek to compel us. The reality is that this debate is about political point scoring. Shame on those people who would treat Irish relationships between our people North and South thus. Shame on Deputy Dukes because he has proved himself, above all else, to be a man unworthy of leadership of this nation at any time, or indeed of a party that has a fine constitutional tradition.
If the House agrees, I would like to share a few minutes of my time with Deputy McGahon.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I intend to make some comments and try to put them in a historical setting. I do not intend to react to any of the comments made by Deputy Roche, most of which I reject out of hand. In view of the fact that this debate may be read by students of politics in years to come, it is only fair to put on the record that up to the turn of the century the Unionist objective had been to keep the whole of Ireland in the United Kingdom. The Unionists, led by a Dubliner, Edward Carson, a Member of the House of Commons for Trinity College Dublin until December 1918 when he moved to the Northern Ireland working class constituency of Duncairn, did not want any form of partition. Partition though was effectively in place when Sinn Féin swept the boards everywhere outside of the Six Counties in the general election of December 1918. The roots of this division between Unionism and Nationalism lie in the 17th century.
Central to the problem is the fact that Ulster developed differently from the rest of Ireland after the conquest of 1603 and the subsequent plantations. For hundreds of years to the early 20th century, Protestants were to be the social, economic and political elite of Ireland but from the 17th century onwards, it was only in Ulster that they constituted an almost self-contained community. There they were a majority at most levels of society, engaged in trade and industry as well as farming. The different form of plantation in Ulster where settlers seeking to better themselves were awarded uniformally small areas of land, which they had to develop themselves but which they had title to from the beginning and which they often coupled with a trade of some sort, set Ulster apart from the rest of the island in economic terms. Whereas Ulster was agriculturally inferior, it became industrially superior.
With the inflow of capital, linen firms branched into the production of machinery, shipping and general manufacture. The economy of Ulster was incorporated into Britain on an equal footing as a result of these developments. They had more in common with Merseyside than with Clydeside. During that period Ireland continued, outside of Ulster, to be agriculturally based. Belfast dominated the countryside while the rest of Ireland dominated the cities.
One learned writer has pointed out that the railway system in Ulster and the rest of Ireland were practically two separate systems because of the different economic developments. The orgins of Ulster Unionism were in place. The rise of Nationalism was the occasion and not the cause of its manifestation. The original objective of the plantation of Ulster, to suppress Gaelic Catholic culture, was not successful, nor did the planters become assimilated. Had either happened, the history of Ulster and this problem would have been very different.
The writer Peter Gibbon in his book The Origins of Ulster Unionism describes the characteristics of a comprehensive dualism in Irish society—a regional dualism, Ulster and the rest of Ireland; a religious dualism, Protestants and Catholics and a political dualism, Unionism and Nationalism. Unionism is the strategic instrument of the Northern Ireland majority in protecting their economic, religious and cultural interests.
In contrast let us look at the extent to which Irish Nationalism is a constant and permanent ideology. We talk about Irish Nationalists and Nationalism as if they were some sort of monolithic force but what is Irish Nationalism and when did it emerge? No agreement is to be found among historians and politicians as to when it emerged. Some claim it emerged in the late 19th century, others claim it emerged in the early 20th century and some date it back to the time of the Gaels. The Gaelic revival of the late 19th century with the launch of the Gaelic League, the Gaelic Athletic Association and Sinn Féin is evidence for dating this Nationalism back to the times of the Gaels.
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that Irish Nationalism is an 18th century or 19th century phenomenon. One noted historian and writer points out that when the Irish Parliament at last got the right in the 18th century to legislate for their own affairs in their own country, Irish Nationalism at last became a reality. Yet another historian suggests that it is a 19th century phenomenon. He points out that Ireland created a mass movement before it created an ideology, the usual order of events being the reverse.
One historian gives the essential characteristics of nationalism as race, religion and territorial unity while the other adds dissent, language, history and tradition. In the Irish context race and religion might not be as constant as they first appear. There were already people living on this island before the invasion of the Gaels circa 300 BC. They each influenced the others customs and culture. Perhaps it is because the Gaels had 1,200 years of uninterrupted hegemony that it was to this period later Nationalists looked for their credentials.
The Danes, in the 9th century, and the Normans, in the 12th century, brought new cultures which eventually mixed in with what already existed. On recognising Henry VIII as King of Ireland in 1541 it could well be claimed that they then became a separate "natio" or community of subjects under a King of Ireland. Territorial unity, as Fr. O'Flanagan, the then vice-chairman of Sinn Féin, pointed out was probably the strongest characteristic Irish Nationalism had going for it, that is, it had more to do with geography than history.
As one writer pointed out, a nation is a spiritual force and a State is a material force. A State can be made up of a part of a nation or a group of nations or parts of nations; a nation does not need a State to exist. For example, the Kurds do not have the characteristics of territorial unity but they claim that right based on race, religion and culture. The Palestinians are in a similar position. Presumably the main corpus of Irish Nationalism see the nation as an Irish nation State. There are four types of Irish Nationalism which have emerged to date: colonial nationalism, constitutional nationalism, Republician separatist nationalism and cultural nationalism. Colonial nationalism was a phenomenon conceived with mercantilist rights vis-á-vis Britain which saw itself as the rightful “natio” in power. Grattan was one of this variety of Nationalist. Colonial nationalism was a struggle for the independence and reforms of the Irish Parliament. It had a religious criterion, the religion of the established church — Presbyterians and Catholics were not considered part of the nation.
O'Connell's mass movement was ahead of ideology. He was a separatist and would have accepted the Grattan idea of a separate parliament with foreign affairs and defence remaining in the realm of the Imperial Parliament provided Catholics had equal rights. He was a monarchist. Parnell hoped to solve the land question but to retain the Protestant landlord as part of the leadership of the new Irish Government. He was prepared to associate with physical force nationalists. The twinning of the Land League with the Home Rule Movement was until that time the most dynamic force in Irish nationalism.
Republician-separatist nationalism is the most diverse and enigmatic form of nationalism and the anti-clerical, anti-aristocratic Wolfe Tone, the agrarian socialist reformer Lalor and the conservative land owning Smith O'Brien could all identify with this. Though dating from the Presbyterian-led United Irish Men of the late 18th century, this tradition has continued in diverse forms to the present day. The present day Sinn Féin and IRA movements would claim to follow this tradition.
Cultural nationalism is a late 19th century or early 20th century phenomenon which saw Ireland as "not just free but Gaelic as well and not just Gaelic but free as well". The GAA which was formed in the latter part of the 19th century probably divided the "natio" more deliberately than any other nationalist movement. Their ban on foreign games, so called, and on the RUC and British forces from playing Gaelic games had the opposite effect to that which they intended to bring about — it did not unify, it divided.
What some people call nationalism today is marked by distortion and myth. The proximity of Britain to this country has made it easy to represent the case for Irish nationalism as a struggle against an old enemy. Irish Nationalists have absolved themselves of any need to heal the partition problem by the simple device of blaming Britain at all times for all ills. Irish nationalism has not been a constant or permanent ideology.
The problem Ireland faces is one of double minority. The Protestant Unionists are a majority in the Six Counties but a minority on the island as a whole, while the Nationalists, are a minority in Northern Ireland but a majority on the island as a whole. There is a similar problem in Palestine and Israel and comparisons can be found in Lebanon and Cyprus. Those who advocate a British withdrawal as the solution to the Northern Ireland problem should note the experience of France withdrawing from Algeria. The blood bath there is a blot on history and this would be repeated on this island if the advocates of the withdrawal of Britain have their way.
Nonetheless it has to be said clearly that Northern Ireland is not as British as Finchley. Finchley or Cornwall would not be allowed to leave the United Kingdom if a majority of their occupants so wished. The Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Mrs. Thatcher in numerous interviews, most notably in her major interview with Newsweek, and various British Prime Ministers are on the record as accepting the right of the majority in Northern Ireland to secede.
Northern Ireland lacks international legitimacy but has a high degree of internal legitimacy. On the other hand, Lebanon has a high degree of international legitimacy but lacks internal legitimacy. As well as the two levels of legitimacy, international and internal, there are two types, territory and régime. South Africa does not lack legitimacy because of territory, it lacks it because of régime. Northern Ireland does not lack international legitimacy because of régime, it lacks it because of territory. There are only five islands in the world which are divided.
The implications of the lack of international legitimacy are that it creates an expectation that a united Ireland will come about, it legitimises the use of violence by so called freedom fighters, it constrains the British Government in what they can do in Northern Ireland for fear of being accused of violations of human rights, it gives a false hope to the Northern Ireland minority of victory in battle, creates an ambiguity in the attitude of constitutional Nationalists who agree that Unionists should have the right of consent, but not of veto, and creates within the Unionist community a siege mentality — they believe the world is against them. The conflicting historical developments and attitudes have, ultimately, given rise to the violent, and political conflict in Northern Ireland.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is a containment operation. The work of the Anglo-Irish Conference can be devolved to an administration if an administration can be agreed. However, it should be pointed out that consociational government is not necessarily stable or equitable and is not the panacea for all our ills — Lebanon being the prime example. Joint authority is another possibility if obstructive politics continue.
Those British politicians and others who want to set the Anglo-Irish Agreement aside should look closer at the historical development of Northern Ireland, the civil rights movement which erupted in the late sixties and early seventies, and the Sunningdale Agreement and how it was brought down. The Nationalist community and the Republic can meet the Unionists half way, no further no less. Any other settlement would only give rise to further problems down the line. It is because the original so-called settlement was not made on an equitable basis that the problem has continued for so long.
A united Ireland, governed from Dublin, is as unacceptable as the Republic rejoining the United Kingdom. As thing stand, there is room for evolution under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is a possibility, however remote, that a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and his Ministers could be appointed from among politicians there while the permanent ministerial representative from the Republic could similarly be appointed from Northern Ireland representatives, perhaps via the Seanad or some other arrangement.
If there is to be a single administration for Ireland, on a confederal, federal or any other basis, there is still the question of economic subsidy to Northern Ireland, the question of Heads of State — are we ready to accept a monarch? — membership of the Commonwealth and, perhaps, a joint Irish and British parliamentary assembly with weighted voting to protect any final settlement and oversee areas of mutual interest. This could be accompanied by constitutional reform in Britain, removing the Catholic ban on a Head of State, a Head of Government and certain other offices.
The IRA will not be allowed to dictate to anybody, nor can the Nationalist community, nor the Unionist community. The constitutional Nationalist community have set out in the Forum report their views on how we might progress on this island. The Unionist community are going to find that an inch will not do, they must come half way, no more, no less. And we must be prepared to think the unthinkable in going half way to meet them. The alternative is for the savage dehumanising conflict to continue. In the meantime the Anglo-Irish Agreem must stay in place to contain it.
There has been a lot of unnecess heated and party political point scor in this debate. I do not think it ser either the Members who made contributions along those lines, House, this part of the island or North Ireland if we are simply to concern ourselves with scoring political points. I timely that we should have a debate the whole question of devolution and future of Northern Ireland but the fut of Northern Ireland can only be considered in the context of the future of this island. The whole future of this island can only be considered in the context the future of these islands. There can no question of a united Ireland with parliament in Dublin dominating the whole of this island no more than there can be any question of us sending Members and being legislated for form there but, within these islands there can be found a solution. Perhaps, the formation of the Anglo-Irish parliamenttary tier might be a start in that regard but I share the view of those who believe that the solution is to be found in the British Isles, as it was called, as a whole and not just on one island or the other.
At the outset I agreed to share my time with Deputy McGahon and I am happy to give him the five minutes he requested.
As I see it Deputy McGahon has four minutes but I understand from Deputy Lawlor, in deference to the spirit of the debate, that he is prepared to give the Deputy some time. I am anxious to accomodate Deputy Garland and I would hope that when next I call an Opposition speaker he or she will understand if I try to accommodate Deputy Garland to the extent of six or seven minutes.
I should like to thank Deputies Mitchell and Lawlor for giving me some of their time. As a Border Deputy I welcome this opportunity contribute to the debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. From my home in Dundalk I have had a grandstand view of the war in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I have known some of the victims who have gone prematurely to their graves. Although I agree very often with Deputy McCreevy, particularly on matters relating to the turf, I was dismayed yesterday to listen to him harping back through the pages of history to the Dark Ages and coming up with the same "no surrender" cries that the Unionists use. Deputy McCreevy said that partition was the cause of all the violence. Partition is not the cause of the violence. The division among the Irish people, of which partition is the institutionalised symbol, is the root cause of the violence. The problem is a sectarian tribalism that manifests itself predictably when a person is murdered by ritual condemnations of varying degrees and hues by politicians and churchmen North and South.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was a tremendous achievement by those who fashioned it. It was the first time that a British Prime Minister acknowledged that they had no right in this country and that they would leave some day. It was acclaimed by world statesmen but was immediately opposed by Mr. Charles Haughey, the present Taoiseach, by the Fianna Fáil Party, by the Unionists and the IRA; a motley assortment, I might add. Today the Fianna Fáil Government are merely going through the motions. The Unionists still oppose and the IRA have accelerated their campaign of shame to European capitals and have once again dragged our name in the mud of international opinion.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is becalmed and needs a stimulus. While it was a wonderful document we are not married to it. We must get constitutional politics back on the agenda within Northern Ireland. Every effort must be made to encourage elected leaders to sit down and talk, and keep talking, so that the paramilitaries are forced off the stage. The Unionists said at Sunningdale that if they got rid of that agreement they would come up with an agreement involving Catholics but 13 years later that has not happened. Likewise, the SDLP refuse to sit in Prior's assembly.
The time has come for the talking to commence and if that calls for a new variation on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, or a new agreement, it should be considered. The Unionists are waiting and looking for a new formula of words to allow them to participate. We must strive to help them realise that their reign of power as they knew it is over. All over the world the winds of change are blowing. Mr. de Klerk seems to realise that apartheid must be dismantled in South Africa. The Berlin Wall has come tumbling down and the once implacable Communist countries are now embracing democracy. If those momentuos events can happen in those countries it is a reflection on Irish politicians that we cannot resolve our difficulties. It is a damning indictment of Northern politicians that they cannot even have talks while the worst atrocities in the world are happening on our island. Only last week a man was killed by 40 bullets while the body of another man whose car was blown off the road into an adjoining field was completely unrecognisable. Those events, and the terrible crimes of the IRA over 20 years, make it imperative that some political stability is brought to the tragic Irish question.
We must ask ourselves if we are doing enough to rid this country of the scourge of terrorism. Are we fully conscious of the crimes that the IRA have committed against humanity? Do we tolerate them to some degree because they shelter under the mythical cloud of Irish Republicanism and all that means at election time? The economic troubles that have drained this country and sent thousands of young Irish boys and girls to, of all places, perfidious Albion, to earn a living are a direct cause of the Northern Ireland war. The lack of international investment in our country, particularly in the Border areas, demands that talking must commence.
The IRA have cemented the partition of Ireland in blood. They have embarked on a war of attrition and extermination on the Ulster Protestants. We must at all times disassociate ourselves unambiguously from this evil gang of sadistic murderers, child killers and racketeers who are another world away from the ideals of Wolfe Tone. Until some type of normality returns to this island I suggest that we stop living in the past and blaming England for all our wrongs. We should forget the past and look to the future. We should appreciate that the English people have given a home and a job to four million Irish people. I ask that the Fianna Fáil Party put no more flowers on Wolfe Tone's grave until harmony is restored to our land.
Finally, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I refer briefly to points pertinent to the Border areas?
The Deputy would want to be very brief, he is already crossing the border into Deputy Lawlor's time.
I will look after the Deputy. I plead with the Irish Government to recognise what has happened to people of the Border counties during the past 20 years. I ask that they accept that they and the former Government, of which I was a backbench member, have failed to respond to the needs of the people in the Border counties. I want them to accept that they have been guilty of neglect and that they should elevate the priority given to the economy of the Border counties, which it has not had for all of 20 years. We desperately need an economic development plan. What better way to unity than a joint economic plan, embracing the counties of Armagh and Down? We in the Border counties have more in common with counties Armagh and Down than with counties Kerry and Cork. The way to unity and peaceful coexistence on this island is through economic progress. I ask the Government to upgrade the Border region, which has been crying out for help over the past 20 years, and to do something for it as soon as possible.
Deputy McGahon can charm other people; it is a matter of tolerance as he has shown to the House.
We hope that Deputy Lawlor can encapsulate his thoughts in ten minutes.
Plus injury time.
We welcome the opportunity to comment in a reasoned and balanced way on the tragedy of Northern Ireland. We are endeavouring to express in words ideas that may, in some small way, lead to progress. I will re-echo a point made by Deputy McGahon; yesterday is dead and gone, we have to live for tomorrow. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland tends to harp back on its past, its problems and difficulties in a very sad way.
If we are to endeavour to establish the basis for progress as we head towards the nineties, one would have to agree that the depth of content of the Taoiseach's speech points to the new directions that should be examined. The differences that have arisen between the Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party are understandable in the light of the frustrations of people who want to see progress. To be as generous as possible to Deputy Dukes, he made his case in some great detail but one would have to disagree with the attempts to stamp one set of progressive ideas to the exclusion of other options. The reality is that time and again to break the logjam we have extended the invitation of an open agenda on dialogue if the Unionists' representatives were prepared to enter into dialogue.
My constituency colleague, Deputy Currie, elaborated in great detail on the practical difficulties that exist in bringing this major step forward. I would like to focus on the opportunities within a European framework in the nineties to get away from the entrenched positions of the past. It is very fine from a suburban Dublin constituency to pontificate about solutions to the Northern problems without realising the difficulties and the entrenched positions in the community. The horrific happenings have driven people into positions from which it is hard for them to move. It is partly encouraging that out of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, if nothing else has come, the British Government have stood firm on the content and the detail of the agreement. Hopefully, they have informed and educated the Unionist political leaders that they will work the agreement until something better is put in place. We hope that sooner rather than later moderate Unionist opinion will reflect on the views being expressed by their elected representatives. However, it was not encouraging to hear two of the three MEPs who represent Northern Ireland reacting negatively to the Taoiseach's invitation to talks. Surely their communities must appreciate that there is a whole new era opening up in Europe that can be to their benefit and that we, on this part of the island, have shown that by putting together a very comprehensive integrated plan. The European Commission is prepared in a practical way to aid countries that are in need of substantial investment in job creation.
Yesterday, the Taoiseach also suggested we should prepare a working paper on how best we could make progress on those practical steps. There is an onus on politicians, on all sides of the House, to make contact as individual Members and to build bridges with the various communities. I have limited experience of this as I have dealt with organisations, and even Harland and Wolff, in Northern Ireland on the commercial front. I have always found they were very practical, competent business people, who knew what was best for their community and knew what was best for done to achieve growth and economic prosperity. The way forward is possibly a low key and painstaking process. The European Commissioner for Agriculture, an Irishman, can have a big bearing on the development of agricultural potential in the farming communities in Northern Ireland. As future president of the EC, the Taoiseach can emphasise, as Deputy McGahon has just said, the geographical areas that should be looked at and supported as one region. This would come automatically when looking at the practical steps that can be taken.
A number of speakers have referred in critical terms to the Fianna Fáil philosophy on Northern Ireland. It is a noble cause for any political organisation to aspire to see our island united through peaceful co-operation. However, we have to realise that this is impossible tomorrow or the next day. It is a noble cause, it is a realistic claim, as we have over the years endeavoured to take the steps that are necessary in an endeavour to bring about the eventual solution. The former Taoiseach, the late Mr. Sean Lemass, took a brave step when he went North to meet his counterpart. That was a practical recognition of the need to work together to build the bridges of co-operation.
Moderate Unionists should endeavour to bring constructive pressure to bear on their elected leaders to enter into some form of dialogue. I do not think it is helpful or realistic to argue as Deputy Dukes did yesterday, that divorce or some other very important issues should take centre stage at this early point. We recognise that we will have to re-write our Constitution, that a number of social issues have to be tackled and that there is legislation on the Statute Book in the North for which we have no comparable legislation. That is one of the challenges which will face both sides at the negotiating table. Let us hope we can reciprocate any generosity if the logjam can be broken and dialogue commences. For that reason, I believe it is important that we do not limit ourselves to any one option, such as devolution which could be a very progressive step forward but only if all of the parties were to agree to it.
Agreements entered into in the past, such as the Sunningdale Agreement and the Anglo-Irish Agreement with its new dimension, have led to people having some hope. We believe we were justified in criticising the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We felt we gave a lot more than we received. Others may disagree. The former Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, in negotiating the agreement, secured a framework for progress. We are now endeavouring to work that agreement to the best of our ability, even though it has its defects and limitations. The signing of the Agreement marked a major step forward in very difficult circumstances. The British were probably going as far as they were prepared to go at that time. Therefore, it was a matter of accepting what they were offering or not getting an agreement.
Having said that, as we head towards the nineties we should recognise that many new avenues are opening up. With the Taoiseach assuming the Presidency of the European Council on 1 January I hope, given his negotiating skills, he will be able to get the representatives of the various communities in Northern Ireland to raise their sights towards the European platform and enter into some form of dialogue on EC matters. To enter public life one needs to be an optimist and one has to be optimistic that some progress will be made. I hope a policy document highlighting the benefits which could accrue will be of great interest to the communities in the North right across the political spectrum.
The SDLP made a brave attempt to get dialogue going with Sinn Féin to see if some progress could be made on that front, but surely it must be obvious now to the leadership of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin that their policies are not going to lead to progress but rather to the British Government, who will not be pushed out of Northern Ireland by their activities becoming more entrenched. During the past 20 years they have more than made their viewpoint known, at a hell of a cost. The Minister for Justice in his speech listed the death toll and the massive financial cost which has accrued on this side of the Border because of the troubles, and this is not to take into account the uncalculable figure on the Northern side of the Border. Given this catalogue of disaster would they not be prepared to lay down their arms and make some gesture to enable some real progress to be made? The people who have suffered most from their activities are those communities whom they purport to represent.
There have been so many appeals expressions of sympathy and condolence and so many words spoken and written about this tragedy during the past 20 years that one feels that this debate will have little effect. I would hope that at the least the Taoiseach will be able to make some progress on the few pragmatic suggestions he made to the House yesterday.
The Magappreciates the understanding and magnanimity of Deputy Lawlor and of Deputy Jim Mitchell which allows me to now call on Deputy Garland and to indicate to him that he has seven or eight minutes, maximum.
I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for facilitating me. By contributing to the debate in this House, the Members will now have an opportunity to hear the argument from Europe's emerging third political philosophy in relation to the issue which remains the central issue in Ireland's politics. In a debate which has over the years become moribund and sterile this new philosophy, which is capturing imaginations right across the Continent, offers a new perspective.
Green politics offer an original approach because on the one hand we align ourselves with the anti-imperialist movement worldwide while at the same time advocating a radical form of decentralisation which recognises that all legitimate political power originates from the individual and therefore political institutions who claim jurisdiction over groups of individuals must first receive the consent of those groups to govern. This leaves us on the one hand sympathetic to the Republican tradition of anti-imperialism while at the same time supportive of the rights of the Ulster Unionist tradition.
One word summarises our policy on the North, a word which is so often missing in debates on Northern Ireland, and that is consensus. Only a policy which clearly sets out to find a consensus within the region can claim to be progressive and truly founded in democratic principles. Unfortunately, such cannot be said of the policies of successive Governments. The Anglo-Irish Agreement may have some beneficial features but the fact that it clearly advocates in its first article the use of majority rule decision-making in relation to the constitutional question effectively places its supporters outside what is in truth a very small group of people who advocate a consensus based decision-making process. As long as this House uncritically accepts the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its present form it cannot consider itself part of that group.
Our claim to the Six Counties is based on the premise that the Nationalist community remain Nationalist but it needs to be said that should the Nationalist people wish to have closer links with the United Kingdom we should not stand in their way. Our claim to a 32-county Republic is not based on the concept of territorial possession for its own sake but on the aspiration of the Nationalist population for a united Ireland.
The way forward in Northern Ireland is a step-by-step approach. The first step would be the replacement, by a neutral peace-keeping force, of the British troops who are clearly a partisan force. This new force could be under the aegis of the United Nations or the EC. Hopefully this would restore peace to this troubled province. The second step would be the calling of a constitutional conference of all the political interests in Northern Ireland to agree procedures for a referendum, that is a multi-choice referendum. This would force people on both sides of the divide to consider, perhaps for the first time, various unpalatable alternatives. Of course the Government here and in Britain would have to abide by the result, however unpalatable it might be. The third step would be the actual holding of the preferendum which, as I said, would entail listing the different options, let us say ten. Voters would vote for these in the order of their choice. All options would have to be voted for and any ballot paper not fully completed would be invalid.
I would like Members of this House to give this matter some consideration. We submitted these ideas to the New Ireland Forum four or five years ago. However, they were not adverted to and we were not asked to make a verbal submission at the forum which we found most disappointing. I think this is a new way of looking at Northern Ireland and I ask people in this House to consider them.
Many of the contributions to this debate have been very interesting. In so far as I have been able to hear or read them they have been notably lacking in any form of attack on either the British Government or the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. That is welcome. It is a recognition that this is a complex problem which we will not solve by shouting at each other. One of the greatest strengths of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that it has provided a medium which is an alternative to megaphone diplomacy and incited media opinion which frequently prevailed before the agreement was signed after outrages had occurred.
The debate on Northern Ireland for the past 20 years has been too narrowly confined by all parties to too few politicians. Undoubtedly this is because of concern that the issue was too sensitive. Because of the same sensitivity a new jargon has developed now so that every sentence uttered by Ministers in both Governments are so sanitised as to make them bland, blameless and banal. This cannot always be the case and some straight talking is needed. Some taboo subjects must be brought to the fore. This debate is a welcome opportunity to air many points.
I will raise a number of points different from the main ones that have already been referred to by speakers here. I will not talk overmuch about the Birmingham Six, the Unionists or many other matters that have already been referred to. The first question I raise is how we in the Republic expect to attract into a union with us 1.5 million Northeners while 156,000 of our own citizens have found our society so unattractive as to emigrate over the past five years.
With the Republic having the lowest standard of living in northern Europe and the lowest economic growth since 1920, we have many internal reforms to make before we get our house in order. When all the banter of analysts is laid to rest, the economic dimension will have far more impact than any Irish or British dimension. Many northern Catholics, nationalist of sentiment, if faced with a referendum on unification tomorrow would vote against because they have become what are referred to as economic Unionists or to put it more bluntly they know on what side their bread is buttered. Conversely, if the Republic had a prolonged economic decline, many northern Protestants would vote for unity in the prevailing economic circumstances. It is too much to expect Northerners to opt for unity now and be worse off.
While much effort has gone into giving the Republic a say in Northern Ireland, little effort has been made to give Northerners a say in the South. I will refer to this later in detail.
Short-term thinking and crisis management seem to exclude medium-term and long-term planning, especially in the setting up or the enlarging of focal points of common loyalty supported with enthusiasm. Since the failure of the one-sided implementation of internment in Northern Ireland in 1970, a policy of patient pursuit of terrorists has been in vogue in Britain and Ireland while hundreds have died and many more have been maimed or bereaved. Protection and blackmailing rackets run riot and wide areas of the judicial process and of the police have been brought into disrepute or controversy. The very word "internment" is taboo while the very temples of justice are dragged into short-cutting the justice they are there to uphold. Not until some horrific terrorist excess forces itself on an enraged population will internment again be considered.
In relation to the economic dimension, the under-performance of the economy since 1920 compared with any other North European economy is the most significant problem for natives of the Republic and it is the overwhelming cause of high unemployment and emigration. It is also a huge factor in making the Republic an unattractive option for all northerners. The most pertinent point in the Taoiseach's speech yesterday was when he said:
Political change is, as we can see in Europe today, very often related to economic circumstances. We can also see the powerful attraction that a prosperous Community can offer.
The Republic is not a powerful attraction for northerners. It is offputting for them. We should analyse why our economy has grown less than our fellow northern European economies since independence. Any thorough reflection will show that partition is at once a cause of retarded growth and is also made more permanent by that retarded growth. The violence associated with partition especially over the past 20 years has lost us major tourist and investment funds. Violence, apart from the increased human bitterness it creates by stifling economic growth is postponing the advent of unity. Very few emigrants or unemployed people will associate their plight with IRA violence yet an end to violence would be the best present we could give to our jobless and exiles. It could transform the hopes of every Irish teenager in secondary school today who is depressed about the future at home.
However, violence and partition are secondary causes of our low economic growth. The principle cause lies right here in Leinster House in the way we organise or fail to organise ourselves, in the performance of parliament in organising its affairs and bringing to account Ministers. Departments and State bodies. Anyone who has been a Minister will testify as to how easy it is to avoid a rigorous questioning of the Dáil and Seanad and any departmental Secretary will tell of how little consequence the public accounts committee has been over the years. The weakness of our parliamentary structures and our long recesses, when combined with the weaknesses of our form of multi-seat proportional representation are at the core of our poor economic management since independence.
Parliamentary reform must, therefore, be at the top of our agenda with the primary aim of improving the answerability of Ministers and Members alike, the Departments of State and of State companies and agencies and so improving the performance in the economy and improving the quality of life. Moreover, parliamentary reform is an opportunity to give some say to our Northern countrymen if they should wish to have it. On both fronts parliamentary reform is a key element in our approach to the parliamentary issue.
This is not a debate on parliamentary reform so I cannot spell out what I have in mind, but I have already proposed within my own party extensive changes in the Dáil, Seanad and Presidency while staying specifically under the present Constitution. However, the day cannot be far off when we ourselves will have to propose the sort of new Constitution which would facilitate ultimate reunification. I know that recent attempts to amend the Constitution or to propose a new one have left burnt fingers. Nonetheless the Taoiseach, who once said that history is not made by lowering inflation and so never has, may now consider it timely to recall the New Ireland Forum with a view to drafting a new All-Ireland Constitution and make history in the process. In any such new constitution the word "Republic" may not feature. Unity, if it is to emerge, is likely to emerge in some other form. Although I would greatly regret it, this would be no bad thing as it would deprive the IRA of a "republican" victory. They have so defiled the once hallowed word "republican" that all constitutional nationalists should set their sights on unity in some other form.
Even high up in the body politic at Westminster and at Leinster House there is a deep ignorance of Northern Ireland affairs and of the views and affairs of both sides of that tormented community. It is not surprising that many ordinary southerners look on the North with blank incomprehension and vice versa. Although the churches, the trade unions and the banks are all-Ireland bodies, the Irish International Rugby Team is probably the one major focal point of common loyalty throughout the 32 counties. Much more should be done in this area. If 10 per cent of all Northern university seats were reserved for southern students and a commensurate amount in southern universities for northern students, would this not be a step in the direction of increased understanding? Why cannot there be agreement on all-Ireland bodies which in no way impinge on sovereignty? An all-Ireland soccer team going to the World Cup finals would be a powerful common bond. The UK are planning a fifth TV station and we a third. Why can we not agree between us that the extra channel, North and South, would be an all-Ireland TV station? Why not an all-Ireland arts council jointly funded, or all-Ireland airlines or railways? I do not see that there would be major problems in this respect. Already the Scandinavian countries jointly approach many of these subjects. Likewise joint health services in Border regions would make a great deal of sense. None of these suggestions impinge on sovereignty. What then is stoppoing the Anglo-Irish Conference addressing such matters? Are narrow economic reasons a bigger bulwark against joint action than narrow bigotry?
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was a major achievement by any reckoning. It has created a medium for discussion and reasoning in substitution for megaphone diplomacy and incited public media opinion. It has improved understanding between the British and Irish Governments; but notwithstanding all these qualities the Anglo-Irish Agreement must be a stepping stone and not an anchor. It cannot be the last word on Anglo-Irish policy, nor was it ever intended to be. Its principal Irish authors, Deputy Garret FitzGerald and Deputy Barry, contribute to that view. I do not wish to be partisan in this debate but I think it would be funking the issue not to say that the Taoiseach and Mrs. Thatcher are clearly so out of sympathy with each other that they are now part of the problem, not the solution. It is very difficult to see a future meaningful summit between them and no serious development on the Anglo-Irish Agreement will take place without that. If the Unionist Party leaders insist that the Anglo-Irish Agreement be set aside, that can only be entertained if they tabled in advance an alternative set of proposals for the governance of Northern Ireland acceptable to both communities. The fear is that the Unionist position is but a blocking mechanism and that they have no reasonable proposals to make. I do not think the two Governments can wait indefinitely before moving on to further proposals to alleviate the torture in both communities. Unfortunately while the paramilitaries keep on planting bombs the Unionists and both Governments keep treading water. Masterly inactivity is no answer to Northern Ireland's torture or to ours.
It would be wrong to conclude without reflecting on the hundreds of people who have been killed by so-called republican agents over the past 20 years, over the past year, over the past few weeks. The vast majority in the Republic feel a deep sense of shame at these awful brutalities. There has been no lack of condemnation from leaders of all political parties in this House, the bishops, leaders of the community and leaders of the SDLP in the North; but words will never suffice, will never replace those lives. Our shame is of only secondary consequence compared to the suffering and bitterness of the families of those deceased and maimed.
Violence is not the only thing we ought to be ashamed of. There are also all sorts of practices like protection rackets and blackmail which are deeply shameful and which are all being done in the name of the Republic. We must express our deep sorrow and sympathy for those who have been adversely affected by this violence. It is clear from the contributions on all sides of the House that we unanimously disown this violence. I want to reiterate again that these actions have no mandate and no support from those of us who were elected to represent the Nationalist cause on this island. The continuation of violence is only likely to increase bitterness, to postpone the day of reunification. It is therefore a futile exercise in gross inhumanity and gross unchristianity.
It would be a great day for this country, North and South, if there were to be an outbreak of peace. Apart from the deplorable effects of violence there is near total lack of understanding of the adverse economic effects of violence on the Republic over the last 20 years. We cannot quantify the number of jobs that have been lost or the number of new jobs foregone by continuing violence. It will be widely appreciated by those who have the opportunity to travel abroad that the clear picture, not of Northern Ireland but of Ireland, is of a location of violence, turbulence and commotion, not the sort of place a foreign executive's wife would want to go to live in, in the event of a new investment by his company.
The Deputy might now bring his speech to a close.
This has been a very worthwhile debate. I look forward to the summing up by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I hope the Minister, the Government, the people of Northern Ireland and the British Government will have found this entire debate a positive contribution. We can only express the hope that soon there will be developments which will bring some hope of peace to our troubled land.
It is important that we should have had this debate and that Deputies should have had an opportunity to express their views on an issue which is so central to the concerns of the people of this island. Many of the contributions that we have heard, while they reveal differences of approach and emphasis, serve nonetheless to underline that there is a genuine desire that progress should be made in Northern Ireland, that the campaign of violence there should stop and that people should be able to enjoy fair and enduring political arrangements that accommodate the diversity of the various traditions, relationships and aspirations which are present on and between these islands.
The Government have never believed nor accepted that relationships on this island and between these islands are static, that they can never change nor that they can never be improved. The Government believe that they can; indeed, we believe that they must. Reflected in the contributions from all sides of the House during this debate is the sense, which the Government fully share, that while relationships in our world as a whole are improving quickly and dramatically, some attitudes in Northern Ireland continue to be steeped in the legacy of its past and unable, it would appear, to focus in any real sense on how to provide for its future.
The key to the future of Northern Ireland does not lie in its past. New thinking and new attitudes are required. Never has the need been so great; never has it been so urgent. There has surely to be a recognition that new arrangements and new relationships must be forged if Northern Ireland is ever to break out of its troubled and sad circumstances and to emerge from the bitterness and stagnation of the last 20 years or so.
The two great traditions on this island reach back into history, a history which has divided us but also enriched us. We are strong-minded people on both sides. We cleave to tradition and to our sense of identity. A lasting accommodation between us will be achieved only on the basis of mutual respect and in the knowledge of guarantees for both sides, but I know that any accommodation will require the freely-given consent of Nationalists and Unionists together. It will not come through violence. That is not just a statement of reality; nor is it a statement simply of our opposition to violence; it is a statement founded on deep respect for the Unionist tradition in this island, and a belief that Nationalists wish to behave towards that tradition as they wish that tradition to behave towards them.
There is now more than ever before an expectation among the people of Ireland that their political leaders should seek to make progress. It is also common ground for the great majority that any accommodation between Nationalists and Unionists must be achieved through agreement and on a democratic basis. A meeting on that basis cannot be predetermined. It is not simply that agreement requires a willingness to give as well as to receive, to be persuaded as well as to persuade. Democratic discussions conducted on the basis of equality and mutual respect also serve to educate the participants and to help transform the debate. It is in that spirit that the Taoiseach has invited representatives of the Unionist tradition to meet him to discuss the future. We have posed no pre-conditions. Our willingness to engage all the democratic representatives on this island in dialogue about how we can work together for a better future is genuinely and sincerely conceived. We want to map out with them a better way in which we can conduct and manage our relationship. The building of this relationship will be a gradual process. It will require the establishment of confidence, and confidence will be significantly enhanced by meeting face to face.
Four years after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement we hope that Unionist representatives may finally begin to accept that their absence from the political dialogue which is so essential for Northern Ireland should no longer be maintained. I note Deputy Peter Barry's view that the response from the Unionist parties is more positive than ever before and that they are exploring different mechanisms and options. I agree entirely with his view, and, of course, that is why the Government do not consider it would be productive to concentrate all discussion in the single area of devolution. We hope that the Unionists will begin to accept that dialogue, not just within Northern Ireland but within and between these islands, is a key element in the achievement of political progress. Without such dialogue there can be no real progress; without real progress there can only be continuing instability.
I believe that this is the message that has emerged loud and clear from the contributions on all sides of this House during this debate.
A good deal has been spoken about devolution in the course of our debate. Indeed, some Deputies have suggested that this is an issue on which criticism can be levelled at the Government. The Government do not accept that such criticism is in any way valid or that any action on their part has frustrated or discouraged devolution in Northern Ireland. It should not be necessary for me to set out again the position of the Government on this issue. It was clearly and comprehensively set out in the Taoiseach's statement to the House yesterday. It is also clearly stated in the review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was concluded last May. Nor should it be necessary for me to recall that this represents no change in the position from that set out in Article 4 of the agreement itself.
It is common ground between the Irish and British Governments that devolution has to be on a basis that would achieve widespread acceptance throughout the community. We do not discount, nor have we ever discounted, that such widespread acceptance may at some stage emerge. We have always said that we are ready to respond positively to any changes which may take place in the North.
At the summit meeting between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister nine years ago in December 1980, it was agreed that the economic, social and political interests of our peoples are inextricably linked. The two Prime Ministers accepted the need to bring forward policies and proposals to achieve peace, reconciliation and stability, and to improve relations between the peoples of the two countries. They also agreed on the further development of the unique relationship between us and to set work in train on the totality of relationships within these islands.
That agreement was born of reality. We are close neighbours. Hundreds of thousands of Irish-born people live in Britain and millions more of Irish descent are now an important part of its political, economic and social life. We have similar democratic political institutions. We share similar administrations and we have joint access to a culture which we have mutually developed. We are extremely important to each other as trading partners. We give each other voting rights and we have a common travel area.
The Government's policy on Northern Ireland is realistic, constructive and determined. The British Government cannot by themselves provide a solution to the troubled state of Northern Ireland; they need a close working partnership with the Irish Government — and, of course, the active participation in dialogue of the parties in the North. We have our problems, many of them enduring and complex, but I think it is fair to say that the relations that exist now between the two Governments in respect of all aspects of Anglo-Irish relations are positive and close; they are conducted on the basis of sovereign equality, with a willingness to listen to each other's and with — to quote the words of the Anglo-Irish Agreement —"a determination to resolve differences".
A number of Deputies have referred to the hardships caused by the closure of cross-Border roads. These closures clearly damage the potential for cross-Border economic development and I am acutely conscious of the difficulty and inconvenience suffered by local communities on either side of the Border and by people travelling across the Border by road. I also appreciate the delays and problems which can be caused by checkpoints and I have been anxious to ensure in relation to recent work at certain checkpoints on the Northern side of the Border that delays are kept to the absolute minimum. It is the Government's policy that cross-Border roads should where possible be re-opened in the light of the economic and social damage caused to communities on both sides of the Border. I do not have to remind the House that the re-opening of cross-Border roads requires the co-operation of the British authorities and it is their view that the current security operation does not permit such re-opening. I have been assured that all closures are kept under review by the British authorities. I want to assure the House that I will continue to press for re-assessment of all closed roads. In doing so I am conscious in particular that the natural resentment caused by continued closure is in many cases itself counterproductive to security. In short, there is every good reason for further careful consideration of this matter by both Governments and particularly by the British Government.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Brooke, recently suggested that there would be an imaginative response by the British Government if the Provisional IRA ended their campaign of violence. I agree with his views and I would like again to call on the Provisional IRA to lay down their arms and to join in peaceful efforts to resolve the problem of Northern Ireland. It must be clearer than ever that bombings and shootings are wrong and will achieve nothing except greater pain, greater hardship and greater damage to the development of North and South. There is no starker symbol of the self-defeating nature of this campaign than the constant disruption over the last 12 months of the Belfast/Dublin railway which links North and South for commercial and ordinary traffic and provides hundreds of jobs on both sides. Let this campaign end.
Since the Dáil last debated Northern Ireland on the third anniversary of the signature of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Irish and British Governments completed the review of the working of the conference as provided for in Article 11 of the agreement. It is vital, and the two Governments have stressed that it be clearly understood that the Agreement does not represent a threat to either tradition in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, I now hope that, after four years of its operation, the Unionist community will begin to accept that this is the case.
The Agreement and the review have not eliminated all the differences and difficulties in the British/Irish relationship. It would be unrealistic to believe that they could in the relatively short period that the Agreement has been in force. What they have provided is a framework for the Governments to put forward views and proposals for the discussion of difficulties between the two sides and for determined efforts to be made to resolve them. It is understandable that progress in relation to some of the more difficult areas will take time. The important thing is that the process of dialogue is now well established and that both Governments are using the regular occasions on which Conferences are held to work for progress. There have been 16 meetings of the Conference in the last two years, and a further Conference will be held shortly.
The work and concerns of the Conference on the last three occasions have concentrated to a very large extent on matters relating to confidence in the security forces in Northern Ireland. The whole question of confidence in the security forces and the administration of justice is at the heart of the problem of Northern Ireland where the communities are so sharply divided. It is vital that, as issues arise which cast doubt on the integrity and impartiality of the security forces, they should be promptly dealt with. I would like to emphasise this point; these are issues of confidence — a core objective of the Agreement — and not security, as some Deputies opposite have suggested. We have made it perfectly clear that a good deal of further effort will be required to make the type of progress and achieve the type of results which the Government believe is necessary and which I have heard called for in the contributions from all sides of this House during the debate.
We would have preferred that such a concentration on these issues was not necessary. But given the concerns, reiterated in this debate, about the matters that arose in those discussions the Government believe that it was right, indeed essential, that they received the fullest attention at the three Conferences in question.
It is pertinent to recall also that, in the joint review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, both Governments underlined the specific need for confidence in the security forces and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps worth recalling at this point that paragraph 13 of the joint review reinforces this key objective, underlining as it does that the security forces "discharge their duties evenhandedly, acting at all times within the law, with equal respect for unionist and nationalist traditions and with demonstrable accountability".
No one in this House has sought to minimise the importance of the requirement of public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland. Indeed we have all recognised that without this public confidence the primacy of the rule of law can never prevail in Northern Ireland. The issues that have recently arisen are clearly vital and it was essential that they be promptly addressed in the Conference. Left unresolved they threaten to seriously escalate the level of alienation in the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. This would be in no one's interest, except those determined to profit from the further alienation of that community. It is certainly not in the interests of the Irish or British Governments. Nor is it in the interest of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
The Government believe that the direct and frank discussions that we have had over some 30 hours with the British Government at the last three Conferences were absolutely essential. They represent very lengthy and determined efforts under the agreement to resolve differences, we made some progress but the unresolved differences are important and they must remain on the table.
Specifically the Government have used the occasions of these Conferences to register its deep concern about the leaking of security material to loyalist paramilitaries. It is vital that the security forces in Northern Ireland be seen to act at all times within the law. It is simply unacceptable that members of the security forces may be in collusion with those engaged in sectarian assassinations. It is simply unacceptable that members of the security services may be acting in ways deeply prejudicial to one section of the community there. Trust and confidence in the administration of law and order cannot be established and maintained in these circumstances.
The Stevens inquiry is charged with vital and urgent work. We are encouraged by the rigorous manner in which the inquiry has been conducted to date. Its report must fully address the problem and make progress to deal with it effectively.
We know that there are many fine men and women in the UDR. We fully appreciate the difficulty of the task given to them and the dangers which they face. We have condemned repeatedly the "soft targeting" by the IRA of UDR members in their homes and the high casualty rate experienced by the regiment.
At the same time, the Government have not concealed their disquiet about the UDR which is a local military force whose membership is almost exclusively composed from one side of the community. We have a basic concern about its role in law enforcement in Northern Ireland. It has been our belief, and we have expressed this forcefully at the Conference meetings, that a comprehensive review of the basis as well as the role of the UDR is required. Our concerns about the UDR are all the more acute in the light of the evidence of collusion, and the decision by the British authorities to issue plastic bullets to the regiment. Furthermore the Government have been deeply concerned about the absence of progress on the question of "ensuring as rapidly as possible that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, there should be a police presence in all operations which involve direct contact between the armed forces and the community"; this is an issue on which progress has been wholly inadequate since the agreement was signed.
Deputy Austin Currie mentioned incidents of unaccompanied patrols which he has taken up with me and which were the subject of a parliamentary question which was not dealt with yesterday because of this debate. I want to assure him that I have taken up these incidents through the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Belfast. I entirely agree with him that unaccompanied UDR patrols should not be deployed in Nationalist areas. I know he appreciates that progress in this matter is vital to the promotion of confidence among Nationalists. It is, as I have said earlier, a confidence issue rather than a security issue and is a matter to which I have devoted long hours of discussion in the last three Conferences with the Northern Ireland Secretary of State. The commitment on accompaniment, of course, dates from 1985. It is regrettable that this issue, after four years of the agreement, is still actively on our agenda.
As I said earlier, some progress has been made. The British authorities, for instance, have outlined to us a series of measures designed to tighten their procedures, including new arrangements for screening and vetting members of the UDR and new safeguards on the handling of sensitive security materials such as photo montages. They have also agreed to strict controls governing both the issue of plastic bullets to the UDR and their use. We will be pressing our views firmly at the official level working group, which was established after the last Conference, to achieve progress in implementing the policy of accompaniment of UDR patrols by a police presence.
If I have paid specific and detailed attention to the recent important issues which have been before the Conference, I do not do so with any intention of minimising or neglecting the concrete progress that has been made in a number of other areas. The legislation on fair employment, which will come into effect on 1 January next will, we hope, mark the beginning of a new and positive phase in employment practices in Northern Ireland. The Government will be pressing for the effective implementation of this legislation. We also, for example, welcome the extent to which there has been more impartial policing of the marching season and the improvements in the prison régime. My colleagues in Government also outlined the very practical developments which have taken place and which they are promoting in areas of their responsibilities. In short, valuable and important progress has been achieved by the Conference in a range of areas.
The International Fund for Ireland, on the recommendation of both Governments, has now given a new focus and priority to assisting disadvantaged areas and to supporting and developing cross-Border co-operation. The fund continues to attract generous support. Last year, we succeeded in securing a three year EC contribution to the fund while, most recently, the continuing commitment of the US was marked by Congressional commitment of $20 million for 1990 which will bring the US support since 1986 to $150 million. I am certain that the new board of the fund, under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. John McGuckian, will develop imaginatively and effectively the new focus of the fund.
These measures and the generally positive way in which the Agreement is viewed in the Nationalist community have all contributed to a lessening in support for the IRA as demonstrated by the poor Sinn Féin performances in the local and European elections last May.
In the review of the workings of the Agreement it was agreed to develop and expand the role and work of the Conference in a number of significant areas. This expansion does not, of course, mean that the traditional agenda of Nationalist concerns will be weakened in any way. These require, and will of course continue to be given, the highest priority.
The new programme of work for the Conference for the period ahead, and which we hope that the Conference may soon begin to address fully, includes the maximising of cross-Border economic co-operation. Almost every Deputy in the course of the debate has rightly underlined the importance and potential of such co-operation. The Government believe, as the Taoiseach stated yesterday, that there is considerable benefit to be derived from close co-operation in areas such as agriculture, industry, transport, communications, tourism, energy, health and in our approach and response to the challenge of 1992 which clearly will have far-reaching consequences for the island as a whole. At present we are actively working, with the Northern authorities, on the preparation of a joint cross-Border programme for submission to Brussels with a view to achieving Structural Fund support.
In the nineties the existing political borders of Europe will begin to fade and a single market among the 12 members of the EC should be in place. We have long since recognised that this evolution presents us on this island with many challenges and great opportunity. Increasingly we will have common interests to protect and common positions to present in many areas of activity within the Community. It would be shortsighted, indeed foolhardy, not to begin to work together now in anticipation of these events which have profound but similar implications for us, North and South. The Taoiseach has set out very comprehensively the openness of our thinking and approach on the development of our co-operation in this area, including the preparation of a paper to be put forward in a non-political context, and the involvement and input of Northern politicians in the process; it is vital that the views of Northern politicians be known at first hand, and be fully taken into account, as crucially important policies and programmes are decided upon in the coming months.
Since achieving office the Government have made clear their concern about the cases of the Guildford Four, the Maguires and the Birmingham Six. I had a detailed discussion with the then Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, on 13 September last in which I repeated the Government's grave concern about these cases. It is natural that we should all rejoice in seeing the conviction of the Guildford Four quashed and this grievous miscarriage of justice finally corrected after so many years. The four people involved have our full sympathy and understanding as they now seek to rebuild their lives in freedom. We hope that the lessons of this case and the results of the May judicial inquiry will also establish the innocence of the Maguires and their friends and lead to the quashing of their convictions. We must ensure that never again can such a serious miscarriage of justice be visited on innocent people.
For many years now the case of the Birmingham Six has also given rise to the most serious concern. It is a concern that is shared on all sides of this House. The outcome of the Guildford Four case has amply demonstrated that the manner in which convictions were secured in these cases dating back some 15 years raises the most serious and urgent questions. The Government attach the highest priority to having the Birmingham Six case reopened as a matter of urgency. We will be availing of all appropriate opportunities to press vigorously for such a review to be undertaken.
I also welcome the great interest and concern which has been shown by a wide spectrum of opinion, in Ireland, in Britain itself, in the United States and in Europe. I was present in the European Parliament yesterday when MEPs from all sides of the political spectrum expressed their shared and deep concern about the case. I warmly welcome and endorse the call in the resolution which they adopted for "a through review" of the case and I hope that the British Government will now find it possible to respond positively to the growing concern about the position of the Six as they enter their 16th year in prison.
The Government believe that the righting of injustices in these cases should have a positive effect on Anglo-Irish relations as a whole. The maintenance and development of this relationship is one of great importance and must be advanced in all appropriate and constructive ways. I have already had an exchange of letters with the new Home Secretary, Mr. Waddington, and will be meeting him in the near future; I am confident that we will be able to establish the same positive relationship which I had with his predecessor.
One of the proposals emerging from the joint studies, which resulted from the meeting in Dublin Castle in 1980 between the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Thatcher, was the establishment of an inter-parliamentary body to complement the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council established at that time. As Deputies will be aware, such a body has now been agreed upon under the auspices of the Interparliamentary Union and will have its historic first meeting next February. We believe that it can work effectively to strengthen ties between the Dáil and Westminster and the development of relations generally between the two islands.
This new forum in no way seeks to threaten the political or constitutional aspirations of those who take part in it. It is thus not a threat to the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland. We earnestly hope that Unionist politicians will agree to take the seats allocated to them in it. We want, need and would benefit from their contribution.
I would like to conclude by reiterating — as so many Deputies have already done — that we must be conscious in this debate of the change that is sweeping the eastern part of Europe. What is happening is nothing less than peaceful revolution and it demonstrates — if demonstration is needed — that violence and counter-violence is increasingly unthinkable as a method of solving problems between and within civilised states. It also demonstrates the power of democracy. Before the united expression of the people's will, old barriers are crumbling fast. They can crumble, too, on this island.
We can create a new order here also. We Have our problems but we also have the advantage of the many things which bring the two traditions on this island together, the many things which the two islands of Britain and Ireland hold in common, and the encouragement which we receive from our friends abroad, especially in the United States and in the European Community.
The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 November 1989.