Northern Ireland Peace Process: Statements (Resumed).

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

The British and Irish Governments have long shared a common analysis and a common objective: a comprehensive political settlement based on consent. We have also been united in agreement that this objective can only be attained through all-party negotiations addressing comprehensively all the relevant relationships and issues in an interlocking three-stranded process. The necessity for all-party negotiations is also appreciated by all parties in Northern Ireland.

Where they and we have differed has been on how to proceed into such negotiations. Was it possible to ensure that, on the one hand, all parties could enter into such negotiations freely on a basis of equality and without prejudice to their fundamental aspirations and, on the other hand, that all could negotiate in full confidence that there was a basic commitment all round to exclusively peaceful methods and to the democratic process?

This conundrum has dominated discussion between the two Governments, and wider debate, for the past 12 months. It has been a difficult and frustrating period. Disputes over a wide range of complex and interconnected, but ultimately secondary, issues have been permitted to obscure the fundamental point that there is an overwhelming consensus for peace and for agreement between the people who share this island. Debate about questions of substance has been crowded out by debate about questions of procedure.

The appalling prospect that the peace process might run into the sands has loomed before us. In their mass demonstrations last Sunday, the people underlined their determination that this could not be allowed to happen. Even before yesterday's communiqué was written, the wider Irish public had demonstrated that the peace does indeed belong to all the people in this country. The two Governments agreed at the end of November that it was their firm aim to launch all-party negotiations by the end of February. A clear and unalterable timetable leading to negotiations on 10 June has now been put in place. The timescale now envisaged is consistent with the implications of an elective process, the possibility of which was signalled in the November communiqué.

The essential point agreed at the summit is that there is a fixed date on which all-party negotiations will begin. This is a firm and unambiguous commitment and neither Government has sought to enter any qualifications, to hedge or to equivocate. We now see a definite commitment that the two Governments and the Northern parties will sit down together to begin to fashion that lasting settlement which is required to underpin peace and to allow for a new beginning in all three core relationships.

The need for negotiations has been acknowledged on all sides. We want them because, objectively, they are necessary. They would be necessary even if the paramilitary organisations had never existed because there is a political conflict which must be resolved. Nor can the will of the people for negotiations leading to an agreement founded on consent be thwarted by violence. The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister resolved that neither violence, nor the threat of violence, would be allowed to influence the course of negotiations or preparations for negotiations. They also agreed that the IRA's abandonment of its cessation of violence was a fundamental breach of the declared basis on which both Governments engaged Sinn Féin in political dialogue. They reiterated what has already been stated more than once in the House, that the resumption of full political dialogue with Sinn Féin requires the restoration of the ceasefire.

The vast majority of the people of Ireland, North and South, who utterly repudiate the use of violence for any purpose whatsoever, can be assured that there will be no bending of the principle that violence has no place in any political process. Equally, the Governments have emphasised that they are determined to press on in the search for political agreement, irrespective of whether the republican movement makes it possible for Sinn Féin to rejoin that quest. Nevertheless, a fundamental objective of the peace process has always been to offer a meaningful political alternative to violence. Negotiations conducted on a fully inclusive basis, in the absence both of violence and security countermeasures, have always seemed more likely in the long run to produce a stable agreement in which all could acquiesce. The two Governments hope, accordingly, that the negotiations will be fully inclusive, with all parties being able to participate in them. We call on Sinn Féin and the IRA to make Sinn Féin's participation in the process of such negotiations possible.

On 15 February, the president of Sinn Féin said:

The absence of negotiations led to the breakdown. The commencement of negotiations therefore provides the way forward. Any new process must contain copperfastened and unambiguous public assurances that all-party talks will be initiated by both Governments at the earliest possible date.

All-party negotiations will begin on 10 June. While many would have wished for an earlier date, we wanted to be sure that the appointed date was realistic and could be fixed without doubt. This fixed date surely now offers the basic assurances the republican movement sought. Given the intolerable human cost, and the grave political damage caused by the violence to date, how can the IRA explain the continuation, for one more day, of its renewed campaign? It is up to it to decide its own course. I cannot pretend to know how the minds of its leaders work, but I expect that all those with influence upon it will do what they can to point out to it the straightforward and positive implications of agreement on a fixed date and timetable for negotiations.

The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister both recognised that confidence building measures will be necessary in the course of all-party negotiations. Negotiations are a dynamic process, depending on the interplay of personalities and arguments, and not a matter of static calculation. As one such measure, all participants need to make clear at the beginning of negotiations their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out so clearly in the Mitchell report. These principles offer essential guarantees that negotiations will not be affected by violence, or by the threat of violence, and that they will address and, as part of their outcome, achieve, the totally and verifiable decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons.

All parties will also have to address, as a high priority, the report's proposals on decommissioning. Negotiations must, in a nutshell, deal fully and satisfactorily with this issue. However, decommissioning is by no means the only item on the agenda, nor should the commitments we seek be exploited to avoid serious negotiations on the many other questions which need to be addressed. The two Governments have been at pains to stress that confidence is required all round if the negotiations are to gain the momentum necessary for their success. The parties must have reassurance that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of their traditions and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify.

Negotiations must be for real, and must be undertaken in good faith. Every participant has the right to expect that every other participant will make a genuine effort to understand opposing perspectives and to seek accommodation. A heavy onus will rest on all of us. For all to gain, each must be prepared to change. A flexible and accommodating approach will be essential. For example, I was heartened by the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party's recent paper, "The Democratic Imperative", displayed some understanding of the basis of the Nationalist requirement for meaningful North-South links. I hope all parties, including the Unionists, will feel able, both before and throughout the negotiations, to prove to others their determination to forge a new and all-embracing accord.

The Unionist parties have stressed that for them an elective process is of crucial importance in enabling them to go to the table. Both Governments are of the view that such a process would have to be broadly acceptable and would have to lead immediately and without further preconditions to the convening of all-party negotiations with a comprehensive agenda. As reflected in the communiqué, the details of an elective process are primarily a matter for the Northern Ireland parties, which will be the participants in any such process, and for the British Government, which will have to introduce the necessary legislation and ensure it is speedily processed.

The question of how elections are to be integrated into the launch of negotiations is one in which we have a legitimate interest as one of the participants in those negotiations. The Irish Government is prepared to support any process which satisfies the criteria set out by the international body: it must be broadly acceptable to the Northern parties, have an appropriate mandate and be within the three-stranded structure. It is on this basis that the Government has agreed with the British Government on the approach outlined in the communiqué.

It is no secret that the Northern parties continue to disagree on the form of any elective process and on the precise function of that process. There are significant disagreements even between those who have advocated such a process from the beginning. There is a range of possible options consistent with the requirement that elections lead directly and without preconditions into three-stranded all-party negotiations. There are also numerous other significant details which need to be resolved in advance of the launch of negotiations. These are broadly grouped together under the rubric of "the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda" of such negotiations.

Both Governments have had useful discussions with the parties during the series of preparatory talks which were initiated after last November's summit. Nevertheless, there is still much work to be done. For example, we need to ensure that, irrespective of the form and outcome of any elective process, there will be a way for all the relevant players in the situation, including the loyalist parties which have played so crucial and constructive a role, to be involved in resolving the conflict. There are several other key points and myriad lesser details on which it will be necessary to be clear in advance.

It has seemed to me for some time that the only practical way to hammer out agreement on these issues, given both their complexity and the number of participants involved, would be through some form of concentrated and accelerated dialogue which would allow us all to bounce ideas off one another and to explore common ground. The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have now agreed that the two Governments will conduct intensive multilateral consultations on these lines with the relevant Northern parties in whatever configuration or configurations are acceptable to those concerned.

These consultations will begin on Monday next, 4 March and preparations at official level are already under way. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I will meet in Belfast on that day to launch the consultations and to agree on how we will make the best use of the time available to ensure that every effort is made to secure widespread agreement among the parties on elections and the organisation of negotiations and to allow us to come to a view on the question of a referendum. I appeal to all parties to co-operate fully in that process.

These consultations are to be strictly time-limited. They will end on Wednesday, 13 March. They will not be allowed to drag on inconclusively and in so doing to threaten the timetable set out for the launch of negotiations. The existence of a deadline will focus the minds of participants. After 13 March, the two Governments will immediately review their outcome. The British Government will bring forward legislation for an elective process, based on a judgment of what seems most broadly acceptable. Decisions will also be announced as appropriate on the other matters relating to the negotiating process which are to be addressed by the consultations. The two Governments are of the shared view that the parties must be given every opportunity to shape these matters in an agreed fashion, but ultimately we are prepared to make judgments and, where appropriate, to take the necessary decisions on the basis of what we have learned in the consultations.

In essence, we have mapped out a clear path to the negotiating table. This combination of steps offers to all parties a balanced and honourable way forward. It guarantees negotiations, and that they will be conducted on the basis of the principles of democracy and non-violence. There is no reason for any party to refuse to participate in negotiations. Equally, there is no reason for the IRA, through a refusal to restore its ceasefire, to deny Sinn Féin the possibility of full participation in political dialogue and entry into negotiations on a basis of equality.

Negotiations are a necessary means to an essential end. We must not forget what it is that we seek to attain through negotiations. It is important to remind ourselves of the ultimate prize we seek to gain.

Political violence could be eradicated forever through draining the swamp of inherited distrust and incomprehension. Through partnership in agreed institutions Unionists and Nationalists could learn to respect one another and to work together for the common good. Nationalists could feel secure and valued within Northern Ireland: Unionists could feel secure and valued on the island. We could achieve permanent agreement on the rules which would order our relationships through matching and reciprocal guarantees which would transcend disputes over sovereignty. The last ghosts which haunt the relationship between Britain and Ireland would be laid to rest.

It is long past time that we began to work out together how to reach this destination. Now we know when negotiations will begin, and we must prepare ourselves for the task ahead. The Irish Government, working on the foundations and with the commitments of yesterday's communiqué, will approach that task with the utmost urgency and resolve.

Mr. R. Burke

As has already been made clear by our party leader. Deputy Bertie Ahern, we on this side of the House welcome yesterday's communiqué, including the fixed date for negotiations which has been the key to advancing the peace process. For 18 months delay upon delay occurred without any real progress towards the commencement of negotiations. We had the communiqué of 28 November with the firm aim of commencing negotiations by the end of February. It was interesting to hear Michael Ancram say on the radio this morning that previous statements, including dates, were no more than wishful thinking. That has been the difficulty. They were recognised as being no more than wishful thinking. It is essential that the fixed date in June is adhered to because we must go forward.

It is a matter of regret that the question is being asked as to where is democracy in all of this? If the bombs had not exploded three weeks ago, would we be where we are today? I would like to think we would be and that the concentrated efforts of all parties in this House, the people of both these islands and the people of the United States would have been worthwhile. I fear, however, the message that will have been sent out to the hard men of the IRA. I do not agree with it but I am afraid of it.

For the past 18 months Sinn Féin, as well as Members of this House, have called for a definite date for the commencement of talks. Now that a definite date has been set, it is incumbent on Sinn Féin to demand of the IRA army council a restoration of the ceasefire. The people of these islands demand nothing less from the IRA. Neither frustration with delays in the democratic process nor delays in the commencement of talks can justify the violence we have witnessed in recent weeks. Nothing justifies the two deaths in Canary Wharf, the death of the IRA member, Ed O'Brien from Gorey, and the pain and suffering that has caused his parents. We must reinstate the ceasefire, have a permanent end to violence and move on to democratic negotiations.

I am particularly proud of the role my party has played in the peace process since the Fianna Fáil-led Government brought about the ceasefire of 31 August 1994. I am proud also of the role played by my party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, in the two and a half weeks since the bomb exploded in Canary Wharf on that fateful Friday evening when the ceasefire ended. By supporting the Government in a bi-partisan way and leading the process of talks with Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the IRSP and various other groups, Fianna Fáil has done everything possible in the role of Opposition to restore the peace process. The past two and a half weeks have been a time of crisis. Fianna Fáil has been central in trying to restore the peace process and we intend to remain central by using our contacts and our influence with all parties, bodies and individuals to ensure the process is moved forward.

I have one regret about the wording of yesterday's communiqué. There is an essential role to be played by Senator Mitchell in advancing the peace process, through the phase of negotiations and on to a comprehensive settlement. There will be occasions during the proximity talks, the electoral process and the negotiations to commence in June, when seemingly irreconcilable differences will arise and where the bona fides of both Governments will be questioned. At that stage in the process, it will be essential to have someone who will act as an honest broker, and no one has become more identified with the peace process or is more knowledgeable about the issues involved in the conflict than Senator Mitchell. The role of the United States Government and its people has been essential to the peace process. I can understand the British Government's reluctance to have outsiders involved in its affairs but reason indicates there is a role for an honest broker, and Senator Mitchell is the obvious choice. It will be necessary to have somebody from whom the participants can seek guidance or an opinion. In all disputes there is an intermediary but in this case we are talking about conflict resolution, which is a complex issue, and the role of an honest broker is essential.

Whatever the outcome of these negotiations — and I am glad this was emphasised in the communiqué — it must include a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the Downing Street Declaration and the Joint Framework Document. I welcome the fact that the framework document is being quoted in the context of the resolution of this historic problem because, since its publication, it has not been mentioned. I note with satisfaction that the Taoiseach mentioned it more yesterday — three times on the one page — than at any time in the past 12 months, despite our repeated attempts at Question Time to have it made central to the resolution of the conflict.

It is important to remember what is contained in the Joint Framework Document. We talk about it, but may sometimes forget exactly what is involved. Paragraph 13 of A New Framework for Agreement states:

The two Governments will work together with the parties to achieve a comprehensive accommodation, the implementation of which would include interlocking and mutually supportive institutions across the three strands, including:

(a) structures within Northern Ireland (paragraphs 22 and 23) — to enable elected representatives in Northern Ireland to exercise shared administrative and legislative control over all those matters that can be agreed across both communities and which can most effectively and appropriately be dealt with at that level;

(b) North/South institutions (paragraphs 24-38) — with clear identity and purpose, to enable representatives of democratic institutions, North and South, to enter into new, co-operative and constructive relationships; to promote agreement among the people of the island of Ireland; to carry out on a democratically accountable basis delegated executive, harmonising and consultative functions over a range of designated matters to be agreed; and to serve to acknowledge and reconcile the rights, identities and aspirations of the two major traditions; and

(c) East-West structures (paragraphs 39-49) — to enhance the existing basis for co-operation between the two Governments, and to promote, support and underwrite the fair and effective operation of the new arrangements.

That is the basis for the way forward. What progress is to be made in the proximity talks due to take place from 4-13 March on strand II? How is it to be dealt with? This matter was touched on by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs when he stated:

There are also numerous other significant details which need to be resolved in advance of the launch of negotiations. These are broadly grouped together under the rubric of "the basis, participation, structure, format and agenda" of such negotiations.

I am keen to hear the Government's view on how it sees the strand II process advancing.

I wish to take up a matter raised by my party leader on the Order of Business, that is, the role played by prisoners. My colleague, Deputy Ó Cúiv, returned yesterday from Britain where he visited a number of prisons. The prisoners will play an essential role in finding a solution to the conflict, as they played a vital role in bringing about the ceasefire announced in August 1994. Rather than responding to this, easing the prison regime both on mainland Britain and Northern Ireland and providing for a release programme, as I praise the Irish Government for doing — I want it to recommence the programme as soon as the ceasefire is restored — the British Government has been bloody minded in its approach to prisoners, thereby damaging the peace process. It should have responded in a generous manner by providing for early releases and relaxing the prison regime, but instead there has been a hardening of that regime and a refusal to respond to the guidance of the parole board on the issue of early releases.

The harsh treatment of Paddy Kelly whose health has deteriorated because of the lack of proper medical care and who has still not been transferred to a hospital in the South or released does nothing to instil confidence in elements within the community and every Member of this House in the sincerity of the British Government in relation to the peace process.

Time has been wasted because of the attitude adopted by the two Governments in the past 18 months, but particularly by the British Government. Risks have been taken with the peace process. The IRA set off the bombs and although nothing can justify the murder and mayhem in London and the threat of continuing violence it is way past time for the democratic process to begin. The negotiations should proceed to achieve a comprehensive settlement as laid out, in the best judgment of the two Governments, in the Joint Framework Document. That should be the framework for the solution to this historic problem.

Mr. Deasy

I wish to share my time with Deputy Flaherty.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is in order.

Mr. Deasy

In common with previous speakers, I welcome the joint communiqué issued yesterday by the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. To everyone involved I say "well done". This should be a day for rejoicing, but already people are indicating that they may have reservations about the agreement. That is unfortunate. We all appreciate that Sinn Féin will have to secure the agreement of the IRA before the peace process can be resumed, but that should not lead to any lengthy discussions or calls for clarification as happened after the Downing Street Declaration was published. It should be done within a matter of days, not weeks or months.

The IRA and Sinn Féin must know at this stage that they had a modicum of sympathy in this country during the course of the peace process, but once the bombs went off in Canary Wharf and Aldwych it soon melted away. The public can become impatient with groups such as that unless they are seen to adopt a positive attitude. The IRA and Sinn Féin depend on the goodwill and support of many people on this island. The support that was forthcoming from extraordinary sections of the community during the course of the peace process melted away very quickly and it will not be forthcoming until they sit down and talk without any preconditions on any side. They would be well advised to realise that there would be no sympathy for them, that they have a second chance and should take it.

I pay tribute to the British Prime Minister, Mr. John Major. Two weeks ago I was critical of him. We all appreciate that on this occasion he stood up to the Ulster Unionist Party, in particular to Mr. Trimble. He deserves our gratitude and I hope he can carry it through. Their vote against him in the House of Commons on Monday shows his resolve in not giving in to their demands and we appreciate that.

Let us not have triumphalism from any side on the communiqué. Let us not claim the Unionists have been faced down and, on the other hand, when the marching season again comes around the British should adopt a mature attitude and not allow Unionists to march through Nationalist areas. We do not want similar scenes to those witnessed last year on Garvaghy Road and elsewhere in the North which caused considerable resentment and anger, damaged community relations and the prospect of a lasting peace. Let us have firmness on all sides. We welcome the firmness shown by Mr. Major this week, it is a vast improvement on his attitude up to now. Many of us were inclined to blame him for the breakdown of the peace process, but he has redeemed himself.

Let us not forget the work done behind the scenes, particularly by John Hume. An important meeting took place between the SDLP and the DUP in Northern Ireland last week which may have helped to resolve the impasse. There have been extraordinary changes in attitudes by people such as Dr. Paisley and I am sure John Hume played a major role in that.

In my previous contribution on this matter I was generous in my praise of Gerry Adams and what he did during the 18 months of the peace process. He is still a pivotal figure in the negotiations and the talks we expect to take place when Sinn Féin prevail on the IRA to resume the ceasefire.

I sympathise with the O'Brien family in Gorey, County Wexford. I also praise them for the magnificent way in which they bore the brunt of their grief. They denounced violence and refused to allow the IRA to dominate a sad occasion. The father and mother deserve credit because they made people throughout the world, particularly in England, realise that the majority of us do not support violence or the IRA.

The Tánaiste and Deputy Burke raised the important question of the treatment of Irish people in English jails. Mr. Major must ensure that those prisoners are treated like human beings and given fair play. I recall the Tánaiste stating seven or eight months ago that conditions for IRA prisoners in English jails had worsened since the inception of the peace process. That is inconceivable in a civilised country. It smacks of vindictiveness and should not be allowed.

If the British authorities are not prepared to address the matter, there is an onus on the Irish Government to request the human rights committee of the Council of Europe to carry out an investigation in the prisons. While we do not want to come into conflict with the British, we must ensure that everybody is treated fairly and in a humane manner.

There is a feeling of optimism on the island and I do not believe the IRA can resist the swell of support for this agreement. I ask the IRA and Sinn Féin to declare their support for the agreement in the next few days.

Miss Flaherty

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. We are all delighted that a date for all-party negotiations has been set and congratulate those involved in the communiqué. Deputy Deasy referred to optimism, but people are still cautious, particularly having regard to the nature of the Sinn Féin responses. An element of danger still exists, but it can be overcome. It was encouraging to hear the Tánaiste say the door is open for clarification. The initial responses illustrate that an open door is necessary. Despite the optimism some 19 or 20 months ago, events did not unfold with the speed and generosity that was expected. It is not surprising, therefore, that those wooed from their traditional violence to peaceful means will be cautious in a second courtship if matters are not clarified.

Sinn Féin is talking about preconditions and its lack of involvement in the proximity talks on the shape of an election. I am sure everyone agrees that the Mitchell principles should be part of the agenda and the basis on which talks should proceed, but they contain a commitment to proceed with discussions on decommissioning immediately following the commencement of all-party negotiations. While decommissioning should be on the agenda, the purpose of the Mitchell commission was to bring about a parallel process. Will the first item on the agenda, following the commencement of all-party negotiations, bring us back to the decommissioning argument? In moving with great speed from centre to centre, Mitchell showed what can be done in a short time with intense commitment to an objective. A similar urgency is required now. When all sides — or as many as possible, depending on what happens in the meantime — sit down to negotiate I hope our lines are not firmly fixed on what we will accept in regard to decommissioning. I hope we will examine some of the substantive issues in the interim. There is an element of danger in setting deadlines. This was brought to my attention by prisoners and others in the republican movement who are committed to peace. Instead of setting deadlines we should ensure that the process moves on. The Government should set up working parties which would concentrate not only on decommissioning and elections but also on the substantive negotiations which will follow.

As democrats we may repudiate violence but this will not achieve peace on its own. Many of the people committed to violence have sacrificed their lives for their objective, however misguided, and if the paramilitaries are to be won back to the path of peace we must prove that politics work. It is not enough to have photocalls and visits, it must also be indicated that the negotiations which will follow will be substantive. Progress must be made during the intervening period so as to ensure that the issues will be properly thrashed out in the talks.

I look forward to hearing Deputy Ó Cuív's update on the prisoners issue. The only way one can ascertain the true position is by visiting the prisons. The treatment of prisoners undermined the peace process. We reported regularly on the situation and asked serious questions about the British Government's agenda, the reasons for the deterioration in the treatment of prisoners, whether there was a lack of sincerity on the other side and if it was trying to humiliate prisoners. If these were the questions asked by democrats one can only imagine the questions asked by people who are in direct conflict with the UK authorities. If confidence is to be built and peace restored the UK authorities must move very quickly on this issue.

We must also be realistic about what Sinn Féin can achieve in terms of the IRA. I believe Sinn Féin as a party and certain sections within the IRA are committed to peace but it must be regarded by them as an honourable peace. Much work needs to be done and the door must be kept open to the Taoiseach and Tánaiste who must immediately engage in negotiations at all political levels. Consideration must also be given to other levels at which discussions could take place with Nationalists and Unionists. If we are to solve the problem of republican and loyalist isolation we must bring them into the democratic process.

I welcome the communiqué with cautious optimism. I hope we can sustain it and prove that politics is the best way of achieving a political objective.

Mr. D. Ahern

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is somewhat ironic that I am speaking after Deputy Flaherty as both of us got some mention in the media last weekend for wearing green ribbons last Wednesday. The journalist who ran with that story got the facts half right in that I had worn a white ribbon the previous day. I am not sure if Deputy Flaherty did the same.

Miss Flaherty

I wore both.

Mr. D. Ahern

I wore a green ribbon because of my strong feelings about the treatment of prisoners and its relevance to the entire process. I compliment Deputy Flaherty, her colleagues and, in particular, Deputy Ó Cuív, for their tremendous work in highlighting the treatment of prisoners on both sides of the divide. Deputy Ó Cuív will outline the up-to-date position on this issue in his contribution. There is at least one case on this side of the Border about which the Government could do something.

Last weekend I participated in the massive display against violence by ordinary people in my home town. The bombs at Canary Wharf and elsewhere in London shattered not only buildings and bodies but also the hopes and aspirations of all Irish people, particularly those living in Border areas. During the 18 months of the ceasefire the cloud of violence under which I and many others had lived for most of our adult life was lifted. People cherished the ceasefire and this is why people in the greater Dundalk area turned out in significant numbers last Sunday to show their abhorrence at the return to violence.

The people in these marches called not only on the IRA to restore the ceasefire but also on all politicians to renew their efforts and bring a new impetus into the process. As my party leader said in no uncertain terms last night, the general feeling was that not enough was done. I do not say this in any party political way as it could equally be said about parties on this side of the House. The main aim of politicians is to bring about peace on this island, it pervades all we do. I live in a Border area which will never prosper properly until there is peace and stability on the island.

During my visits to the North in recent weeks I have been astounded at the way the landscape has changed and somewhat annoyed at the presence of members of the British army in every town and village. I am not saying one should not be careful — the breakdown of the peace process obviously changes the situation — but I question why the British army should be deployed in these villages and towns given that there is no immediate danger in the North. Its presence on the streets, together with the checkpoints in the South, were a stark reminder of the situation which obtained in the North for 25 years. Given that there has been no return to violence in the North I question whether the deployment of British army troops on the streets is necessary at present. Last November Fianna Fáil welcomed the communiqué put together by the two Governments. However, my party leader questioned whether the roadblock in the way of the process at that time was merely being pushed further down the road. That disguised our private unease at that time. We would not say publicly that we were uneasy about it but we felt the problem had only been superficially patched up at that time; that is what appears to have happened. There was a lack of follow through on that document by the two parties involved, particularly on the British side. We all know what happened to the Mitchell report.

In the communiqué issued yesterday both Governments apparently agreed that the resumption of ministerial dialogue with Sinn Féin and that party's participation in negotiations required the restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. The Taoiseach said afterwards that this was the only precondition to Sinn Féin's participation in these negotiations. Will there be any other preconditions? From my reading of the document, if Sinn Féin is to participate in ministerial dialogue and in negotiations the restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994 is required. Perhaps someone on the Government side can tell me whether that is an absolute guarantee.

If what the Taoiseach said last night is the case if all that is required to allow Sinn Féin into the process again is for the IRA to call a ceasefire, then what was the last 18 months about? This could have been done much earlier than now. Will all the roadblocks that were removed on the basis of the permanence of the ceasefire, the decontamination period; the elective body and — biggest of all — the decommissioning process, be erected again?

Decommissioning is, in my opinion, a Unionist agenda. It was, surprisingly enough, a middle class Unionist agenda and came from those who, while involved in politics, were not directly involved in the strife. Mr. Billy Hutchinson was quite adamant on "Counterpoint" last night that the decommissioning issue was nonsense not only from their point of view but from the IRA's point of view and that all it was doing was putting back any possibility of moving forward. Will this sentence in the communiqué cause difficulty in the future? Will the British Government say that Sinn Féin can join the negotiations if the ceasefire is put in place, but then want to know whether it is permanent? Will it want decommissioning to take place? I would like to hear the Government's opinion on that.

The coming together of the two Governments has kept the peace process going. Fianna Fáil was very much to the fore in achieving this over the past five years. Some years ago Deputies would not meet any of our counterparts in the House of Commons, and, due to the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, and other such contacts, there is a much better understanding between the Governments, between politicians from this House and politicians from the House of Commons. There is a much better understanding of the difficulties involved. The perceptions that dogged British-Irish relations and the two Governments have been proof of that also.

The two Governments have come together but, unfortunately, the necessary dynamic was missing for the past year because we were subject to 15 minute or half hourly telephone calls between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. It was obvious to those on this side of the House that relations were not good. That led to wrong signals being sent culminating in the debacle of putting the Mitchell report into the bin. It was admitted by Mr. Mates last night on television, and by other British Government representatives, that this was badly handled; it was not made clear to the general public that the British Government was not in fact binning the Mitchell report, that it was accepting it. There was an acknowledgement by the British side, no later than last night, that that issue was badly handled.

Much of the difficulty arose because of what went on in the telephone conversation between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister the night before the Mitchell report was published and the fact that the Tánaiste, when speaking on the radio that day, did not know what the British Prime Minister had decided. If I remember correctly, the Tánaiste said the British Prime Minister would not mention elections when he went into the House of Commons later that afternoon, when, in fact, the Prime Minister did the very opposite. He binned the Mitchell report and in the House of Commons said that there would be elections. That caused difficulty in the whole process.

The major dynamic in the peace process has always been what is disparagingly called the pan-Nationalist front which we regard as a Nationalist consensus, with Sinn Féin, the SDLP, and the greater body of Nationalist Ireland coming together in one group. Anyone who participated in that was aware that they would be required to compromise on their ideals and aspirations at some time, but that was the major dynamic which brought about this peace process. However, when I asked the Taoiseach on a number of occasions whether he saw himself as leader of that group, as leader of Nationalist Ireland, I was treated to a lecture about our obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. I was annoyed — the rules of this House do not permit people to react — but there is no doubt that the attitude of the Taoiseach, and his attitude when he refused to meet John Hume and Gerry Adams, gave all the wrong signals. That was when it became obvious to those of us looking on, not only Fianna Fáil but those in the prisons, those in the North and those directly involved in the IRA that the wrong signals were going out.

The last Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, led from the front. This comes back to the British policy of divide and conquer, which they have used throughout Irish history. Unfortunately, the two Governments were divided and efforts were surreptitiously made to divide the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. Most important, an effort was made to divide the Nationalist consensus and this was successful for some time.

I mentioned two dynamics in that process, but there is no Unionist dynamic. We have heard nothing from unionism except that they want to retain the status quo, with or without violence. That was clear in Mr. Trimble's document recently in which he more or less threw out the three strand process. something Unionists were linked to for many years. In effect, he said that Strand II of the process was not important.

The release of prisoners is a confidence building measure, a two-way process. Deputy Ó Cuív was correct in describing it as such this morning.

Regarding the South, I want to mention a prisoner, Patrick Duffy from Dundalk, who is in prison for a very serious crime. A number of years after he was incarcerated he broke all his ties with the Provisional IRA and has turned over a new leaf. A number of hours before the Canary Wharf bomb he was to be released. He had his bags packed and his relations were to collect him, but when the bombs exploded he was immediately told that he would lose all the benefits he had previously gained. I immediately contacted my party leader to make the point that the Irish Government's attitude to him was wrong.

Thankfully, many of the benefits have since been restored. However, last week he wanted to go to Belfast in connection with a custody application in regard to access to his children, in respect of whom he is fighting a European Court case. He was not allowed to go, even though he was allowed to do so during the ceasefire. I ask that some consideration be given in that regard because it is acknowledged by the prison authorities and by the Provisional IRA that this man has nothing to do with it. Perhaps the Minister would take that on board.

Mr. B. Fitzgerald

I propose to share my time with Deputy Kavanagh.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. When we last spoke about Northern Ireland in this House, there was a mood of frustration and despair. Those most intimately involved in the peace process faced the prospect of three years of hard work ending in failure. It is a testament to their commitment and ability that we have pulled back from the abyss. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste in particluar are to be congratulated. The Tánaiste's work in this area spans many years, and I am extremely proud of his contribution. Others have played their part too. Deputy Ahern's speech in the last debate has rightly been assessed as a major speech for a leader of his party. He is to be commended for making it when he did.

My hope is that we are now entering a new stage in the peace process, but we cannot afford to be too congratulatory. We have all seen how fragile the peace is. Our job now is to recreate the momentum which makes a further return to violence impossible. This, of course, presupposes that the IRA will re-establish the ceasefire. It must do so, it never had justification for ending it, but even in its own terms, the excuses at that time have been rendered invalid. There are no guarantees, but there never are in politics. My instinct is that Sinn Féin is prepared to argue its cause in this context and the IRA must let it do so.

Some Deputies have already remarked on various aspects of the communiqué. I have my views on the merits of many of them, but I see no point in articulating them. Each aspect outlined yesterday represents a proposal from one of the parties to the peace process. It was important that the Irish and British Governments take these proposals on board. To do otherwise would have led to alienation of a particular party. The situation which both Governments arrived at places the onus firmly on the politicians of Northern Ireland to devise their own formula for the solution of this problem.

The case to be made now is a simple one. It is a matter of politics with a small "p". No party to the dialogue between 4-13 March can expect to achieve all its ends. All must be prepared to compromise.

For us, compromise is the essence of politics. It is the difference between sustaining democracy and its demise. We, in this House, all hold different political positions, but we remain wedded to one goal — the service of the people we represent. For some people compromise and accommodation are undesirable and, no doubt, we all feel like that at times. In this State, there is no government without accommodation between respective political positions.

We tend to take this for granted, but we forget that it is a political culture unique in these islands. In Britain, the "first past the post" electoral system, rightly or wrongly, creates winners and losers. In Northern Ireland politics at an internal level have never been conducted along similar lines to those in the Republic. Recent years, however, have seen the welcome development of cross-party agreement in local government, particularly between the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists and the same is true in Britain. However, the dominant political culture is one of winner takes all.

This factor can explain some of our current difficulties. When Unionists and, to a lesser extent, the British adopt a public position, Nationalists tend to view it as a negotiating position. Often, it is not. Similarly, the Unionists tend to view the refusal of Nationalists and the Irish Government to publicly declare their bottom line prior to negotiation as underhanded. The classic example is the debate about Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution. We are prepared to make alterations to them but, because we will not do so unilaterally or declare the precise nature of the changes we can accept, Unionists doubt our bona fides.

The strength of the position adopted by the two Governments yesterday is that they represent a challenge to all parties. All must be prepared to move if peace is to be secured.

For Sinn Féin the challenge is clear — the abandonment of the option of the gun. It is a fundamental choice. I heard Deputy Harney express regret last night that the initial reaction from Sinn Féin was disappointing, but it is too early to tell. Media reports have not yet been able to pin down the exact balance of power within that organisation since the breakdown of the ceasefire. In these circumstances it is wrong to expect a speedy response from Sinn Féin. Let us be clear that if Sinn Féin is unable to convince the IRA that the communiqué is the basis on which to move forward in a non-violent fashion, it is faced with the choice of whether to be a political party. It is also letting down the people who have been spoken of here on many occasions during this and the last debate, the prisoners. If they are not at the table to argue the cause of the prisoners, who will do so?

For Unionists the challenge is just as clear. It is about putting fears about their future and their grievances about the past to one side to enable them to secure that future. It will involve the dilution of their current position, but any agreement they arrive at will be all the more secure for the consent to it of the other community in the North. There are signs that the necessary confidence in the Unionist community is developing. The consistent and clear line taken throughout the ceasefire by the UDP and the PUP has been and continues to be very encouraging. I am confident that the same potential and courage resides with the UUP also.

It is now up to the parties in Northern Ireland to determine the process. I know I speak for all Members when I say that we will do everything to facilitate them. The adage that peace threatens no one is true. All sides to the conflict have an interest in seeing it end. However, peace challenges everyone. The Governments have played their part and any doubts about their collective determination to carry this process forward were removed yesterday. The ball is now in the Northern parties' court. I urge them to run with it.

Mr. Kavanagh

All who participated last Sunday in the peace marches throughout Ireland sent a clear and unambiguous message to politicians and participants in the peace process which ended to some degree when bombs exploded in London. The people of this island, North and South, of all political and religious persuasions, demand that the peace process get under way and that peace be achieved with a negotiated settlement between all the parties, if possible.

We have had the clearest demonstration in this country since the foundation of the State that peace should be the most important part of our agenda. We have tasted the fruits of 18 months of peace and we do not want to see it slide away. The IRA, through its spokesman in Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, claims:

Dates and timetables have been agreed by both Governments. All-party negotiations will commence on 10 June and multilateral consultations commencing on 4 March must be completed by 13 March. If there is not agreement, legislation will be introduced and there will be an election to select the negotiators who will attend the all-party talks.

The secretary of Sinn Féin, Mr. Martin McGuinness, gave a guarded welcome on "Newsnight" to what has been agreed by both Governments. Hopefully Sinn Féin will enter into negotiations. The president of Sinn Féin said the absence of negotiations led to the breakdown in the ceasefire. This is not similar to the breakdown in negotiations which may occur in industrial relations. The IRA set off bombs in England with disastrous consequences. The sad sight of the funeral in Gorey yesterday brought home to everyone what the breakdown in the ceasefire means. Nobody wants a return to violence and it is incumbent on us all to do what is necessary to achieve peace.

The British co-chairman of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body accepted that there was delay and a lack of urgency over the past 18 months. If that was the Justification for the return to violence, a reason we cannot accept, it has now been removed. Bombs kill, delays do not. There is no evidence of delay on the part of the Government or the Opposition. Every Friday people met in the Forum and all opinions were canvassed. There were discussions with various groups every week.

A date for all-party talks is being offered to Sinn Féin and the IRA. We saw the peace demonstrations last Sunday and we earnestly hope everyone will meet the deadlines and return to the peace we experienced for 18 months which brought such benefit to communities North and South.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I welcome the agreement between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister set out in the communiqué, particularly the date for all-party negotiations. While it is not the time to be critical, it is fair to ask why it took so long for this to happen. There is a duty on both sovereign Governments not to be held to ransom and I hope the date will be adhered to. There is an obligation on all parties to ensure progress is made.

As regards the negotiations in South Africa which led to the establishment of a national government with black people and white people, Mr. de Klerk stated at the Forum that it was important not to allow a political vacuum to develop. He and President Mandela addressed all the issues and crossed hurdles as they arose.

The British Government, with its demands, preconditions and excuses, is mainly responsible for the long delay. All members have condemned the violence of recent weeks. It cannot be justified. People want a permanent end to violence and inclusive talks held with those who are not committed to violence as the way forward.

I am concerned at the way communiques are agreed. On 28 November and again yesterday meetings were held late in the night and telephone calls were made all day, racing against the deadline. I would prefer the two Governments to do their business in a better way.

The part played by my party in Government is well documented but since coming to Opposition Deputy Ahern has played a very responsible role. He met people in an effort to ensure the door was open to anyone who could influence the IRA and persuade them to return to a ceasefire.

There has been a bipartisan approach to this issue in the House but it is the duty of the Opposition to offer constructive criticism where necessary. I was disappointed when the chairman of the Fine Gael Party, in an article in The Irish Times last Wednesday, attacked those who were critical of the Government and said they were working to a Sinn Féin agenda. I replied to that on Saturday, 24 February. It is positively unhelpful to attack people who, in this House and outside it, condemned violence time and again. It was wrong of the chairman of the Fine Gael Party, who was no doubt representing his party, to launch into such an attack not only on Members of the House but on the media.

We did not hear about the framework document for 18 months, which was unfortunate because both the Downing Street Declaration and the framework document were positive commitments by the two Governments to make the desired progress. Paragraph 10 of the framework document "A New Framework For Agreement", in referring to the two Governments, states:

They take as guiding principles for their co-operation in search of this agreement:

(i) the principle of self-determination, as set out in the Joint Declaration;

(ii) that the consent of the governed is an essential ingredient for stability in any political arrangement;

(iii) that agreement must be pursued and established by exclusively democratic, peaceful means, without resort to violence or coercion;

(iv) that any new political arrangements must be based on full respect for, and protection and expression of, the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland and even-handedly afford both communities in Northern Ireland parity of esteem and treatment, including equality of opportunity and advantage.

We all subscribe to paragraph 10, but why has there been no reference to it in the last 18 months? I was very pleased it was referred to in paragraph 6 of yesterday's communiqué.

It is time for generosity from all political parties on this island. There must be a commitment by all parties to make worthwhile progress. It is important that the three strands are addressed. In the past 12 months there has been a tendency, particularly for the Ulster Unionist Party, supported by the British Government, to sideline Strand II dealing with North-South structures. It is very important that all elements in the three strands be addressed, and that will take generosity from all sides. In fairness to John Hume and the SDLP in particular, they have shown generosity during the past 30 years, but there has not been a positive constructive move forward by the Unionist parties. I hope, now that a date has been set for meaningful negotiations, they will address the issues involved.

If agreement is not reached there is an obligation on sovereign Governments to take the necessary action to proceed. The people want an end to violence. They want a just and lasting peace. That was demonstrated very effectively by the marches last Sunday. As representatives of the people, we are aware they want an end to violence immediately. A sovereign Government should not allow itself to be held to ransom by a small number of people, whether elected or otherwise.

I have expressed reservations about elections. I am concerned that the two major Unionist parties will compete with each other to see which one will go furthest back into the trench. I am not sure what mandate they would receive from an election. Elections are not necessary. Everybody, even the children in the street, knows that all-party negotiations should include all constitutional parties, Sein Féin and political parties of the paramilitary loyalists, as long they accept an end to violence and the democratic way forward. Those objectives are very well encapsulated in the six principles laid down in the Mitchell report.

Last night the leader of our party referred to the significance of paragraph 9 of the communiqué which is in the Taoiseach's name only. Perhaps that matter will be referred to in reply to the debate. Another point which is probably of no great significance but which is worthy of comment is that the communiqué refers in some paragraphs to all-party negotiations and in others to substantive all-party negotiations. Is there any significance in the use of the word "substantive" in certain paragraphs?

On the question of elections, whatever process is used, a decision should be made on the number of people representing each party. It would be a disaster if the majority of those elected were Unionists. That would not be a recipe for a way forward in negotiations and would not constitute a legislative assembly. It must be spelled out that there cannot be constitutional change without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. Elections such as those held in other parts of Europe, and the rules of democracy that apply throughout the European Union would not operate effectively in Northern Ireland. If they did, we would not be here week after week debating this matter.

I am very pleased with the positive approach by the British Prime Minister to the Mitchell report — there is reference to that in paragraph 12 of the communiqué. That report offers a way forward. The six principles laid down therein are very constructive and should be subscribed to by everybody. Mitchell put forward the desired solution for all-party talks on decommissioning where there would be neither winners nor losers.

I share the concern expressed about prisoners, particularly in Britain. I appreciate the work the Government is doing in that regard. I hope there is an immediate ceasefire so that it will be possible for the Government to release the nine prisoners who had their bags packed ready for release when the bomb exploded in Canary Wharf.

There is much work to be done and all politicians must work together. I pay tribute to some of the British politicians, particularly Peter Temple-Morris, co-leader of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, who took a legitimate stand and was unfairly criticised for it. I represent two Ulster counties and, as Deputy Boylan is aware, the people in my constituency were appalled at the return to IRA violence. They want an immediate resumption of the ceasefire. While addressing political issues is fundamental and must be our prime concern, we must be aware of the economic and social aspects, particularly in Border areas, arising from the political problems on this island. Given that we have this great opportunity to move forward, I hope all parties will do so, thereby bringing lasting peace.

Mr. Ring

I wish to share my time with Deputy Boylan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. Ring

I congratulate the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice for what was achieved yesterday. I also congratulate the leaders of all the main political parties for acting responsibly. Nobody tried to play party politics with this serious issue.

Two weeks ago in this Chamber I called on people in the North, the South and England to march for peace and to let politicians know how they felt. I thank the people who marched for peace last Saturday and Sunday. They sent a clear message to the politicians. They also sent a message to the gunmen, that they do not want to see violence here again.

I hope Ed O'Brien's death will be the last one from violence here or in England. I congratulate his family for the way they handled it and their condemnation of violence. His mother and father, under very difficult circumstances, sent out a good message on behalf of this country and did it a great service. I compliment them for doing that in their hour of grief.

I also congratulate John Major for his contribution to the peace process. Other political leaders might not have been as brave as he was, particularly last weekend when facing a vital vote. He did not make deals with the Unionists or anybody else and he must be complimented. He is a brave leader and has shown he is committed to the peace process.

It was great the Taoiseach was able to announce yesterday evening that a date has been set for all-party talks. The people welcomed that with open arms, including the people of County Mayo. Some newspaper reporters seem to think the people of Mayo do not have a global perspective, but that is not true. The peace process concerns the people in County Mayo as it concerns people in the North and in Border areas. We do not want to see one life lost in the name of Ireland. Through the years County Mayo has suffered a loss of population through emigration. Many Mayo people who earn their living in England have had to deal with attacks from the British public when bombs have been detonated in London. It is hard to blame the British public for being angry when innocent people suffer as a result of bombings.

It was wonderful to hear that 10 June has been set for all-party talks. The people are happy today. They believe representatives of all parties will sit down around the table to discuss this serious situation.

I ask Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to use their powers to convince the people who control the IRA that we want the peace process back on line and an announcement in the next few days that it has been reinstated. The people reacted last weekend and will react again if there is more violence in the name of Ireland. I say to those hidden people who do not represent anybody that we do not want anybody to die in our name, that 99.9 per cent of the people here do not want violence.

I welcome this debate and hope it will not take another situation like this before we again have a debate on Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland should be discussed on a quarterly basis. We should discuss progress, and show we are as concerned about it as everybody else.

I am pleased to congratulate the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the main political leaders who have acted responsibly. The Taoiseach should keep up the good work. The people responded last weekend and they will respond again. Thousands of small marches are being organised in villages and towns throughout the country by people saying they do not want to see a bomb being detonated here, in England or elsewhere in the name of Ireland. I compliment all those involved in the peace process. It is great to see people smiling today. Their message that we do not want violence in this or any other land must be sent to the men of violence.

Mr. Boylan

I thank my colleague, Deputy Ring, for sharing his time with me. Coming from a Border area I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to join in the good wishes and congratulations extended to the Taoiseach, Deputy John Bruton, and to the British Prime Minister, John Major, on the joint communiqué issued yesterday. The announcement of 10 June for all-party talks is a major breakthrough. We have been waiting for that date to be set for some time and it was not easy to reach agreement on it. There were many difficulties, but we have achieved a goal that was set.

This is a particularly difficult time and when the history of this period is written, the role played by Deputy John Bruton as Taoiseach will be recognised. He has been statesmanlike, courageous and has shown leadership to our people. He did not lose his nerve. He was not blown off the tracks by the men of violence.

It is welcome that by and large the leaders of the main Opposition parties acted extremely responsibly, but that is what we would expect from democratically elected people. This matter affects all the country and valid criticism is right and proper. The role played by the former Taoiseach at a particularly difficult time was less than I expected from him. If he considers he has a role to play in private, he is entitled to play it, but when private meetings are held in the full glare of television cameras, a question mark hangs over what he was trying to do. It was not helpful. He should step aside and leave it to the people involved to deal with the matter.

The Taoiseach has shown leadership and courage. A date has been set for all-party talks. People of all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland must grasp this opportunity to come together and talk this problem through. It will not be easy. Being close to the situation I know what is involved. I know how feelings run and while people are entitled to their beliefs, they must recognise all shades of opinion and that there is a place for everyone. If people of all shades of opinion in the Border counties of Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and Louth can live together, surely the same can happen in the six counties of Northern Ireland. People with strong beliefs who have adopted deep-rooted positions will have to give ground. The men of violence must not be given another opportunity to repeat what happened three weeks ago.

I fully support what Deputy Michael Ring said about the loss of life in this country. Far too many young lives have been wasted. A young man from Wexford, Ed O'Brien, was sucked in by ruthless men, cowards, brutal people who would not do the dastardly act, but used an innocent young person to do it for them. That should be a warning to parents and families to ensure that young people do not become involved in violence. We are dealing with a small number of ruthless people who would waste an innocent life. Perhaps out of the tragic loss of that young life good will come. People whose views might be slightly shaded have had their eyes opened in no uncertain way by the manner in which the family, who were not remotely aware of his involvement, found out how their son had lost his life. Last weekend thousands took to the streets to march for peace and in every town and village people wearing the white ribbons carried the message of peace. Irish people want peace and I do not think we can allow the opportunity being presented to slip.

Sinn Féin has a role to play in convincing the IRA to restart the ceasefire and, having denounced the men of violence and stated categorically that there is no going back to violence, to negotiate its way through the problem. I do not mind how long it takes because once people are talking they are not killing each other. The process will take time. It was wrong of some Opposition Deputies to say that nothing happend in the past 18 months. That shows gross ignorance and a total unawareness of the progress being made on the ground, where it must all start. Political decisions may be taken but if people cannot come together to work out their problems, the political decisions will be for nought. The people must work together in harmony and I know for a fact that it was happening. In the Border region, the roads in areas that were cut off from their hinterland in Armagh, Fermanagh and Tyrone were being reopened and all that remained to be reopened was the Aughalance Bridge in Belturbet, County Cavan. That may not be very important to the majority of Members, but it is very important to the people of Cavan and Fermanagh. This major link was cut off as a result of the bombings of Belturbet and it was the excuse the British Government needed to blow up that major link on the national primary route, N3. Plans were well ahead for the restoration of the road and the rebuilding of the bridge but with the bombing at Canary Wharf they were put in abeyance. I hope it will be possible to take a step forward and commence rebuilding that bridge.

For the first time in 25 years people from the North felt free to go shopping and visit friends in the Republic and vice versa. People from the Border counties felt free to visit Enniskillen, which is within 30 miles of their home. The free movement of people was taking place, people were getting to know each other and economic development was picking up. Cross-Border groups were being set up and were working on joint projects. I am involved in two North-South development projects but the reason I cannot mention them publicly is that others may get the same idea. People are working together to develop the region and that is progress. For some Members to say that nothing has happened in the past 18 months is untrue. Progress was being made. The people can leave it in the safe hands of the Taoiseach because he is a man to be trusted. The day of nod and wink politics is over.

Mr. Cullen

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. I wish to correct one point Deputy Boylan made. Nobody on this side of the House suggested at any time that nothing happened in the past 18 months. What was said was that the pace of progress at the highest political level was too slow and that a vacuum would develop — as it did — which would lead to further difficulties. That is a reflection of the frustration that all Members and people beyond this House felt in the past 18 months. I have heard my party colleagues, from the Border regions in particular, speak eloquently about the progress on the ground and this was reflected by the peace marches last weekend. We have to listen to the people. The people who most want peace are those on the ground whom we purport to represent and I hope that politicians in this House and in the House of Commons will listen.

I welcome the central tenet of the communiqué, the achievement of all-party negotiations without further pre-conditions on 10 June. If this had not been included in the communiqué no doubt we would not be standing here today speaking with some optimism about the possibility of the restoration of the ceasefire. Let me emphasise that it is all-party negotiations and not all-party talks. The word "negotiation" has a resonance that words such as "talks" do not have. I understand this to mean a substantial beginning of a negotiated settlement on the future of Northern Ireland. That is what people had required in the past months to be set in train and I am happy that with the convergence of issues this has come to fruition.

I subscribe to the insightful views expressed by my party leader in the past weeks and months. The calmness and sensitivity of his contributions has been extremely important during this period.

Some days after the bombing at Canary Wharf I said I was somewhat disappointed at the response in the European Union to the breakdown of the ceasefire and to the peace process. I am not diminishing for a moment the importance of the European Union's financial role and the substantial benefits that have been derived from funds for the Border regions. However, I do not believe that is enough in itself. If our colleagues in Europe believe that their only responsibility is to provide funding, they are sadly mistaken. We need their help and involvement to deal with this problem. It is as a result of our involvement in the European Union that I believe the EU has a more direct and public role to play in helping us put this process together again so that it leads to constant and consistent substantive negotiations after 10 June 1996.

It is clear that once the process begins it will not be concluded within a matter of weeks or months. It will necessitate travelling a long, difficult road and involve a substantial amount of time to achieve an ultimate settlement broadly acceptable to all communities living on this island. Within that context there must be brought to the fore greater awareness, empathy and passion vis-à-vis the pain and suffering endured over the past 25 years. The Government is uniquely placed to so ensure since we shall assume the Presidency of the European Union for the second half of this year. Because of the timing of that Presidency and the substantive all-party negotiations, a senior European figure must be designated to be publicly and directly involved and committed in ensuring that this peace process succeeds.

In recent months we have witnessed special funding provided on the strength of the ceasefire diffuse in the sense that it emanates from different Commissioners and regions. Therefore, to some extent, its impact on the public generally is lost and they are not aware of Europe's commitment to the successful outcome of the peace process. I should like to see our Government push for the direct involvement of some senior European figure to take on an ambassadorial-type role so that Europe would assume some responsibility and be answerable at the highest levels to the Governments of all member states, somebody who would keep a finger on the pulse of developments in the evolvement of the peace process, who would be aware of what is happening at all times.

Undoubtedly many difficulties will be encountered along the way. At the point at which we are confronted by such difficulties it will be important that there be substantive external influence by Europe and the United States in helping to break the inevitable log jams that will occur. Because of our Presidency of the European Union later this year our Government is uniquely placed to put that issue on the agenda.

It will be sufficiently difficult for our Government to maintain a watchful eye on Northern Ireland along with honouring its responsibilities and administrative role during its Presidency. Whatever arrangements the Government makes for its internal dynamics, it should place on the agenda the appointment of a specific European person of the calibre required in these delicate negotiations, who would be listened to, would keep his finger continuously on the pulse of developments as they evolve in this peace process and report back directly to the European Commission and Heads of Government.

I hope my comments and suggestions will be taken into account by the Government and by the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jacques Santer, so that an eminent European figure could directly be involved in closely monitoring developments.

No doubt the time will come when pump-priming of economic projects in Northern Ireland and the Border regions can be juxta-positioned to push the peace process forward, instilling confidence in the negotiators on all sides and ensuring the maximum pressure is brought to bear, internally and externally, leaving no vacuum through any lack of incentive or encouragement from any quarter. We must avail of friends and allies in all quarters in our efforts to bring this process — no matter how long it may take — to a successful conclusion.

I am very disappointed with the lack of reaction within the European Union. I am convinced that within the peace process there is a role for Europe — perhaps not yet defined — and specifically for some European personage.

Like everybody, I watched and listened to various television and radio programmes last evening in order to pick up the nuances of what was being said generally, in an attempt to ascertain from where people were coming, where they might be going and to assess the prospects for the restoration of the ceasefire. I heard much hopeful and encouraging comment. I sincerely hope that the bottom line is encapsulated in the Taoiseach's remark that it is the restoration of the ceasefire that is required to bring Sinn Féin into the process and that no other issues will be included.

I listened with very great disappointment to Mr. David Wiltshire, MP, last evening speak about this process; whether people take him seriously or not is another matter. Within the context and sensitivities of the climate in which all of these discussions take place, it behoves all of us to acknowledge and understand that his type of remark is very damaging, particularly when one seeks to bring all those involved, from the centre and periphery, into a process with very many inherent difficulties. It would be very easy for Members of this House on all sides to express trenchant views or misgivings in the manner in which he did but we have all rightly resisted that temptation.

It is interesting to contrast Mr. Wiltshire's reactions with those of other British politicians like Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, MP, and others who have had a long and direct involvement in Northern Ireland affairs. Those British politicians with a long involvement in Northern Ireland affairs over many years have become aware of and alerted to the sensitivities, the nuances, the manner in which their words can be interpreted or, more importantly, misinterpreted. I very much regret that Mr. David Wiltshire expressed the sort of views he did on international television last evening, creating innumerable new road blocks of no benefit whatsoever to the successful initiation of the talks on Monday next, leading eventually to all-party negotiations on 10 June.

We all have a role to play and a duty to be sensitive, acutely aware of the dangers, pitfalls and many difficulties. It is my hope that this most recent joint communiqué, the key achievement of which is the convening of all-party negotiations on 10 June next, in itself will be sufficient to bring Sinn Féin back into the fold and restore the ceasefire. I want to see Sinn Féin involved in the talks from Monday next to discuss what type of elective process might be devised, which will be very difficult. I would have enormous misgivings about the prospects of elections in Northern Ireland, as I would in any country where the beginning of a process included the holding of an election which might more readily be held after a settlement had been reached. Nonetheless it appears we will have some form of an elective process. The system devised and adopted must be one which will allow all parties, particularly the smaller ones who have a role to play, to gain sufficient support to participate as full, rightful negotiators on 10 June next. That is crucial and Sinn Féin has a role to play, by way of direct involvement from Monday next, in deciding what form that elective process should take. It is in its interest and in the interest of all parties to be directly involved. It is interesting to note the way in which the PUP and the other smaller loyalist parties in Northern Ireland have reacted. They want to get into negotiations and to see the process up and running. Because of this communiqué all party negotiations will begin on 10 June. I hope Sinn Féin will be able to satisfactorily persuade those hard men in the IRA that the gun and the bullet must be taken out of Irish politics. The only way forward is through the democratic process which has now been offered to all concerned. I look forward, as most people do, to the urgent reinstatement of the ceasefire and to getting on with the real aims that have to be achieved on a long and difficult road.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I wish to share my time with Deputy Harte.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leonard)

That is agreed.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Downing Street communiqué opens a window of opportunity to get the peace process back on the rails. It is for all parties to rise to the challenge and take advantage of that opportunity.

There is a tendency to focus on the position of the IRA and Sinn Féin but in dealing with them there is a double challenge. They sought all party talks and will get them. They sought a date for those talks and got it. Then comes the easiest challenge. In order to be involved they must renounce violence. There is no support for violence. They do not have a mandate for killing and do not represent anybody in what they are doing. It is time the bullet, the bomb and the coffin are taken out of politics and consigned to history. That is the immediate challenge facing the IRA.

When Martin McGuinness talks about Sinn Féin being a second class party with a second class mandate, I say it is not a second class party but it certainly has a second class mandate while the IRA continues with violence. Sinn Féin, I think, can convince the IRA to renounce violence and do it quickly, but the medium term challenge to accept the principle of consent and the Mitchell report will present the greatest difficulty. It is not a pre-condition to entering negotiations, but as John Major said it will be the first item on the agenda on 10 June. All participants will need to make clear at the beginning of those negotiations on 10 June their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non violence, set out in the Mitchell report. That will be the real hurdle for Sinn Féin. It will have to address that issue now and be prepared to accept that there will be no progress in talks without that commitment.

In many ways the biggest challenge will be to the Unionists who have a majority in Northern Ireland but not on the island. The Nationalists have a majority on the island but not in Northern Ireland. The challenge facing Nationalists, North and South, will be to accept that in the first strand there will be an assembly in Northern Ireland, a constitutional guarantee of the Union and the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. While the Unionists will get a copperfastened guarantee with regard to not changing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland while the majority in Northern Ireland wish for that, they will have to be prepared to accept there was a history of discrimination and repression of Nationalist aspirations and they will have to accept Strand II — the North-South dimension to the settlement. They do not like the framework document but it is difficult to see any agreement in relation to Strand II that will not be too far away from the prescription set out in the framework document.

The loyalists have risen to the challenge so far and I ask them to continue. There is also a challenge for the UK which will have to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. It will have to practice the politics of persuasion, not for a united Ireland but for peace and progress. There is an inevitable tendency to put things off in people who have to face difficult decisions. It will be up to the UK to persuade people towards progress in the peace process.

The second major challenge to the UK is that it must leave aside consideration of domestic UK politics. It cannot play around with the Northern Ireland peace process. There was some suggestion of that in the context of the debate on the Scott report. Northern Unionists might think wryly of the old complaint of Nationalists that the UK tended to follow the principle of divide and conquer. When we see the different positions of the DUP and the Ulster Unionists on the Scott report, perhaps they might find some analogies there. It was with great satisfaction we saw Mr. Major put all that aside in coming to a decision on Wednesday.

It is essential that the two Governments work together. It was counter productive when they did not work together. There is now a solid working relationship and that will help to lead to the political solution we seek. We will have a ceasefire. We will have a decision on election legislation and finally we will have all party talks.

If there have been solutions in Bosnia and in other parts of the world, if intractable problems in South Africa have been resolved and if the age old feud between Nagorny-Karabakh and the Armenians is now being settled surely we can have a solution here. If everybody is committed and prepared to rise to the challenges I have outlined then a solution will be forthcoming.

Mr. Harte

We have come a long way since 1969. Never before have the people of Ireland been given the opportunity to sit down together to work out our future. It is a long time since I first spoke in this House on Northern Ireland. In the early days my voice was a strange sounding one. Many people now see things as I see them. I am grateful that the violence of the past 25 years — God knows, we do not want more given that 3,000 are dead, 30,000 maimed and billions of pounds have been wasted — has taught the people, North and South, that violence does not pay and we must now seek to build a new society. We must stop looking at the road blocks and blaming other people for our inadequacies. All parties have a role to play.

The foundations of the different parties in this State must be a thing of the past. The people of Ireland are no longer interested in history or how they got here. What they have been saying at the weekend is that they want peace, and a political settlement now. If I read correctly what the people have been saying, we in the Republic are saying to the Northern community we will constitutionally guarantee any fair arrangement worked out between both communities in the North. No future generation can interfere with that constitutional guarantee, if it is agreed by both communities in the North. We are saying bluntly to the Northern Protestant Irish that, if they treat the Northern Catholic Irish fairly and give them a role to play in a Northern state, we will give them the guarantees they require.

One should picture what Ireland would have been like in the last decade of this century if there had not been physical conflict in its first decade, if we had not fought, killed and maimed each other, said brutal things about each other and if both communities had been brought together through constitutional politics and economic harmony between North and South. Imagine what Ireland would have been like if everybody living in the Border areas had stopped to reflect on conditions in the last 18 months with, for example, freedom of movement of goods and traffic across the Border.

The only difference now between North and South is economic and this must be overcome before the troubles are resolved. Rather than discussing the politics of Ireland, we should spend the next few years talking about the economic divisions. It is a question of constitutional politics or physical violence, of economic harmony or independent economics in the Republic. We must tell the Northern community that we do not seek victory or compromise, but rather accommodation. To ask a person to compromise is to suggest they must give something away. "Accommodation" is a more acceptable word to get across one's point of view.

Every person and political party has a role to play, but Sinn Féin has the most important role. It has been at the coal face and it is blamed most by the Northern Protestant Irish for the violence of the past 25 years. There is no great rush of people in the Northern Protestant community, running with their hands up, saying they want to be friends with Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin and the IRA have a job to build bridges between that community and the rest of what can be called the Nationalist, republican, Catholic Irish. The Unionists also have a role to play in winning support and making it easy for Sinn Féin to come to the conference table and vice versa.

Sinn Féin and the republican movement want us to believe that they walk in the footsteps of Tone. However, Tone preached throughout his political life that the titles Catholic, Protestant and dissenter should be abolished and that people should come together in the name of Irishmen. When we were born on this island, we were born Irish and nobody questioned it. However, what occurred afterwards makes us what we are today and we all have personal experiences of how it happened.

We have reached a stage far beyond what I thought possible. There is an obligation on the Irish Government to build absolute trust and a partnership with Britain, irrespective of the party in power. The difficulties in Northern Ireland resulted from the inadequacies of political leaders in the Republic and Great Britain. The people in Northern Ireland paid for this and perhaps the Catholic community paid more than others.

I wish to pay tribute to six people, whose names are not mentioned often in the House, if at all, Mr. David Adamson, Mr. Gary McMichael, Mr. David Ervine, Mr. Billy Hutchinson, Mr. Andy Tyrie and Mr. Glen Barr. I have been in the company of most of these men over the past 20 years and I heard them talk about the booklet "Beyond the Religious Divide", which was produced by the UDA, and the book "Common Sense". Bearing in mind that they all come from the Protestant ghetto areas of Northern Ireland, they are now speaking as sensible people and articulating an understanding voice, to which extreme republicans in the South listen. However, nobody has yet stopped to think about the role they played in bringing about a ceasefire and in bringing along the Protestant community in the North, particularly the militant elements in the ghetto areas of Belfast and, to a lesser degree, Derry.

If one fine-combs the troubles in Northern Ireland, we are not talking about unionism and nationalism, but rather sectarianism, intolerant and bigoted Protestants facing intolerant and bigoted Catholics trying to dress it up by calling it nationalism and republicanism. They had the power to draw battle lines and they sucked in their own sides. The people I mentioned come from that morass and extremely difficult position and appreciation must be recorded to them and others like them. Over the years I listened to what they said about the type of Ireland they might wish to join. It is not the one many people going to Croke Park might envisage or one which involves waving tricolours or singing rebel songs, but, to them, it is an Ireland. They have their own way of expressing their love of Ireland to which we must listen.

The conflict in Ireland is no longer physical, it is mental, and the only way a mental conflict can be resolved is by sitting down and talking. Nobody has criticised Sinn Féin/IRA more than I, but we must all find accommodation. The people concerned must find an accommodation which will make it very difficult for Sinn Féin/IRA to refuse to come to the conference table and they must find reasons to make it difficult for extreme elements on the other side to do likewise. We have reached an exciting beginning and it would be wrong to miss this opportunity.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Is dóigh liom gur tógadh céim mhór chun tosaigh inné i bpróiséas na síochána ach faraoir géar gur thóg sé an oiread sin ama orainn dul chomh fada leis seo. Tá sé 18 mí ó d'fhógair an IRA an sos cogaidh agus i rith an ama sin bhí daoine sa Teach seo a dúirt go mion minic go gcaithfí rud éigin a dhéanamh le muinín na bpoblachtach agus na ndílseoirí a chothú i bpróiséas na síochána. Bhí an-lúcháir orm inniu éisteacht leis an Teachta Mary Flaherty agus an méid a bhí le rá aici i dtaobh na bpríosúnach. Cinnte má theastaigh ó Rialtas na Breataine go dtiocfaí ar ais i mbun an fhoréigin, má theastaigh uathu comhartha a thabhairt nach raibh siad dáiríre faoi phróiséas na síochána, ní fhéadfadh siad é a dhéanamh ar bhealach níos fearr ná an chaoi ar chaith siad leis na priosúnaigh, go mór mhór na priosúnaigh atá coinnithe i Sasana. I rith an ama sin, rinneadh gach dícheall ar gach bealach a chinntiú nach dtabharfaí cothrom na Féinne do na priosúnaigh. Éinne a bhfuil tuiscint acu ar an dtaobh seo den uisce ar fhadhb na hÉireann tuigeann siad nach bhfuil aon bhealach níos mó le cur as do phoblachtaigh, le cruthú nach bhfuil i gceist athrú ar bith a dheanamh ar rudaí, ná gan tada a dhéanamh i gcás cearta sibhialta do phriosúnaigh.

Ach chuaigh siad níos faide ná sin. Ag an am gcéanna go raibh cóir leighis bunúsach á shéanadh ar Paddy Kelly agus ar dhaoine eile; ag an am gcéanna go raibh treoir a thug an té is aoirde ó thaobh cúrsaí dlí i Sasana, an Lord Chief Justice, á shéanadh agus á dhiúltiú ag an Rúnaí Gnóthaí Baile i Sasana, ligeadh an saighdiúr Lee Clegg saor.

Cád é an comhartha a thug sé sin do na poblachtaigh? Cad é an comhartha a thug na focla breátha a dúradh —"dá mbeadh sos cogaidh ann bheadh croí mór ag Rialtas an Breataine"— don dream a bhí i mbun an fhoréigin go dtí sin? Is é an comhartha a thug sé ná go raibh an sean réimeas in Éireann beo i gcomhnaí, go raibh dlí amháin do dhream amháin agus dlí eile do dhream eile.

Táthar ag iarraidh anois ar na dreamanna a bhí ag fanacht go foighneach ar na cainteanna seo fanacht go dtí an Mheitheamh seo chugainn. Má táimid ag súil anois go dtabharfaidh daoine drom láimhe don bhforeígean tá sé in am do Rialtas na Breataine comhartha substaintiúil a thabhairt go bhfuil i gceist acu a bport a athrú i gcás na bpriosúnach poblachtacha agus na ndílseoirí. Tá súil agam go bhfuil an Taoiseach agus an Tánaiste ag brú na ceiste seo an t-am uilig.

D'fhéadfaí an comhartha seo a thabhairt ar bhealach an-simplí. Is minic a deirtear liom thall: "Ní féidir leat a bheith ag súil go ligfí amach go luath daoine atá tar éis a bheith i mbun foréigin i Sasana." I gcuid mhaith de na cásanna ní hé sin atá uainn. Nílimid ach ag iarraidh, mar shampla, go ligfí Brendan Dowd, atá taréis os cionn 20 bliana a chaitheamh i bpriosún, saor. Tá a théarma iomlán curtha isteach aige. Nílimid ach ag caint faoi Joe McKinney a ligint saor. Tá seisean beagnach tríscórgo leith bliana d'aois agus tá thart ar 11 bhliain as téarma 16 bliana curtha isteach aige. Do mhol an bord paról i Sasana go ligfí saor é.

Rudaí beaga atá á iarraidh againn — comharthaí dearfacha tugtha le croi mór anois. Ba mhór an cúnamh do phróiséas na síochána dá dtabharfaí é agus bheadh súil le Dia agam go dtabharfaí na comharthaí sin anois.

Yesterday's announcement could be the beginning of something new but 18 months ago we thought we had turned a page. Unfortunately, despite the fine rhetoric about the generosity that would be shown to people involved in the troubles, we got nothing but obstructionism from the British authorities, particularly on the question of the prisoners' issue.

I compliment my colleagues in this House who frequently travelled to Britain to visit the prisoners and who tried to preach the message that politics works. I echo what Deputy Flaherty said earlier about politics; we have been let down as parliamentarians because we told the prisoners that politics is the way forward. We returned from visiting the prisoners and lobbied on their behalf in this House.

I travelled to Westminster twice last year to persaude British parliamentarians that issues do not always look the same on this side of the Irish Sea as they do in Britain. Unfortunately, we, as parliamentarians, were not listened to and I have no doubt if one were to analyse all the reasons that led to the bombing in Canary Wharf, one of the major factors would be the diabolical way the prisoners, who had such a major part to play in bringing about the peace process, were treated in the interim. The obstructionism on the part of the British Government was so great I would be unable to outline it in detail in the time allotted to me.

In the past two days I visited the four British prisons in which these prisoners are being detained. The conditions they are being held in already have been outlined in detail. They are all treated as category A prisoners, irrespective of the length of time they have served. There is great resentment and bitterness among the prisoners of the way they and their families have been treated. In talking to them they often do not mention their own cases but the case of another person.

Violence is often condemned in this House and nobody would condemn it more than myself, irrespective of the quarter from which it comes, but there are many types of violence. While we all accept that the bomb and the bullet is a form of violence, the denial of basic human rights and medical treatment and the imposition of inhuman conditions is another form of violence. The fact that such treatment is protracted over a long period does not make it any less violent. All violence and inhuman treatment must be eliminated from this process and we must begin to do that from today.

In paragraph 53 of his report, Senator Mitchell refers specifically to the prisoners' issue. It is unfortunate it was not specifically mentioned in yesterday's communiqué because from now on this process must be seen to be even-handed. All parties in this dispute will be asked to change. In expressing hope that Sinn Féin and the IRA will turn away from violence, we also hope that those involved in inhuman treatment will take the view that what happened yesterday will not be repeated tomorrow.

I wish to refer briefly to some specific cases with regard to prisoners. Joe McKinney, the last prisoner in Frankland Prison, was given a sentence of 16 years of which he has served 11 years. Last November, the parole board recommended his release but the Home Secretary rejected the recommendation. Joe McKinney is 69 years of age and cannot realistically pose a threat to anyone.

Another case involves Brendan Dowd. This time last year the Lord Chief Justice came up with a recommendation that he had served sufficient time in prison, and I have a copy of the letter from the Home Office confirming that recommendation. One year later, Brendan Dowd remains in prison and he does not know when he will see the outside world again. He has served a total of 20 years in prison.

Patrick Kelly was transferred to a prison in Belfast only after the hands of the British authorities were forced on the issue by our engaging outside medical expertise, and after a considerable delay. He is terminally ill and should be transferred to this jurisdiction but we are still working on the bureaucracy.

John Kinsella has requested that his case be reopened. I have examined his and other cases and I approached them with a sceptical eye. However, I have no doubt that John Kinsella was a dupe and that he played an unwitting part in the activities for which he was convicted. That is obvious to anyone who reads the evidence. A request to reopen this man's case was made to the Home Secretary and I have no doubt that if the Home Secretary does not act quickly, a Birmingham Six-Guildford Four type of miscarriage of justice will ensue.

Why can we not get action on the prisoners' issue? Why can we not explain to our counterparts in Britain that unless confidence building measures are put in place and justice is seen to be even-handed, it will be difficult to persuade those who, for good reason, never had faith in the British system that the promises given yesterday will be fulfilled?

We can condemn violence for as long as we want, but when one analyses the fact that Sinn Féin is the second largest Nationalist party in terms of its share of the popular vote and representation in both Derry and Belfast one has to ask what is wrong and why so many people distrust British policy. We cannot ignore that fact if we want to solve the problem. Just as we are asking Sinn Féin and the IRA to turn away from violence there is a need for reciprocation on the other side of the water.

I hope that on this occasion the earnest words of politicians on all sides of the House on these issues will be listened to. The small steps which would mean so much could be taken now without breaking any principle. What was said this week to the Irish Association by the chief probation officer in Northern Ireland who could not be accused of being anything other than a loyal servant of the Northern state should be noted by those in authority. Rather than lecturing others and setting down preconditions we would all be better employed trying to see what we can do and give to encourage others to have belief and faith in the democratic process. That is what the peace process is about.

Between now and next June, rather than setting down more preconditions everybody involved in the process should try to strip away the barriers to talks and take the small steps necessary to create confidence. Whether it be Sinn Féin for the Unionists, the Unionists for Sinn Féin, the British Government for the Irish people or the Irish Government for the Unionists in the North, I hope that all involved will not lay down agendas, look for empty promises or formulae of words. They should indicate instead what they are willing to consider and ask others to do the same. If the matter had been approached in that way following the announcement of the cease-fire, we would not be in the sorry position we are in today. A mistake was made. The most important thing in life is never repeat one's mistakes.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to share my time with Deputy Crawford.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leonard)

That is in order.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If the contribution of Deputy ó Cuív who spoke as Gaeilge agus as Béarla and has a specific interest in the prisoners' issue was taken in isolation, one might get the impression that the only cause of our troubles was the non-release of prisoners. The Canary Wharf catastrophe, not to mention the bus explosion, cannot be ignored. While we have our own views about the way Irish people are treated by the British one has to allow for the fact that the atrocities were perpetrated in their country. If the IRA wants to be of assistance, it should help rather than hinder the process. This does not take away from the case that can be made on behalf of prisoners, Patrick Kelly in particular who is seriously ill. Both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have assured us that they will do their best to help.

I congratulate all involved in the negotiations to recommence the peace process, in particular the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste who have played a major role. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Major, was rightly criticised for the lack of progress in the past 18 months when no definite decisions were made. He finds himself in serious difficulty and could have taken the easy option to protect his own position. He deserves to be congratulated for not doing so. As has been said several times — this does not stop us from repeating it — Mr. John Hume is the solid full back who dominates the game.

I congratulate the O'Brien family in Gorey for the marvellous contribution they made in convincing the doubters who felt that we were all savages in Ireland mad to commit crime, blow up buildings and kill people. In their hour of tragedy they gave great example to the people of England and the North who, perhaps, look upon us with a jaundiced eye. It was a marvellous gesture on their part. An IRA funeral in Gorey with all the attendant coverage in the media would have done untold damage.

I congratulate the many thousands who took part in the peace marches. It is easy to say that the IRA does not take any notice of such marches, perhaps it does not, but if they had no other effect, they conveyed the message to the people of the world, Mr. John Major and his Government and the Unionists in the North that the people of the South were looking for the peace process to continue. Those who helped organise the marches and went to the bother of participating in them gave great example to the doubters who were worried about our attitude.

Eighteen months is a long time in the course of a peace process. It is a pity that nothing concrete happened so far as negotiations are concerned, but that is all in the past. It was a marvellous achievement that there was a return to normality, North and South.

The absence of a firm date for the commencement of all-party talks was at the root of the problem. The two Governments have set 10 June as the starting date and the parties involved will have no excuse for not taking part. Once people sit in a room together, even if they disagree for three or six months, we will be nearer to a compromise. The extreme Unionist and IRA view cannot be maintained. The people have sent a strong message that they want peace. There is an onus on all sides to sit down and bring the matter to a conclusion.

The communiqué issued was a simple one. The Taoiseach stated:

First, it reaffirms the commitment of the two Governments to work for a lasting peace and comprehensive settlement based on the principles set out in the Downing Street Declaration and Joint Framework Document.

Second, it underlines the fundamental priority we attach to securing the earliest possible inclusive negotiations to address all the relevant relationships and issues in an interlocking three-stranded process.

Third, it confirms that such negotiations should include all relevant parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and have shown that they abide by the democratic process. There are no other qualifications for participation.

Listening to the comments of the different groups last night one might have got the impression that they would all take their own line. We must realise that people will bargain and make as much noise as possible before going into talks. I am not concerned about the condition building and "no surrender" attitude because everybody must accept the overwhelming support for peace. The recent MBRI poll shows that people want peace and know where to place the blame for the breakdown in the peace process. It is interesting to note that only 6 per cent blame the Irish Government.

It is easy to analyse with hindsight. Many people have to make on-the-spot decisions which others can analyse later. We should not be critical of what took place in the past. I hope the will for peace is acknowledged by all. Young people in Northern Ireland were beginning to realise, for the first time, what peace can mean to their lives. I wish the process every success.

Mr. Crawford

I thank Deputy Browne for sharing time with me and I join others in congratulating those involved in the agreement reached yesterday. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste and their negotiators deserve the support of all Members. The bombs in London made the process much more tense and difficult and many people believed it was not possible to reach agreement in such a short time. Last November we were told there would be agreement on all-party talks and a date has been set.

The Taoiseach has carried on the work of Deputy Reynolds and his predecessors. Great efforts were put into bringing about a ceasefire, but much remains to be done to solve the Northern Ireland problem. Those who live near the Border know it is difficult to get communities to work together. Great difficulty was experienced in bringing together two groups in Donegal which people thought were of like mind. Time will be required to resolve all the difficulties.

The agreement reached yesterday will give everyone a chance to resolve their political differences. The communiqué agreed between the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach is designed to move the peace process forward. It creates a priceless opportunity to recapture and politically anchor peace. The only matter standing in the way of peace is a decision by the IRA to call a permanent ceasefire. I hope it can be persuaded by Sinn Féin who claims to talk on its behalf.

Deputy Ó Cuív said a new leaf was turned over 18 months ago. Another important leaf in the history of this State was turned over yesterday, but it must be underpinned by trust on all sides. When it suits, Sinn Féin claims to speak on behalf of the IRA and we accepted its word during the Mitchell Commission session. A few hours before the bomb went off in London, Sinn Féin assured us the ceasefire was intact. We must ensure that nothing is said or done to prevent Sinn Féin from getting the ceasefire back on track. Apart from the shooting of a postman in Newry, during the ceasefire people are not killed or injured. In speaking on this matter on 5 February, Deputy Reynolds stated:

Shortly after the peace process was up and running, we had a raid on a post office in Newry during which a postman was tragically shot. That was a difficult call for our Government. My colleagues in Government, who were aware how tough I had been at different stages with the republican movement, knew it was not easy for me to send for Gerry Adams to hear from him the reason the peace process had gone off the rails so soon. When I heard his explanations about discipline not being imposed in various units, I made it quite clear that... I would not listen to that excuse again and the door would not be open to him to explain what had occurred...

Deputy Reynolds said he would never again give Gerry Adams a chance. We must be careful. I was shocked at the former Taoiseach going on radio for publicity purposes before he had a private meeting with Gerry Adams. Anyone interested in the long-term well-being of the nation should not use this serious matter to risk peace.

Major negotiations will start next Monday leading up to all party talks on 10 June. It is important that Sinn Féin is involved, but it is up to it to ensure the ceasefire is restored. I pay tribute to John Hume and others who must be encouraged to continue their work. Church leaders, civil servants and advisers have a role to play. We must ensure that more people are not killed or injured and I call for an end to the punishment beatings. I urge people to continue to call for peace so that not only the IRA but people throughout the world know that the majority of people on this island want peace and not more deaths.

Mr. Jacob

I wish to share my time with Deputy Leonard. Yesterday was a joyous day and a new air of optimism prevails inside and outside the House. I join our party leader in welcoming the political progress achieved by both Governments. I congratulate all those involved and wish them every success in the negotiations which will commence immediately. I welcome, in particular, the setting of a specific date for the commencement of all party negotiations and regret that it could not have been agreed earlier. This it not a time for recriminations but I have been frustrated by the procrastination, particularly by the British Government, over the past 18 months regarding all-party talks.

I am privileged to be a member of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, which has done wonderful work. During the early months of the ceasefire there was an enthusiasm, optimism and burning desire by all members of the forum to achieve results. The delegations who made presentations were also very interested in preserving peace. No one personified this enthusiasm and optimisism better than my party leader, Deputy Bertie Ahern, who was always productive. However, early last summer this enthusiasm started to ebb as a result of the procrastination and prevarication by certain quarters and the failure to hold all-party talks. When I asked the late Deputy Neil Blaney his views he said the process was dying on its feet for the reasons already outlined by me. The summer break was a blessed relief to the parties and delegates and when business resumed in the autumn we hoped progress would have been made but, unfortunately, this was not the case. I hope the communiqué will restore that sense of enthusiasm to the meritorious work of the forum.

I congratulate Deputy Ó Cuív on his excellent work in regard to prisoners. He has made numerous visits to British prisons and has given us the benefit of his invaluablel knowledge. I also compliment the members of other parties who have visited these prisons and gleaned information which is so important to the entire process. Given their circumstances, prisoners were even more frustrated than us by the lack of progress. We should not forget that they were a very important part of the process and one of the reasons the IRA announced its ceasfire on 31 August 1994 and loyalist parmilitaries announced their ceasefire three weeks later. I compliment the loyalist paramilitaries for the way they are dealing with the present situation. The role being played by them during this sensitive period in our history should not be forgotten in the years ahead.

The prisoners' issue had a major bearing on the decision by republican and loyalist paramilitaries to announce their ceasefires. They still have a major role to play and should not be disregarded or treated in the manner they were previously. They were promised that their position would be addressed in the all-party talks, but these did not take place. This is a great pity. We should learn from our mistakes and address this issue as soon as possible. Today's air of optimism should be followed up with an air of urgency in the talks which will take place over the comming weeks, months and years.

Last Sunday people displayed their solidarity with the peace process. I congratulate all those people who voiced their clear view that they want peace restored. They are aware of the benefits of peace in terms of the economy and reconciliation between people on this island. People in virtually every town and village in my county marched on the streets to voice their view. I took part in the marches in my home town of Rathdrum — and Arklow — and I have never seen the kind of fervour or passion as displayed by these people. Their strong message was that they wanted peace restored and did not want further violence which would impede the economic progress since 31 August 1994.

I wish all those involved in the process in the weeks ahead every success. I hope the all-party talks which will begin on 10 June will lead to the type of life yearned for by people for many years.

Mr. Leonard

I support the communiqué which has been wholeheartedly approved by all parties. In recent weeks we have learnt the lesson that time cannot be wasted and the process must be put back on the rails as soon as possible. I was one of those who said that 18 months was a very short time in the life of a nation. The process seemed to lag last summer and this continued until the end of last year. I hope on this occasions that the process will be moved forward as quickly as possible.

Sinn Féin said it required more clarification. It may make an issue of this requirement but there is no reason this should delay it going to the IRA with this document. I cannot see for the life of me why that should not be done over the weekend; it should not take weeks. We are now faced with a very simple choice. We will have negotiations or more of the violence we have seen for the last 25 years. There is no row of options, no shopping list, it is either one choice or the other. They should make a clear commitment and do so quickly.

I am a member of the forum and I have met Sinn Féin delegations. I met members of Sinn Féin a week ago with my party leader and we had a very frank discussion with them. I hope they get into line quickly so that this can proceed. Like everyone else, I supported the peace marches last weekend. However, I heard speakers today say there may be more peace marches. We should be very cautious about street demonstrations. I had my own problems with them in the 1980s. It is easy to get people out on the street, but sometimes it is very hard to get them off the street afterwards.

Last week I was at a very well regulated, dignified march, organised by a group of people in Clones, a town which was devastated by the Border and whose commercial life suffered more than any other town south of the Border. A prayer was read prior to the march. At the conclusion of the march it was read again and people dispersed. That is the kind of silent demonstration required, not flowery speeches or resolutions and so on. I hope there will be no need for more demonstrations.

The great opportunities for trade between North-South and South-North have become very obvious in the last 18 months. Businesses in the North grasped the opportunity far quicker than those in the South. One has to only travel through the towns along the Border to see far more northern registered delivery vans bringing food products to the South than southern vehicles bringing goods to the North. They grasped the opportunity. Those people who are gaining and stand to gain should now use their influence to press those people who are dilatory about getting into line.

As the previous speaker said, the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation did very good work, both the plenary sessions where they brought in the various groupings and bodies to give evidence, and in the subcommittees where they looked into every aspect of life both sides of the Border, the problems associated with coming together and all aspects of religious, cultural and political life. They worked very hard to do that; the ground work is done and all that remains is to get the show on the road.

I was delighted that a definite date, 10 June, has been set. The election process has been put in place so there is nothing for it now but to go ahead. I wish the negotiators success in the future and I think the conclusion will be satisfactory.

Mr. D. McDowell

I did not get the opportunity to speak in the lengthy debate in this House in the immediate aftermath of the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire. As a result, with your indulgence, Sir, I wish to take this opportunity to address some of the issues which I would have liked to address a few weeks ago.

I join others in warmly welcoming the communiqué issued by the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in London yesterday. It is a balanced and clear statement, setting out the framework for progress over the next few months. In the communiqué the governments are trying on the one hand to give leadership in setting out their view as to how things should progress while, on the other, they are quite properly seeking to reach agreement on some of the important elements in that process.

There is a balance to be struck between giving leadership and seeking agreement. This balance presents serious dilemmas for both governments but in particular for the British Government. The governments have ultimate responsibility to ensure that the train reaches its destination. To lose any of the passengers along the way would be a major setback and everything should be done to avoid that, but equally, to continue the metaphor, no one passenger can be given the right to pull the emergency cord on the whole process.

In the context of where we now stand, it is important that there should be consultation as soon as possible between all the parties concerned. We must hope against hope that agreement can be reached on the terms of any referendum and on the terms of any elective process. In default of any agreement between the parties, it is the role and duty of governments to make a decision and to give leadership and in that context I warmly welcome the apparent willingness of the British Government to do just that.

I was struck over the last few days by the findings of the opinion poll carried out by The Irish Times and The Guardian. In particular, I was struck by the apparent willingness of people in this State to blame the British Government for the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire. This is an important issue and deserves careful analysis. It is important that we are fair about this and that we recognise that the British Government has gone further than any other in recognising the political realities of Northern Ireland.

This British Government declared that Britain had no selfish political or economic interest to remain in Northern Ireland. This British Government negotiated the Downing Street Declaration which eventually brought about the IRA ceasefire. Moreover, Mr. Major and his Government negotiated the framework document which sets out the political principles which will necessarily underlie any political settlement or accommodation on this island. The document set out the considered wisdom of both Governments and it is as valid now as it was one year ago.

I have no quibble with the British in the way they have agreed the political principles which will guide any settlement. Unfortunately the significant political engagement of the British Government has been overshadowed, particularly in recent months, by extraordinary incompetence in the day to day management of the process. It has moved too slowly, or not at all, on issues such as prisoners and the convening of all party talks. Most importantly, they have wasted previous months in the cul-de-sac of decommissioning, from which we are only now beginning to emerge.

I hope the British Government has learned something from the experience of the past 18 months; there are welcome signs in this communiqué to suggest that may well be so. However, it is not only the British who have something to learn. We have all made mistakes and we all need to move forward. The current position presents us with some stark choices. This is not a time for small steps forward, it is a time for all of us to take risks. That choice is presented not least to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland and their political leadership. It is beyond time for them to recognise the essential nature of Northern Ireland. It is time for Unionists to acknowledge that they share the problems of Northern Ireland with a significant minority of people who do not regard themselves as British and who do not identify in any way with the state or province of Northern Ireland.

For many years the Ulster Unionist Party sought to suppress Nationalists and nationalism. This did not work and ultimately the British Government, led by Mr. Edward Health, dismantled the apparatus of the Protestant state. Since 1972 many ordinary Unionist people have come to recognise and accept the civil and human rights of their Catholic neighbours but that in itself is not enough. They need to go one step further. They need to recognise the political rights of those who see themselves as Irish nationalists. They need to recognise that Northern Ireland as an entity, whether within the United Kingdom or otherwise, can only be made truly viable through an accommodation that recognises the different national identities of those who live there. It is clear, I am afraid, that many Unionist leaders are not prepared to take that step. They believe that any accommodation with nationalism necessarily weakens their links with the United Kingdom and threatens the Union. In this they are making a fundamental and, potentially, historically important error. The Union works both ways. It relies not just on the willingness of the people of Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom but also presumes the willingness of the people living in the rest of the UK to accommodate Northern Ireland. It has been clear for many years that the patience of the average Briton is rapidly running out. They simply do not understand the Unionist mind set. They do not understand or accept that Unionists are entitled to say "no" to any proposal that looks to accommodate Nationalists. The continuing obduracy of Unionist leaders is weakening the Union day after day. This is in nobody's interests, least of all in the interests of the one million people on this island who regard themselves as British. It is time, beyond time, for the Unionists to talk. It is time for them to reach an accommodation and we must look to Mr. Trimble and others to do just that.

It is not just Unionists who have choices to make. Yesterday's communiqué and everything that has happened in the past 18 months presents the representatives of militant republicanism also with an historic choice. They too must decide whether they want to reach an accommodation. That choice presents itself in different ways. In the first instance they must decide whether they want to pursue the campaign of violence, the so-called armed struggle. I hope against hope, as do we all, that they renounce violence and commit themselves to exclusively peaceful means.

A simple ceasefire is not enough. Sinn Féin and the IRA must go much further. They must, sooner or later, commit themselves to the Mitchell principles. They must abandon all forms of violence and all forms of preparation for future violence. We cannot continue a peace process under the threat of armed violence, and it is important that Sinn Féin and the IRA should accept this fact.

At the end of the day, even a renunciation of violence itself will not be enough. Militant republicanism needs to go one step further. It needs to put political bones on the ceasefire, something it has singularly refused or failed to do since August 1994. Sinn Féin have not accepted the Downing Street Declaration. They did not accept the Framework Document. They did not sign up to the final report of the drafting committee at the Forum. They have not yet accepted the Mitchell principles. They must ultimately do all of these things. I am one of those who felt very strongly that Sinn Féin should have signed up to the principle of consent at the Forum. That would have established their bona fides and would have helped to bring about the all-party talks which they claim so much to want. I regret very much that they did not do so. Their failure to do so informs where we currently stand.

I want to say a few personal words about where I am coming from in this whole business. I am one of those who is uncomfortable with the word "nationalist" or the concept of nationalism as traditionally defined in Ireland. I sought to define my views before I became a public representative as principally concerned with social and economic issues and the welfare of people as a social democrat or a socialist or a democratic socialist, if one wishes to put a lable on it. I have never been comfortable with the word "nationalist", and I have never identified particularly with those who use that phrase a great deal more comfortably than I do. I shuddered on the day in September 1994 when I saw the then Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, with John Hume and Gerry Adams on the steps of Government Buildings. I did not feel they represented me or that I was a part of that. However, I and many others in this House and elsewhere took the risk, made the leap of faith, of confidence. We trusted the process, went along with it and tried to engage in it.

I have been a member of the Labour Party's delegation at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation for the past 18 months. As part of my role in that I have sought to engage on a regular basis with representatives of Sinn Féin, with representatives of militant republicanism. I hope and believe that through contacts at the Forum and elsewhere, in Belfast recently and on a regular basis in the past 18 months, my understanding of the tradition and the ideas that inform militant republicanism has improved. I hope that their understanding of where I and people like me are coming from has also improved.

However, it is important to state that there is not what people in recent weeks have come to regard as a pan-Nationalist consensus. There has been no meeting of minds. There has been a compromise. The many thousands of people in this States who hold a view similar to mine have made a significant, perhaps historic, compromise with militant republicanism, one which forms an important part of this process. I say that because I feel there are people in Sinn Féin who believe that the pan-Nationalist consensus was always there, that those who were sceptical would wake up one day and realise that we were all on the same side all along. I have not changed my views. I do not share the ideals of Irish nationalism. I do not share the aspirations of Irish nationalism in large part, but I and many like me are willing, and have been willing over the past 18 months to trust, to make that leap of faith, to compromise, to accommodate that other important tradition which exists on this island. We are entitled to ask that Sinn Féin show an equal willingness to accommodate us and, perhaps more important, to accommodate the Unionists in Northern Ireland.

There are two distinct identities on this island. The Unionists look to Britain, though not exclusively. The Nationalists look to the Irish Republic, again not exclusively. We can accommodate both within Northern Ireland. That is what is set out in the Downing Street Declaration, in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, most recently, in the Framework Document agreed by both Governments last year. That is the road we must go. In order to do that all of us must make choices, compromise and accommodate. I call on all parties to the peace process to do that so that we can rescue the process started perhaps only 18 months ago, perhaps two or three years ago, and continued so bravely by so many people in the meantime.

Mr. S. Brennan

I commend the honesty and straight talking I have just heard from Deputy McDowell. He has put a very clear challenge to Nationalists and Unionists. I do not share his feeling of being uncomfortable with nationalism, but I admire the honest way in which he put his views and believe they should be carefully examined. Some of the things the Deputy has said have not been said in this House for some time and they are worth nothing.

I want to join with others in welcoming yesterday's communiqué and the breakthrough. In the apparent putting back on the tracks of the peace process, there can be nobody on this island who does not commend yesterday's effort. I thank all those involved, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister and officials on both sides, and everybody who was involved in the hard work which we know went on to try to put the process back together.

When I spoke on the Northern Ireland debate recently in this House I, with others, suggested that the Governments should get together and set a date, some three months away, for all-party talks. I am delighted to see that has come to pass. I also did another thing for which I was criticised inside and outside this House, but I stand by it. I was taken up wrongly by some Deputies on the other side but I made it clear that in criticising the Taoiseach I was not questioning his ability, his integrity or his earnestness in tackling this tragic problem. In that he had our support. I made it clear, and I do so again, that in order not to repeat the mistakes made by Dublin in the past six months it was important that we had the maturity to recognise that mistakes were made which must not be made again, because if they are made again we could end up in the same situation. That is not to blame the Taoiseach but to point out that the British and Irish Governments made serious mistakes. We should not fall into that trap again. Mistakes included preconditions such as decommissioning, elections, etc., and allowing the gap between the Governments to widen. The Taoiseach did not take charge personally, we dealt with committees, Ministers and so on. However, yesterday he took charge and spoke to the Prime Minister, John Major, personally and with passion. He must continue to do so and establish a bond of faith between them. It would be dangerous to do otherwise.

I was criticised by the Government side for making those points but in The Irish Times on 17 February Geraldine Kennedy stated:

The peace process has been handicapped throughout the last 14 months by recurring reports about the difficulty of getting a precise formulation of Government policy from the Taoiseach.

There is the seminal story from a high-level US delegation who met Mr. Bruton during the year to get a steer on the Government's position during one of the crises.

"We left the room," confessed one source, "believing that we had been talking to 10 men with 10 different arguments. We were confused about the Government's stand." Perceptions of inconsistency may reveal the reality of his policy on occasions....

He cannot be saying, as he did on Sunday last, that "an election now would pour petrol on the flames" and then, on Tuesday, tell the Dáil that he had asked Mr. Major to consider "whether, and how, an elective process...might lead directly and speedily, without equivocation, to all-party negotiations".

I am glad the Taoiseach has taken charge, firmed up his policy and is determined to run the process. We cannot afford to create the image that Dublin is not clear on where it stands. He must not allow a gap to open between the two Governments as that was a major factor in the delays of the past few months.

There have been dramatic changes in policy in recent weeks. Some months ago it would have been unthinkable for the British to talk about holding all-party talks without the preconditions of decommissioning, elections, etc., being met. They do not seem to be preconditions now. We must ask why has it taken so long to achieve this. One editorial in a newspaper this morning asks why the two Governments could not have done this last October.

The British Government misjudged the urgency of the issue and dragged its feet. Delays and problems occurred. The Irish Government also made mistakes which must not happen again. The British Government now realises that the problems will only be solved through negotiations and that a security and military response will not solved them. Some years ago its response would have been a purely military and security one. It recognises that there must be a political response and I am glad they did not react to recent events in a knee-jerk fashion. I hope the British Government is getting it right and that this is not a false dawn. If it recognises that it must not concentrate on preconditions and security measures it will have our full support.

The form of election was not mentioned in the communiqué. The small parties that front the paramilitaries must have a role in the election otherwise it would be an academic exercise and reinforce existing prejudices. John Taylor said he may consider some form of election other than to a 90 member assembly. That is a hopeful sign. There must be openness and no secret agenda or Stormont-type assemblies introduced by the back door through the election. Such developments would harden attitudes.

A referendum should be held if it would help the process but it would be naive to hold a referendum on the question: "Are you for or against violence"? Nobody will vote no and it is doubtful if the hard men of violence will take notice of it. We must ask sensible questions. If there is a 60 per cent turnout and 59.5 per cent vote against violence it will be a nine hour wonder. We would look silly if it were reported around the world that we were holding a referendum on whether we favour violence.

I do not have a copy of the communiqué with me but I understand there is a proposal that the British Government will bring in legislation to establish elections and to oversee decommissioning. If that was agreed by the two Governments we should be given further details but we must not allow preconditions to reappear under another name. If the legislation which we have been told will be introduced by Easter is a decommissioning road block by another name and if there is an understanding that Mr. Trimble will succeed in establishing a 90 seat assembly, we should be told that now so that there is not another false start. We support the very heartening and enlightening deal made but my main concern relates to the decommissioning and election issues. If they become preconditions we will be back where we started. I hope the deal was not put together in such a way that the real intention behind elections and decommissioning are concealed.

The role played by Senator Mitchell is very important. His recent visits here have helped the Government enormously. Through him we have a direct line of communication with the United States administration. We should avail of President Clinton's genuine personal interest in Northern Ireland. The US administration should be very crisp in dealing with Sinn Féin. It should make clear, as it probably had done on many occasions, that access to the Oval office and the national media in the United States is conditional on the absence of violence. Sinn Féin cannot have it both ways; it cannot expect to have access to the Oval office while at the same time supporting a return to bombing and maiming.

The price of Sinn Féin's participation in talks is a resumption of the ceasefire. That is clear from this debate, as it was from the recent marches. Given that both Governments have more or less acceded to Sinn Féin's demand for a definite date for all-party talks, we must now call the bluff of those who made that request. The IRA's bluff is being called by the elected representatives of this House and by the deal made yesterday. Preconditions no longer exist and it is up to the IRA and Sinn Féin to respond. If they do not, the patience of people on both islands will run out very quickly, and that would take us to a brink from which it would be very difficult to return. Sinn Féin cannot back two horses, it cannot go the violent route and the democracy route at the same time. It has reached a crossroads. It has an opportunity to convince the IRA to accept all-party talks, and to miss that opportunity would lead to great difficulties.

There is a new timetable and hope has been restored. A new chain of events has been set in train, but we must keep a close eye on the weakest links in that chain. The decommissioning and election issues are at the heart of the problem and they must not be mishandled. The Taoiseach must not break links with John Major, as happened previously. The British Government must deal with the Taoiseach, not with the plethora of committees and advisers or even with Ministers. The one to one relationship must be maintained. In that way the new beginning will not be false dawn, Dublin and London will not repeat the past mistakes and hope will be restored. We all enjoyed peace when it existed and, as was evident from last Sunday's marches, we want it restored.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. Durkan)

I commend previous speakers on their rational approach to the debate. However, as regards the mistakes Deputy Brennan alleged were made by the Taoiseach and others, with the benefit of hindsight who is to say who made mistakes and when? What is alleged as a mistake afterwards may not be perceived to be so when the action is taken. At least 3,000 mistakes were made in the past 25 years because at least 3,000 people died in a conflict on this island. During that period countless efforts were made, without success, by Taoisigh, British Prime Minister and political leaders in Northern Ireland. Despite the repeated and valiant attempts of a large number of people, the problem has not been resolved.

An important change has taken place since I first became a Member of this House in 1981. In those days one regularly heard vitriolic political and nationalistic statements on all sides of the House, which were unhelpful. Such statements only serve to aggravate the person on the other side and incite reaction. This House has matured in recent years in that such statements are no longer made. As long as that attitude prevailed, those across the Irish Sea and in the North who looked to this House for leadership could be well excused for saying that we had nothing to offer in terms of recognising the other person's point of view.

I was recently travelling to Donegal when I heard on the radio that the cessation of violence had come to an end and a short time later I heard the unfortunate and tragic news of the Canary Wharf bomb. I remember the sickening despair and disbelief at what had happened. People thought that violence was in the past and that there would not be a repetition of past mistakes. That, however, was not the case, and the violence was repeated a short time later. That proves, if proof is needed, that mistakes may be repeated.

It is important that everybody recognises another chance has been given for peace. The most fundamental aspect of the communiqué is that a date has been agreed on which discussions will take place. All sides must fulfil certain criteria in order to qualify for participation in those discussions. The fact that the heads of two sovereign States have decided that talks will take place by a specific date is progress. Between now and 10 June public representatives on both sides of the Irish Sea should say and do nothing to exacerbate the problem or create further dissension.

The process so far has been very difficult. It is as a result of the combined efforts of successive Governments that we have reached the stage where a date could be set for all-party talks.

People should not assume now that a date has been set everything will automatically fall into place. Everybody must recognise that there must be compromise. We have two different traditions in the North of Ireland, one with an affinity to the United Kingdom and the other with a distinct affinity to the South. If there is to be a resolution accommodating those traditions it follows there must be compromise. That was stated in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing Street Declaration and other documents that emanated from what has become known as the peace process in the past 14 or 15 months.

Whether we have sufficiently matured to accept compromise remains to be seen. We must recognise that it is not the prerogative of one nation, group or country to give civil and human rights to another. Equality and civil and human rights are entitlements, not the prerogative of somebody, somehow, somewhere, vague or otherwise, to give to another. That applies to Nationalist and Unionist populations in the North of Ireland. If one group does not recognise the other's position, ultimately there can be no agreement. If there is no agreement or compromise, the date set for all-party talks will pass and we will not achieve our objectives.

It was my privilege to contribute to a similar debate in 1985 and to subsequent debates. We should recognise the setting of 10 June as the date for all-party talks as a step in the right direction. We should try to meet the guidelines set down within that deadline. Between now and then all parties with a role to play should refrain by word and action from doing anything that would make the necessary meeting of minds more difficult at that time.

I spoke earlier about the constraints in terms of expressions of nationalism in this House. In the UK and elsewhere a degree of maturity is also emerging in that regard. It is not helpful at any time if representatives in the United Kingdom or in the North of Ireland spring to their feet to point out the inadequacies of the process and the failure to date to reach agreement. We know that is the case. After 25 years of violence we all recogise that. At this late stage we do not need one representative poking a finger in another's eye to point out that everything is not rosy in the garden and that we are not at one on this issue.

The question at issue is whether henceforth matters will be resolved by political negotiation or, if that fails, what other approach will be adopted. We must address that question. If political negotiation, discussion and talking fails, what other method is there? Over the years people said there were other ways, but they have not been proven. It has been proven time and again that where politics cease to be effective or are not allowed to function, tragedy follows. We have had ample illustration of that in the past 25 years. Some people suggest that political progress and various goals have not been achieved fast enough and that 14 or 15 months was sufficient time to achieve all of our goals. If that were the case what is the alternative and what was it before this process commenced?

The perceived alternative to political discussion and negotiation achieved nothing but bitterness and death. I discount the suggestion in some quarters that if the politicians do not get their act together there is an alternative route. Politicians on this island, and those in the United Kingdom, recognise that much more can be achieved in the sphere of political negotiation and discussion than can ever be achieved by anybody else. Alternative methods would cause only frustration and upset in regard to discussions.

I pay special tribute to the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers for achieving this success. I was somewhat sceptical about it being achieved. I did not think that we would reach agreement on a date. This objective has been achieved as a result of the combined and concerted efforts of all involved in recent weeks, despite the interruption by violence. It is the responsibility of everyone involved to ensure that this opportunity does not pass. If it does, it may be a long time before anybody on any side gets an opportunity to restart and proceed with the same process.

Emphasis must be placed on recognising the other side's position and a willingness to compromise. If one side does not recognise the other's position, there can be no willingness to compromise. There is a will to travel the path of peace. We have tasted peace in the past 14 or 15 months. At this stage, even the people involved in violence must recognise there are tremendous benefits to be gained from the peaceful approach and what will be lost if it is not pursued. It is easy to set off a bomb and cause loss of life, but it is very difficult to negotiate peace afterwards. Far from the resumption of the bombing campaign accelerating progress towards peace, ironically the move towards peace was tragically interrupted by the resumption of hostilities. I hope a lesson has been learned from that.

I compliment all involved here and the British Prime Minister for having the courage, in difficult domestic circumstances, to proceed along the route now charted.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 29 Feb 1996

Northern Ireland Peace Process: Statements (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Feb 1996