Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Oct 2003

Vol. 573 No. 1

Northern Ireland: Statements.

The Taoiseach

Copies of my speech will be circulated shortly.

Yesterday, we were seeking to address the complex issues of closure of the Northern Ireland conflict and the generation of confidence and hope for the future. This morning, as I said, I must be honest in saying we are deeply disappointed that our efforts stalled. Most of all, I believe people were frustrated last evening with the fact that the difficulty encountered in this last chapter of the peace process was a matter of some technical detail. We will continue our efforts with the British Government and others to find a solution to the issue.

We went to Hillsborough yesterday in the light of the accommodation which appeared to have been reached between the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin, following months of intensive discussion. As I made clear on several occasions prior to yesterday, I had some concerns and hesitation, particularly in the area which eventually transpired to be the sticking point, that is, in regard to the decommissioning of weapons. However, I believed, as did Prime Minister Blair, that we should go to Belfast in the hope and expectation the deal could be sealed.

By any standards, many of yesterday's statements and developments represented a very encouraging day for the peace process in Northern Ireland. Paradoxically, it was also one of the most frustrating. While a major breakthrough was made, its overall confidence building impact was eroded on account of a matter of detail or, more particularly, lack of detail. Yesterday, we were seeking to address the complex issue of closure of the Northern Ireland conflict and the generation of confidence and hope for the future. Although I am deeply disappointed that our efforts stalled, I am equally determined that we must try to resolve the outstanding issue, or possibly two related issues. As I explained to Deputy Rabbitte, although it has been portrayed as one issue, there is a related issue which can also affect the situation if not handled correctly.

I believe people were mainly frustrated that, in this last chapter of the peace process, the difficulty that had been encountered was essentially a matter of technicality and the detailed operation of the decommissioning body. I am not saying it is an easy issue but, in the context of all the other complex issues that we have handled, I cannot believe it will not be possible to resolve it. We will continue our efforts with the British Government and others to try to find a solution to the problem.

Perhaps others will inevitably arise but as I said last night, in so far as I am aware, this one issue in the area of decommissioning is what remains to be resolved. In addition to my public statement last night, I checked independently with the parties and, apart from the related detail to which I referred in my reply to Deputy Rabbitte, it was my understanding that there was nothing else outstanding and that everybody was totally satisfied on all other matters.

It is vital that there is a clear understanding of the point we had reached before the difficulty arose. Early yesterday the British Government announced that elections would be held in Northern Ireland on 26 November. The Government and many on this island, North and South, felt strongly that these elections should have taken place last May. Now that they are going ahead, the people will have their say. What we were seeking to ensure, at all stages, was that they would take place in a positive environment which would best assure the re-establishment of the Assembly and Executive. Through intensive engagement, an agreement was reached between the UUP and Sinn Fein which suggested the possibility of new hope and confidence for the future. In addition, a major act of decommissioning by the IRA would help to underpin this confidence and trust.

We welcomed the engagement between Sinn Féin and the UUP because it offered real prospects that an accommodation could be reached. Therefore, despite the difficulties of yesterday, it is vital these two parties continue their dialogue and the building of confidence between them. I know the other parties felt frustrated by the twists and turns of recent weeks and by their sense of exclusion. However, the goal was to ensure the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, in which all could then play their part on an inclusive and enduring basis.

The statement by the leader of Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, yesterday morning, which was endorsed by the IRA, is a defining moment which must not be obscured by what subsequently transpired. My family and political roots are in republican politics and I was nurtured in the republican tradition. Therefore, both personally and as Taoiseach, I am in no doubt about the object and purpose of these statements. The same also applies to the British Government and to Mr. Trimble.

The language used by Mr. Adams yesterday was that of the republican movement but the underlining intention is indisputable and we must consolidate and build on this advance. The Governments had repeatedly made clear what was required to complete the transition to a peaceful and democratic society in Northern Ireland and yesterday's statements represent a recognition of that reality. They state that the republican movement is moving on and, crucially, that the Good Friday Agreement is the framework for full and final closure of the conflict. They state that peaceful and democratic means are the way, the only way, for the future.

Both Governments are satisfied by what we mean by paramilitary violence – we mean the language as spelled out in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration. The mechanism of the independent monitoring body, the draft legislation for which was approved by the Government yesterday, is there to give confidence. The process we are involved in is complex and the clamour for easy one-liners is understandable but not always helpful. I have no doubt that yesterday's statements are intended to usher in a new era for Irish republicans and I acknowledge them clearly as such.

The announced re-establishment of contact with the IICD by the IRA and the act of decommissioning by the IRA were welcome. As General de Chastelain said, it was larger than the quantity put beyond use in the previous event. It comprised light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions as well as automatic wea pons, explosives and explosive material. We know from the commission that what was decommissioned yesterday was capable of causing death and destruction on a huge scale. In assessing the significance of this act we need to recall that the IRA once said there would never be any decommissioning – not a bullet, not an ounce. Regrettably, the level of detail of the items decommissioned, despite the further details provided at his press conference by General de Chastelain, did not reach what David Trimble felt was required.

People may reasonably ask why the IRA insisted that General de Chastelain maintain so much confidentiality about the material being put beyond use, but neither I nor anyone else can answer for or explain the thinking of that organisation. However, its view is likely to be that the absence of confidentiality would damage rather that enhance the process of resolving the arms issue fully within the organisation. I sincerely hope that, in respect of yesterday's act at least, the IRA will revisit its thinking on this issue.

The point might also be reasonably made that, if the two Governments have more detail, they should simply publish what they know. This is something to which the British Prime Minister and I gave some thought yesterday and discussed at length. However, we had to be mindful of the possibility that if the confidentiality which enables General de Chastelain to proceed with his task was lifted by the Governments, it could have the effect of damaging the prospects of fully resolving the arms issue in the longer term. In which case, as I pointed out to Deputy Rabbitte this morning, Mr. Trimble would have had further problems since he would not get any further acts, which would derail that part of the agreement.

It is frustrating that while all the elements necessary for success are in place, we have not quite made it simply because there is an opportunity open to us yet to describe what the IRA has done in a way that will fully convince Ulster Unionists of what has been achieved in terms of putting arms beyond use. I am not saying definitively that the Governments are ruling out the possibility that a more descriptive account of what has been happening regarding arms given by them would perhaps solve the problem. However, to have made that decision yesterday, without allowing the IICD the opportunity of seeking resolution directly in its contacts with the IRA, would have been too high a risk to take.

I am not going to participate in a recrimination game. Everyone has sensitivities and needs at this vital stage in the process and we must continue our work reasonably to address these. I hope that once this difficulty is addressed we can finish what we started out to do yesterday and, in doing so, ensure the stability of the agreement and the implementation of all the elements of the Governments' joint declaration.

Yesterday we were within an ace of the success we have all been working for. What is important is that we are still within an ace of success. This House has always adopted a balanced and responsible approach when it comes to discussing the affairs of Northern Ireland and I welcome and appreciate this support.

Mr. Kenny

This morning I expressed the disappointment of every Member of the House and person on the island of Ireland at the failure of the process to reach completion yesterday. The Taoiseach and his colleagues, the British Prime Minister and his colleagues and all the parties which have worked so assiduously for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, are to be commended for their work but we all feel a sense of frustration and disappointment at what happened yesterday. During Leaders' Questions this morning, we explored some of the central problems which appear to have arisen in the process.

We do not have the information which the Taoiseach, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform have at their disposal as to the nature of the discussions that took place between David Trimble and Gerry Adams, as the two central parties involved at this point in the process, as to what level of agreement, understanding and transparency was understood to be on the table between them. A member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr. Michael McGimpsey, said on "Morning Ireland" this morning that the Ulster Unionist Party had clearly signalled its core problem had been one of transparency and the level of information in regard to the range of decommissioned weapons. If that was the case a number of months ago, why was it not brought to a finality of understanding between the parties before the process was entered into?

I respect the Taoiseach's point that things have moved a long way for all parties and, while I would have preferred to have heard yesterday's IRA and Sinn Féin statements many years ago, the Sinn Féin leader clearly stated that full and final closure of the conflict is what is now involved. We are not in the business of recrimination, reprimand or blame and it is important that the Governments do not lose focus on what is to happen. If the electoral process takes place in November with an attitude of mistrust or damaged trust, it will help neither the process itself nor the outcome since it would be an election fought with a sense of bitterness, negativity and a possible disruption of the process itself. That would not be good for democracy or the people of Northern Ireland and would do little to represent the efforts made by politicians from all the pro-Agreement parties in the past few years.

I hope the efforts of the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister will focus on this central issue. I cannot speak for Mr. Trimble. Therefore, if an inventory detailing the description of heavy, medium and light ordnance and ammunition which has been put beyond use was published this morning, I do not know whether it would be suf ficient for him to accept it as an act of closure – a significant act of decommissioning which would lead us further along in the process of putting all arms beyond use. No reference was made to participation on the Policing Board or the fact that the war is over, which would then be balanced by a statement from the Unionist politicians that they will respect and stand by the continuation of the Northern Ireland Executive and its institutions. That is the central issue on which we must focus.

While there is a sense of disappointment in the House, that feeling is palpable on the streets of Northern Ireland. Five years have passed since the Good Friday Agreement was endorsed by a large majority, North and South, and this is the be all and end all of the negotiation process. This process is widely recognised and accepted by everyone as the best and only vehicle for the creation of a peaceful future for the people of Northern Ireland. Its provisions for inclusive government hold real potential for it to become a catalyst for genuine reconciliation between the divided communities in Northern Ireland. Governments in this jurisdiction in the past 25 years have all played a role in the putting together of that jigsaw. Fine Gael has always supported the Agreement, offered support to the Government in keeping with our innate sense of patriotism and public duty and set aside party politics to support the efforts of the Government in this critical area.

The time has arrived for real acts of completion. This has been the unfailing message of the two Governments over the past year, particularly from the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair. If the process to achieve this is in place, it is time for real evidence. The defining parameters of completion were clearly set out in the Joint Declaration made by the Governments in April – an end to all paramilitary activity, punishment beatings and racketeering, and a commitment to a process of full decommissioning. In return, the UUP must commit to sustaining the political institutions. The British Government committed itself to a process of security normalisation, the eventual devolution of justice and policing powers and arrangements for those who are "on the run".

We all agree that the political process in Northern Ireland can only be truly sustainable when trust exists between the parties involved. The Taoiseach rightly referred to the enhanced trust that has emerged between Sinn Féin and the Unionists in recent times and it is vital that although it has been damaged, it is repaired with the assistance of the two Governments. Clear leadership must be displayed by everyone involved because that trust is the cornerstone of any future power sharing arrangement. Once the electoral process is complete, the parties should be in a position to share power and administer government for the people of Northern Ireland. Yesterday's events suggest that while trust has been damaged, the situation is not beyond repair and both Governments must ensure that the agreements and understandings reached in recent weeks are honoured in full, both in spirit and in letter.

It is hard to imagine that the intensive dialogue between the UUP and Sinn Féin did not produce a mutual understanding on the need for transparency around the IRA's act of decommissioning. It is now necessary for the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister to establish the nature of the hiatus as quickly as possible. If that does not happen, there is a risk that, despite all the progress made, the problem could cause the situation to unravel. I appeal to all involved to renew their efforts to reach a conclusion about the agreed sequence. There is no need for recrimination that might damage the fragile trust between the parties. Is it only through that trust that people can be brought along and public confidence in the process will be seriously damaged if this vacuum is allowed to develop and we continue to witness a deterioration in relationships between the parties. We remain committed to the Agreement and will help in any way we can. I hope to visit Northern Ireland next week and, in so far as we can offer assistance to the Government's efforts, we will.

The Taoiseach previously identified the need for an announcement on the date of elections by the British Government but I would be cautious about focusing on that. I do not know if Downing Street took its eye off the ball but it appears that there was a lack of communication about the level of transparency required. I do not know what contact took place between Mr. Adams and the representative of the IRA, or if the president of Sinn Féin was able to convince that person that, despite the setting down in legislation of the confidentiality procedure surrounding decommissioning, there could be further flexibility to allow for an inventory of decommissioned weapons. Deputy Rabbitte pointed out that Prime Minister Blair stated that if people knew what he knows, they would be happy. If there is a legal restriction in the sense of decommissioning being a statutory process, the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister could look at that and the problem could be sorted out.

If that is the case, Sinn Féin can influence the representative of the IRA, which has imposed this restriction of confidentiality on General de Chastelain. Mr. Trimble, from the Unionist perspective, would have to say if the decommissioning is satisfactory. Then the process would be back on track, allowing an election to be fought on a positive basis. It is a question of judgment for both Governments to decide if the elections can take place with the future of the process guaranteed. Otherwise, there will be a destructive election that will result in the worst of all worlds after a negative campaign.

I hope that the Taoiseach will focus on this central issue and that the Unionists and Sinn Féin will work on the level of transparency. If the IRA representative can state what has taken place, this problem can be sorted out. There are other obstacles and difficulties, such as joining the Policing Board, complete decommissioning, an end to racketeering, punishment beatings and information gathering. If we agree about the acts of completion, these issues can also be addressed.

There is a great deal of frustration among members of the SDLP, to which the Taoiseach referred. While they are not central to the business of decommissioning, they have been central to the whole issue of policing and bringing it to the forefront of the agenda. Obviously, one cannot have normalisation of life in Northern Ireland unless there is a police force and policing board acceptable to all communities and which is seen to be trusted by all communities.

I understand when the Taoiseach says we cannot have all of the parties involved in all of the discussions if the issues discussed are not relevant to all of them. I also understand it would be better to have all of them around the table and much easier to make progress across the board. In that sense, while the Taoiseach did not have the opportunity to say his piece at the press conference in Hillsborough, I hope, for all our sakes, as people and politicians, that both Governments can focus on these central problems and that they will work with the parties involved in a spirit of reconciliation and non-recrimination in order that this process can be put back on track. This would ensure the elections would take place with a positive attitude and the electorate of Northern Ireland could make their decisions on the candidates from the various parties.

Mr. Rabbitte

This debate ought to have marked a significant step forward in the peace process. Instead, the best we can say is that it is premature. It is to be hoped that in the near future we can report substantial progress, to which the Labour Party will contribute, in any way it can. It would be easy on a day like this to recriminate, as Deputy Kenny said. There are questions we must ask about a process so heavily described as "choreography" but in which clearly only some of the dancers knew their steps.

We are one day away from the tenth anniversary of the Shankill Road massacre. On 23 October 1993 an IRA member, Thomas Begley, carried a bomb into the fish shop of John Frizell on the Shankill Road. Moments later the bomb exploded, killing Begley and nine others instantly. That massacre was preceded a few months earlier by the Warrington bomb and followed within days by the Greysteel massacre. Those three events together marked a major turning point in the Northern Ireland conflict. The depth of revulsion and shock, the fact that every community on both islands was directly and immediately affected by the pain and loss involved, and the fact that they all happened in the middle of, what were then, the relatively tentative beginnings of a process that was to lead to the Downing Street Declaration, the Framework Document and, ultimately, the Good Friday Agreement ensured that, in all their horror, they were three of the events that galvanised the peace process.

In remembering the tenth anniversary of the Shankill Road bombing on a day like this, two thoughts immediately spring to mind. The first is that we have come a long way. The problems we are discussing, deep and intractable as they may be, are now political, discussed in a political environment. It would have been unthinkable in the aftermath of the Shankill Road bombing to imagine that the leader of unionism and the leader of republicanism would be arranging to meet to try to find a way forward.

The second thought that occurs, ten years later, is that we have been waiting a long time. The transition from armed conflict to political disagreement has happened but it has yet to progress to the point where solid and well-founded political agreements can be put in place and sustained. This remains a process where there is far too much secrecy, exclusivity and distrust. It remains a process where one player – in this case the anonymous interlocutors of the IRA referred to by the Taoiseach this morning – can dictate the pace of progress.

Yesterday, we were expecting to be told what Martin McGuinness said on radio this morning, that he had already seen the contents of a detailed statement by David Trimble. We know that the contents of that statement were not only made known to Sinn Féin but that it was standing ready to welcome it. We can infer, therefore, that David Trimble was ready to announce that in the aftermath of an election, he would work with other parties, including the republican movement, to re-establish and sustain democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. That statement would, presumably, have been seen as ground-breaking in the same way as Gerry Adams's commitment to wholly peaceful means. The IRA's endorsement of that commitment was welcomed earlier in the day.

We were also waiting for detailed statements from the British and Irish Governments. It is reasonable to infer that those statements would have brought the devolution of policing and the full participation of all of the parties in the management and control of policing to the newly re-established institutions in Northern Ireland a good deal closer. That too would have represented significant progress, and been widely welcomed as a further buttressing of the peace process.

The pause button pressed by David Trimble prevented us from hearing those announcements, at least for now. The task facing us is to find a legitimate way of releasing the button. However, at least some of the parties involved know what the rest of us do not. They know the prizes and the risks because they have been involved in negotiating the terms. I have already asked the Taoiseach in the House this morning about the wisdom of excluding some of the parties from the process of negotiation and discussion. If I have a significant criticism of the process of negotiation, as managed by the two Governments that has brought us to this point, it relates to that exclusion.

The last time negotiations were conducted on a basis that included some and excluded others, the result was the Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985. The effects of excluding unionism from the negotiations were felt for years. The negotiations on the Downing Street Declaration, although technically a negotiation between the two Governments, were conducted on a basis that allowed every party in Northern Ireland to make a contribution. The negotiations on the Good Friday Agreement were as inclusive as possible, despite all of the difficulties of personality, theatrics and melodrama that involved. The result has been sustained progress, despite all of the difficulties. We only have to reflect on the fact that this past summer has been one of the most peaceful in the recent history of Northern Ireland, in spite of the political vacuum, to realise the hunger for peace and progress that is still a feature of daily life throughout all of the former trouble spots. All of the parties in Northern Ireland have contributed to this – the SDLP on one side, the PUP on the other. The Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition have displayed courage and imagination in participating and contributing to the resolution of problems. Their continued exclusion from this stage of the process is damaging and unnecessary.

The SDLP, in particular, has a long and distinguished record, not of just peace-making but peace-building. It numbers among its ranks a number of individuals whose vision has led us to this point and whose ability made a major contribution to the work of the Northern Ireland Executive during its regrettably brief life. If the two Governments had the added benefit of the wisdom and experience of the leadership of the SDLP during the last few months, we might not be at the point of impasse we are discussing.

It is all the more striking when the Taoiseach told us this morning of his own frustration in contacting, let alone dealing with, the independent international commission for decommissioning, to the point where he only travelled reluctantly to Northern Ireland yesterday. For someone as experienced in negotiations as the Taoiseach, that was a remarkable admission. We all know that the great majority of the work in these situations is done behind the scenes. Without wishing in any way to minimise the role of the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair, one would expect them to arrive only when there are one or two loose ends to tie up and their primary role would be expressed in validation of the outcome of negotiations.

It is clear that at the 12th hour there has been a major breakdown of communication between those allowed to be involved in the negotiations to the point where one wonders if they are conducted in a common language. The Unionists demanded transparency while Sinn Féin is on record as saying it wants the IRA to go further than it has in the past in providing for that transparency. Was General de Chastelain made aware of the implications of the discussions between the parties, and the apparent understandings they reached, for his remit? Was he made aware of those implications in sufficient time? When his interlocutors in the IRA refused to release him to any significant degree from his duty of confidentiality, was he in a position to point out to those interlocutors what had been agreed to by Sinn Féin in the negotiations? If not, one has to ask, why not? There has been much debate, and not a little implied criticism, of the way General de Chastelain played his role. Without knowing what that role was, without knowing what General de Chastelain was told about the understandings given to Mr. Trimble by Mr. Adams, I believe any such criticism would have to be regarded as unfair. If there was a breakdown here, it clearly lay in the inability or unwillingness of the IRA to go as far in providing reassurance and in building confidence as Sinn Féin suggested it might.

Where the issue of confidentiality is concerned, I have already raised in the House the fact that the burden of confidentiality is a qualified one. I am not advocating that confidentiality should be easily breached in such situations as this and I have listened carefully to what the Taoiseach said this morning. However, it is worthwhile placing on the record that there are exceptions that can be considered.

Both the UK and Ireland passed Decommissioning Acts in 1997, with provision for regulations in the South and schemes in the North to be made under the Acts. A decommissioning scheme under the Northern Ireland legislation, and mirroring regulations in this State, came into effect in June 1998. There are almost identical provisions in both arrangements to the effect that the commission must ensure that all information received by it on the decommissioning process is kept confidential and that any records maintained by the commission are kept secure. Disclosure of information received by the commission may occur where disclosure is necessary for reasons of public safety, to confirm the legitimate participation in the decommissioning process by those eligible to do so and to fulfil the commission's duty to report to the two Governments.

It is clear that the obligation of confidentiality is one that is imposed on the commission rather than the Governments and that the commission is exempted from that obligation in so far as reporting to the two Governments is concerned. The law does not appear to impose any particular obligations on the Governments as to what they do with the information given them by the commission, although there may well be IRA expectations that the information would also remain confidential in their hands. In addition, it may damage the process of ongoing decommissioning if there were unnecessary disclosure, as the Taoiseach has said.

Against that background, I believe we all share the frustration implicit in the remarks of both the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister when they said that if we, including Mr. Trimble, knew what they had been told by the commission, we would all be satisfied that a significant amount of decommissioning had taken place, and that a significant process was under way. While I am not suggesting that they should go ahead and tell us, I strongly believe that it should be stressed to the IRA, through whatever contacts the Government has, that it has an obligation to substantiate the legitimacy of this process.

The relatively vague and technical terms used so far, which have done as much to suggest what was not decommissioned as what was, clearly fall far short of what Mr. Trimble and his colleagues believed they were entitled to expect. They also do little to reassure the rest of us that those on the republican side who stress a commitment to exclusively peaceful means have considerable confidence in at least some of their military-minded associates.

The war is over. I am prepared to accept that and I believe most of us in this House are prepared to accept that. It has been ended, in its own terms, by an undefeated army and I am prepared to accept that too. When war is over, a time comes when swords are turned into ploughshares. Until the swords of the IRA are turned into ploughshares and until the rest of us can be reassured that has happened, they will continue to bedevil a peace process that still, despite all the problems, holds out hope of a new spirit and dynamic for the future of all the people of this island.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Sargent.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGinley)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I share the profound disappointment and frustration of all those who support the Irish peace process and the Good Friday Agreement at yesterday's turn of events on what should have been an historic day for all the right reasons. No one is more disappointed than republicans at what has happened. An agreement was in place. It was understood by all sides and the sequence of statements and events was clearly set out. That sequence was broken by David Trimble.

Let there be no doubt about the enormity of the steps taken by republicans yesterday. Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams asserted in the clearest manner that Sinn Féin's position is one of total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences and opposition to the use or threat of force. The IRA endorsed this statement. IRA arms were then put beyond use and the IRA said it would continue to engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

The head of the IICD, John de Chastelain, confirmed this was a substantial action. He made clear that weapons, munitions and explosives had been put beyond use and this was a more substantial act than the previous two such acts by the Irish Republican Army. He said the operation took a number of hours and, very importantly, he reminded us that this was carried out under the schemes agreed by the two Governments.

An undefeated republican army has put arms beyond use on three occasions under schemes agreed by the Irish and British Governments and under the supervision of an international decommissioning body. This was a huge step for republicans, unprecedented in Irish history and something that would have been inconceivable until very recent times. Against this background there is absolutely no credibility in the claim by David Trimble that this is not enough to build confidence. This claim takes no account of the enormous difficulty and strain the achievement of such an initiative causes within the wider republican constituency.

Political confidence cannot be built without the political will to respond to confidence-building measures. What happened yesterday was a failure of political will on the part of David Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party. This is not about apportioning blame; it is about recognising realities. Too often the Ulster Unionist Party and David Trimble are portrayed not as political agents acting in their own interests with their own strategy, but as helpless victims of events outside of themselves. In this scenario it is republicans who have to make all the concessions and to take all the initiatives. However, that is not what the Good Friday Agreement is about. It requires the political will and the political commitment of all parties and both Governments to bring about change.

The bottom line is that on Tuesday, 21 October, there was an agreement, a clearly agreed sequence of very significant events, in which republicans kept their side of the bargain and then the plug was pulled by David Trimble. His action has plunged us all into a new set of difficulties. Perhaps other party leaders in this House might for once in their political lives consider calling on David Trimble to accept the assurances of the British Prime Minister and the Taoiseach regarding the scale of the decommissioning carried out yesterday instead of their all too predictable and solitary focus of blame on republicans.

I commend Sinn Féin's negotiators for their tenacious and principled efforts. I know they will persist, as all of us in Sinn Féin will, in our unstinting work to resolve these grave difficulties and to set the peace process on the path of progress once again. I reaffirm our determination to get beyond all these difficulties and to ensure the realisation of our vision of the future by peaceful and political means.

Mr. Sargent

The frustrating and depressing turn of events yesterday with the stand-off between the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin is blamed by David Trimble on a lack of transparency. Opposition parties in the Dáil can probably sympathise with not being kept in the picture given the absence of briefings and consultation from the Government on the peace process recently.

The Green Party requests such a briefing as a pro-Agreement party and part of a movement that is not just organised on both sides of the Border but also on both islands, with MEPs from Ireland and England in the European Parliament, seven members in the Scottish Parliament and representation at local level in Northern Ireland. As a party founded on the principle of non-violence, we still urge the IRA to declare the words: "The war is over". If partial decommissioning is to be credible, it would help if it were accompanied by these words from the IRA. It is in the gift of the IRA to be open in saying what is being decommissioned and we appeal to it to show such openness for the sake of the implementation of the Agreement.

People ask how the choreography could have come so far with the expectation in place only for it to fall apart at the last minute. Surely this problem was identified earlier and, if so, why was it so carelessly overlooked? The Green Party, South and North and in Britain, will seek to meet other pro-Agreement parties next Thursday when I will lead a delegation to Belfast. Ultimately, patience is required of all the pro-Agreement parties, including the two Governments and the Opposition parties in the Dáil who have been sidelined by the UUP and Sinn Féin negotiations over the summer. In particular, the other pro-Agreement parties in Northern Ireland, including the Green Party, deserve not just credit for their patience but recognition from the electorate on 26 November.

It is ironic that the two parties that have been most obstructive to the implementation of the Agreement have gained so much in profile from their squabbles while those most open and generous in their support have been sidelined. This election will be the most crucial in Northern Ireland since the referendum on the Agreement. It is essential that all the pro-Agreement parties recognise the common cause they share and co-operate and co-ordinate their advocacy of the Agreement. This will be difficult, not alone because of the history of conflict but also because of the nature of party politics, but it must be done. There must be no victory for anti-Agreement forces on 26 November.

Mr. F. McGrath

I thank the Acting Chairman for giving me an opportunity to speak on the current crisis in the Northern peace talks. I am extremely angry at and disappointed by what happened yesterday. As a long-time supporter of the peace process and inclusive dialogue, I felt let down by the UUP and the antics of David Trim ble. He appeared to falter at the final hurdle. I am trying to be measured in my response in case there is movement in the next few days.

I sense some people are playing politics with this major national issue. It should be remembered that this process belongs to the people and not just one person or political group. A deal was agreed under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and now the bar is being raised again. I appeal to everyone to stop and reflect for a while. The people of the Middle East must think we have a screw loose. They deal with bombs, bullets and slaughter every day, yet they are trying to initiate a peace process. We have had a ceasefire for ten years and three acts of disarmament, yet Mr. Trimble is still not satisfied. Did we not all agree that the arms issue would be left to General John de Chastelain? Now Mr. Trimble is not happy with that. He cannot have it both ways. If he has agreed a package, there should be no welshing on the deal. It is bad politics, lacks common sense and leads to a breakdown of trust.

I commend the republican movement for its leadership and vision on this process. I know it is probably not trendy or fashionable to say it in this House, but we must all recognise bravery, leadership and vision. I commend the movement's efforts, especially those of our Sinn Féin colleagues in the House. The movement has been to the fore in bringing about a peace process and promoting change on the island. I also thank the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, for their efforts. We have many political disagreements on other issues, but the Taoiseach has my support and best wishes when it comes to the peace process.

How do we resolve the current mess? Mr. Blair must deal with the UUP and act as a guarantor. I disagree with many political parties in the House on where blame lies. Most objectively minded and independent people know where it lies. I do not want to get into the blame game at this stage because it could be damaging, but I urge people to face up to their responsibilities.

As a back bench Member, I represent the widespread frustration in nationalist Ireland on this issue. Many people have taken enormous risks in this process and it is not good enough to throw it all back in their faces. It is time we called a spade a spade and let everyone get on with the job. As we try to move on from 30 years of conflict and get on with building a modern, inclusive and democratic Ireland, we should remind ourselves that this is a peace process. It is about equality, justice and accommodating differences in our country. The people demand leadership, risk taking and vision. We almost had that yesterday and many were extremely disappointed that it did not happen. However, everyone must pick themselves up and get on with the job of conflict resolution and move towards a new Ireland.

I wish to address two issues: the existence of British guns and loyalist weaponry on the island. Insufficient emphasis has been placed on their disarmament. The issue of British and loyalist guns must be addressed. I commend the progressive elements within unionism and loyalism that want to take the gun out of Irish politics. We should use the language of straight talking. I know many people from Northern Ireland and they prefer people to be upfront, honest and straight. I believe in Irish unity and independence, but I want to explain to the Unionist population the reason I believe in the teachings of Connolly, Tone and Emmet. No tipping of the cap is involved. I also want to listen to and learn from the opposing view and the Unionist population. That is what this process is about for me.

I wish the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs well in their efforts. However, I sound a note of caution. The Taoiseach is not George Mitchell. He must represent the views of Irish citizens. His duty is to ensure that the trust built on between Gerry Adams and David Trimble in recent weeks is put back on track. I wish him well in that.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I wish to put the events of yesterday in some perspective. In this way, we can bank the significant progress we have made and identify the remaining obstacles to the full and complete implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

The Agreement has proven to be a resilient accord. It should be noted that, with the sole exception of one party, no one has called it into question as the defining social contract governing relations within Northern Ireland, between North and South and between Ireland and Britain. There is not even disagreement about the obligations it imposes on everyone.

The obstacle we encountered yesterday is not the first of its kind and may not be the last, but it is important to recognise what gives the Agreement its resilience. Its strength derives not from the modesty of the demands it makes on parties to it but from the ambitious challenges it presents to them. Its ambitions may have contributed to the difficulties of its implementation. The challenges in creating a new and peaceful Ireland are not shirked but faced head on. However, I believe that is why the Agreement will stay the course, the foundations its lays will be enduring and that it will be seen as one of the defining achievements in Anglo-Irish relations.

At its core, the Agreement demands that everyone plays by the same rules, that the only acceptable methods of pursuing one's political objectives are through peace and democracy, that every tradition be respected and that all be treated equally. It seeks no less than the ending of the use of physical force to achieve political objectives and the forging of a new and historic relationship between the traditions on this island.

I welcome, therefore, the statement made yesterday by the leader of Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams. His statement, endorsed by the IRA, made a number of key points. He recognised that political parties must be held accountable. He stated that he was committed to ending physical force republicanism and that: "We are opposed to any use or threat of force for any political purpose". He underlined that the republican strategy, including that of the IRA, was creating a purely peaceful alternative to achieving republican objectives. In a most significant contribution, he stated that the Agreement, democratically endorsed by the people of both states on this island, provides the context for the full and final closure of the conflict. The leader of the UUP, David Trimble, was, therefore, right to recognise and welcome these comments.

However, both Governments have been acutely aware that, if we are to establish the necessary confidence, especially on the part of the Unionist community, words must be accompanied by actions. A key part of the approach of both Governments was, therefore, to secure another major act of decommissioning on the part of the IRA so that the Unionist community would understand in word and deed the significance of what was unfolding yesterday. Under the aegis of the IICD, a major act of decommissioning was sanctioned by the IRA and was carried out yesterday. That this was a significant event was clear from the statement issued by the IICD. The quantity of arms was greater than the quantity put beyond use by the second act of decommissioning. This second act was, as reported by the IICD, varied and substantial. In terms of the third act of decommissioning yesterday, General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens reported to both Governments that the arms decommissioned included light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions. In other words, it spanned the range of operational equipment in the possession of the IRA. They went further and stated that what was decommissioned included automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives and explosive material.

Within the bounds of the confidentiality entitlements accorded to groups operating under the scheme, General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens gave a clear indication of the range and significance of what was decommissioned. In their public comments afterwards, they carefully amplified this, while respecting the obligation imposed on them by the confidentiality clause of the legislation and regulations governing the operation of the IICD. It is most important to recognise, as Mr. Sens stated, that the weapons decommissioned yesterday, if used, could have caused death and

destruction on a large scale.

I wish to pay tribute to the professionalism and commitment of the members and staff of the IICD and in particular to the contribution made by General de Chastelain and Mr. Sens. It would be inappropriate and unfair to direct any sense of frustration stemming from the presentation and information regarding the decommissioning event towards them. They have faithfully carried out their task under the scheme established in law.

It should also be noted that the decommissioning carried out yesterday is seen by republicans as a part of a process of putting all arms beyond use. In its first statement yesterday the IRA said that its representative was meeting with the IICD with a view to proceeding with the implementation of a process to put arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity. Despite the significance of the act of decommissioning, the leader of the UUP and his advisers made a decision that the threshold of public confidence had not been met to enable the UUP to make its contribution to the deal emerging yesterday. In the considered view of the Government, therefore, what is required now is to bridge the gap between what was done yesterday as confirmed by the IICD and to communicate this in a way that engenders public confidence. This is not simply a demand by the UUP. In its statement issued on 6 May 2000, the IRA re-engaged with the IICD to begin a process that would completely and verifiably put its arms beyond use. It stated: "We will do it in such a way as to avoid risk to the public and misappropriation by others and ensure maximum public confidence."

The reality with which we are faced is that the presentation and not the substance of the decommissioning of arms yesterday has not maximised public confidence. I am very conscious of the sensitivity of the arms issue to those republicans who, although committed to peaceful means, respect the tradition of physical force republicanism. The Government recognises the contribution that the republican leadership has made. However, the presentation of decommissioning must surely rank as a secondary consideration compared to the over-riding need to create the degree of public confidence that will facilitate the creation of the second Executive in the wake of the elections scheduled for 26 November next. The whole purpose was to create the most positive context for those elections. The elections have now been called. Our purpose now is to ensure that the atmosphere surrounding them is the most positive possible. We are not there yet and we must address our minds to the matter immediately.

The Government remains committed and focused in seeking to bridge the gap between what has been achieved and the public appreciation of that achievement. It is encouraged in this by the comments made yesterday by the leader of the UUP, Mr. David Trimble, that the issue was one of public perception and confidence. As the Taoiseach made clear repeatedly in the lead-up to yesterday's events, there must be a clear public understanding of both the words and the deeds.

Both Governments will continue to work intensively over the coming days to secure the clarity required to inspire the greatest public confidence; to achieve the full and faithful implementation of the Good Friday Agreement; the ending of paramilitary activity and the establishment of the institutions on a stable and durable basis working for the peace and prosperity of all who share this island. I ask everyone to commit themselves to that task.