Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Nov 2000

Vol. 164 No. 13

Northern Ireland: Statements.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen)

I thank you and the Members of the Seanad for providing me with the opportunity to participate in today's debate. Those of us who are engaged in the long and difficult process of implementing the Good Friday Agreement spend most of our time dealing with the most pressing and urgent issues. Too seldom are we given the opportunity to look up from this detailed work to review the broader picture.

When President Clinton addressed the Oireachtas in 1995 he reminded us, in the words of George Bernard Shaw, that "peace is not only better than war, but infinitely more arduous". He was absolutely right. At times it can seem as if implementing the Good Friday Agreement is like climbing a particularly frustrating mountain. Just as you think you are reaching the top, a new and steeper slope appears. There have been numerous occasions during the process when it seemed as if the hard work was finally done, only for new issues – or new variants of old issues – to appear. From this I draw two lessons. First, implementing a radical and complex agreement and emerging from a history of conflict and division will inevitably pose grave challenges. Second, and more important, even the most difficult problems can be overcome with the right mixture of determination, patience and goodwill. If we can surmount the problems we face now, a profoundly important step forward in ensuring the success of the Agreement will have been taken.

Difficult questions now confront us. I will return in detail to the effective operation of the institutions on a fully inclusive basis, policing and the queston of arms. Of course we must focus on finding answers to these questions but, standing back, what is clear is not what remains to be done but how much has already been done.

In less than a single generation we have completely and irreversibly transformed the political landscape of this island. It is a mere 20 years since the hunger strikes brought many who were com mitted to dialogue and to the peaceful resolution of our problems to the brink of despair. It is only 16 years since the seminal report of the New Ireland Forum set out nationalist Ireland's vision of an agreed future. Fifteen years ago this month the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, formally recognising the Irish Government's role in relation to Northern Ireland. Ten years ago this month a British Secretary of State, for the first time, stated that Britain had no sefish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Seven years ago the two Governments formally set out their joint approach to the principles of self-determination and consent in the Downing Street Declaration, offering a route into talks to all parties committed to exclusively peaceful means. In the few years since 1993 we have seen ceasefires established, talks put in place, agreement achieved and comprehensive and inclusive institutions established.

At last weekend's SDLP conference, John Hume rightly emphasised the role of his party in formulating a searching and comprehensive analysis of the Northern Ireland situation and in advocating a challenging but realistic way forward. Successive Irish Governments and all the democratic parties in this State can rightly take pride in our own contribution. The principles which underlie the Good Friday Agreement are, in very large measure, the principles which we collectively advanced over many years. The institutions reflect and express the three key relationships which we together identified.

What has been accomplished is nothing less than a revolution, achieved not through violence but through the ending of violence, not through domination but through partnership. Let me recall in simple terms some of the most remarkable features of that revolution as embodied in the Good Friday Agreement. There is a solemn repudiation of the use or threat of force for any political purpose. There is agreement on how and in what circumstances a united Ireland may be brought about by the will of the people, North and South. There is a recognition of the constitutional legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. There is a recognition of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose. For the first time, Unionists, Nationalists and republicans are working together as equals and as of right to serve all the people equally. For the first time unionists have fully recognised the legitimacy of the nationalist aspiration and the need for that aspiraton to be given institutional form. For the first time Ministers from North and South are working together in formal structures to achieve mutual social and economic benefit for the people of the island as a whole. There is a new understanding and a ready acceptance of the unique relationship between the British and Irish peoples. Equality, mutual respect and the protection of human rights are acknowledged to be the indispensable basis of a fair and decent society.

Not long ago it would have been unimaginable that any one of these fundamental elements of the Agreement could have secured sufficient consensus across the spectrum. Now they all have. Moreover – and it is something we as the servants of the people can never forget – the Agreement, unlike any previous settlement, enjoys a democratic mandate secured in referendums both North and South.

The Agreement is precious and irreplaceable. It is also robust. We have made great progress towards ensuring that it is fully implemented. While difficulties remain, we will overcome them in a manner that is fully consistent with the principles of the Agreement. Healing the divisions which have developed over many decades will also take time. I accept that the institutions will eventually be judged not just by what they achieve in concrete terms but by how far they have advanced true reconciliaton and understanding. That aspect of the Agreement is inevitably a long-term project but the progress which has been made cannot and must not be rolled back. It must be built upon to achieve full implementation as quickly as possible.

In signing the Agreement all sides made commitments and took steps which they knew would cause them and the communities they represent great pain. However, they did so with courage and vision and for the greater good. They did so in a holistic and balanced way, not just issue by issue but in the full context of all the Agreement promised. That is why it has always been the view of the Government that the Agreement cannot be taken piecemeal or cherry picked. It must be implemented in full. That must remain our guiding principle. It is the only correct approach and the only practicable one.

Our current difficulties will only be resolved if we continue to focus on the context of the full implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects. At Hillsborough in May, the two Governments set out how they would take forward the areas of the Agreement for which they have responsibility – including human rights, policing and security normalisation. The IRA responded with a positive and significant statement, indicating the context in which it would put its arms beyond use, agreeing to re-engage with the de Chastelain commission and, as a confidence building measure, opening some of its weapons dumps to independent inspection.

The period since then has been enormously productive, with significant work being carried out in all of the institutions. A programme for Government and a budget have been brought forward by the Executive in the North, identifying and targeting its priorities for the period ahead.

On the North-South front, the establishment of the North-South Ministerial Council and the six related implementation bodies have transformed the nature of the relationship between both parts of the island. Since the institutions were restored, the intensity of work carried out by the council has been highly impressive. The second full plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, held in Dublin in September, further advanced the ambitious work programme which has, to date, resulted in 19 sectoral meetings involving the relevant Ministers from both Administrations. This work agenda would not have been possible without the commitment of all my ministerial colleagues on both sides of the Border.

The House will already be aware of the substance of the work in the North-South framework over the last year. However, I would like briefly to refer to a few illustrative examples. In the economic sphere, the Trade and Business Development Body, now called InterTrade Ireland, has made a very impressive debut. It has in recent weeks held a number of very successful and well attended road shows, highlighting the huge potential for increased trade and business activity between both parts of the island.

On tourism, the North-South Ministerial Council recently established a new company – Tourism Ireland – which will be responsible for promoting the entire island as a single tourism destination in overseas markets. This will considerably enhance the cohesion, effectiveness and value for money of the island's collective marketing endeavours bringing immediate benefit to both sides of the Border.

I mention also the North-South work being done in regard to European Union Structural Funds. Under the direction of the two Ministers for Finance and their respective officials, the Special European Programmes Body has done outstanding work in preparing the next round of draft programmes which have a direct cross-Border impact. These include INTERREG III and PEACE II, the successor programme to the very successful EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The Special European Programmes Body has been very involved in the preparation of these draft programmes and will have an even stronger role in their implementation and delivery when they come on stream early next year.

Of course, North-South co-operation cannot, and should not, be the sole preserve of Government. Its transcending importance requires that we broaden its ownership across as wide a spectrum of society as possible. I am very supportive of the proposal in the Good Friday Agreement that a joint parliamentary forum be established. Similarly, given the clear benefits of structured engagement with the social partners in this jurisdiction and given the success of partnership boards in the North, this Government sees considerable merit in the establishment of an appropriate North-South consultative forum. The Agreement proposed that the matter be given consideration. A working group of officials is currently examining the question and will report back to the next plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in March 2001.

Given the scale and substance of this progress, the decision taken by the Ulster Unionist Council, and David Trimble's subsequent refusal to nominate Sinn Féin Ministers to attend meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council is disappointing and, in my view, misconceived – misconceived because it is clear that the institutional and constitutional aspects of the Agreement are interlocking and interdependent. We have all pledged ourselves to working in good faith to ensure their success.

Throughout this difficult process, if we have learnt anything it is that progress will only be achieved through consensus and through a shared willingness to address each other's difficulties. It will not be achieved through the advancement of one party's interpretation of the Agreement and through the satisfaction of one party's demands. The Agreement belongs to all the people of Ireland who voted for it. No one party is entitled to compromise the successful operation of the institutions and to put a block on progress to resolve difficulties that lie elsewhere.

Let there be no doubt, I fully share the Ulster Unionist Party's desire – which is the desire not just of one community but of the people of the island as a whole – to see arms put fully and verifiably beyond use, but equally I fear that the tactics that have been adopted will not secure that outcome.

That is not to ignore Unionist difficulties. It is simply to state that they can best be addressed in the context of fully working institutions, and that means Sinn Féin Ministers participating in meetings on exactly the same basis as their ministerial colleagues. We will work to overcome the present problems, but in doing so it must be absolutely clear that such tactics cannot and will not be deployed again further down the road. The UUP sitting in Government and working the institutions with Sinn Féin and the SDLP is no more than was promised in the Agreement and than was endorsed by the people of Ireland, North and South.

The Agreement is a document of realistic compromise and balance, arising out of a particular set of circumstances and out of three tragic decades of violence. One of the most hard won lessons of this process has been the need for inclusivity if we are to move forward on an agreed basis. The Agreement gives parties their seats on the Executive as of right, not as the outcome of subsequent discussion and negotiation. All Ministers come to the table and operate as equals.

While recognising current UUP difficulties, it is also worth recalling that others – including this Government – have had to take a sensitive and careful approach to the effective operation of the institutions. Parties in the North have had to deal with the DUP's refusal to take its seats around the table and, as a result of that party's position, it has not yet been possible for a meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council on transport to take place. Throughout, we have sought to reach a resolution of these difficulties in a manner which respects the integrity of the institutions under the Agreement and which can contribute to their successful operation.

It also has to be said republicans need to acknowledge that there is a deficit in Unionist confidence that must be addressed if they too are to achieve all that the Agreement offers them. The IRA statement of May was a vital part of securing the restoration of the institutions. It was a bold step forward. The subsequent inspections and reports from the two international inspectors have, likewise, been enormously helpful and reassuring. It is worth recalling that the inspectors reported the IRA has fully honoured its commitments with respect to the inspections and that the inspectors are convinced they will receive the same co-operation in future re-inspections.

If the positive momentum created by the May statement is to be sustained, we need to see movement on all of the commitments the IRA made taking place alongside the progress in the broader political context on which those commitments were based. The IRA promised re-engagement with de Chastelain, and that took place, albeit in a limited way. But it also promised that the IRA would enter into discussions with the commission on the basis of the IRA leadership's commitment to resolving the issue of arms. We now need to see that level of truly meaningful engagement taking place.

Mr. Cassidy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cowen

I readily acknowledge the positive aspects of the IRA statement of 25 October, in particular its reiteration of the IRA's commitment to a just and equitable peace settlement. The IRA said it will resume discussions with the commission only when it is satisfied that the peace process will be advanced by those discussions. However, it is clear to me that the process will always be advanced by such discussions.

In our statement in May, the two Governments asked the independent commission to consider, in consultation with representatives of the paramilitary organisations, whether there are any further proposals for decommissioning schemes which offer the commission greater scope to proceed in more effective and satisfactory ways with the discharge of its basic mandate. This is clearly an area where substantial progress on resolving the question of arms can be made through dialogue.

The two Governments also have a vital role to play in creating the context in which progress can be made. Policing is a matter that goes to the very heart of the new dispensation envisaged in the Agreement. Success on policing is, not to overstate it, essential to the success of the Agreement as a whole. For Nationalists, it is a touchstone issue – a willingness to accept transformative change on this issue is a vital signal that the new beginning for society can be achieved. Policing was too difficult and too emotive an issue for the parties to the Agreement to be able to resolve themselves. Therefore, they rightly left it to an independent commission to come forward with proposals that could embody the vision of the Agreement – a vision of a new transformed society with which Nationalists can identify and in which they can play a full, involved and active part, a vision where the differing identities and aspirations of the two communities are given equal respect and weight.

Through its work, the Patten Commission sought to make that vision a reality and I again pay tribute to the distinguished role played by the commission – including the Members' colleague, Senator Maurice Hayes, who made an immense contribution to its work and who continues to bring his formidable talents to bear in this House – in bringing forward a comprehensive, balanced and achievable set of recommendations. The approach of the commission was right from the outset. As its report stated, the commission "did not try to balance what may be politically acceptable to this group against what is reckoned to be acceptable to that". Rather, it brought forward proposals for a policing service which, in the words of the Agreement, "can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole".

The Bill to give effect to the Patten recommendations brought forward by the British Government in May was, as I said at the time, deficient in many respects. Now that it has completed its passage through Westminster, it is only fair to acknowledge that efforts have been made to assuage Nationalist concerns in key areas and that the Bill has been improved in several important and significant respects. However, perhaps in part due to the adversarial nature of the legislative process, there is a fear among many Nationalists that the big picture, the vision in the Agreement and in Patten, has been lost sight of, a fear that seeking to weigh what is sought by one side against what is perceived to be unacceptable to the other could affect the transformative capacity of the project.

I believe that the Nationalist parties continue to want to see the project as a whole succeed. At his party's conference, Seamus Mallon, for whom the question of policing has been a vital issue throughout his long and distinguished career, said that his party is willing to work the new arrangements if they are workable, but that the British Government must demonstrate this not just in the Bill, but also in the implementation plan and its wider attitudes. Sinn Féin also stated that it is prepared to withhold its definitive decision until the final version of all the various components is in place.

The time has now come to study and to reflect, to assess objectively how far we have come and to see what remains to be done. We need to work to build on the improvements that have been achieved so that there is certainty and clarity about what will happen and when. Most of all, perhaps, we need to work to build confidence and to provide reassurance that the vision and values of the Agreement and of the Patten Commission continue to lie at the heart of the policing project. Bringing a satisfactory conclusion to a number of well-known cases that have undermined Nationalist confidence in the administration of justice would also greatly help in creating a new context.

We will continue to work constructively with the parties and with the British Government in the days ahead. In doing so, our priority should be clear. The policing project is too important, too central to the Agreement, to run the risk of failing. Without that Nationalist support, it simply cannot succeed. We must continue to work to ensure that it does.

Throughout the peace process we have learnt that it takes co-operation to move forward, that the greatest progress is made when the two Governments work closely and co-operatively together. We have come to realise that neither community – Nationalist nor Unionist – can succeed in having its needs met without the co-operation of the other. Like the institutions, the futures of the two traditions on this island are interlocking and interdependent. The parties need to be conscious of each other's immediate needs and to be willing to help one another out so that full implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects can eventually be secured.

Equally, the pace of our progress cannot be dictated by the forces of reaction on both sides. We need courageous leadership to ensure that respective political constituencies on both sides are led forward, not dragged backwards. We need to move on from the stop-start approach that impedes our progress and that threatens to undermine all we have achieved. We must avail of every opportunity to promote the benefits the Agreement offers us all. Economic opportunity and social inclusion measures are, after all, as important on the Shankill as they are on the Falls.

The people need to reassert their sense of ownership of the Agreement and to make their voices heard. Being part of a political leadership team can be a lonely and somewhat isolating experience. Civic society needs to be vocal and active in its support for the Agreement to which the people of Ireland, North and South, gave their overwhelming endorsement. They need to stand four-square behind those who are struggling to see it implemented in full so that their public representatives get on with their real day to day business. That will create the necessary trust and confidence and it will also resolve the more difficult issues in an active and politically dynamic context.

The Agreement provided us all with the opportunity for closure, to put an end to division, conflict and zero-sum gain. It offers us the chance to close the book on the tragedies of our past and to create a new and better future together. There are those, republican dissidents included, who continue to advocate the violent methods of the past. They are doomed to fail. We will continue to be tireless in our efforts to bring those who resort to violence to justice, but equally we will defeat them by demonstrating that the Agreement has the potential to create a truly new beginning and that politics works for everyone's benefit.

They are out of step with the people of Ireland, North and South, who have chosen another, better way. The people recognise that there is no credible or workable alternative to the Agreement. It is our future and there can be no turning back. We will continue to work with all of those who want the Agreement implemented in full. We will leave no stone unturned in our efforts and we will succeed.

Mr. Manning

I welcome the Minister and I compliment him on a speech that was positive and realistic. It was a comprehensive and insightful survey of where we are today. I compliment him on the great sense of energy and integrity he has brought to everything he has done, not only in relation to Northern Ireland but throughout his career.

It is clear from the Minister's speech that this is a taking stock debate – we are considering what has happened since we last discussed Northern Ireland in the House. The Minister was correct to put where we are into context. It is easy to get bogged down in the day to day detail and to forget how far we have come and how much has been achieved in the past couple of years. It is easy to forget the sense of helplessness which enveloped almost everybody through much of the 1970s and 1980s when there was one attempt after another and it appeared impossible that real dialogue would get under way. In that sense, the context must always be stressed when people become pessimistic about Northern Ireland.

A phrase we increasingly hear in the economic arena these days is that we are suffering from the problems of success. To a certain extent, all the problems enumerated by the Minister are the result of the success of the past couple of years. Each problem can be tackled and resolved on its own. There might be trouble if they all arose at the same time, but each one can be tackled in turn. Given what has been achieved to date, each one is capable of being solved.

Those of us who visit the North on a regular basis notice the sense of normality over most of Northern Ireland now. The sooner Northern Ireland politics assumes the same sense of normality and is concerned about the every day mundane issues of political life, the closer we will be to seeing the Northern Ireland problem as something that is of interest to historians but not in day to day life. It is very refreshing and encouraging, from a perspective of 80 years of stable democracy in this part of the country where we take a great deal for granted, to see how well the Ministers and many of the members of the new Assembly have taken to parliamentary politics.

With regard to the Ministers, Sir Reg Empey led a trade delegation to the US with all-party backing from the Assembly. We can rightly be impressed by the professionalism and the way he puts across the case for greater investment in Northern Ireland. In my dealings with Dr. Sean Farren on third level education I see someone almost born for the job. He loves what he is doing and he is very good at it. He could grace any ministry in any country. Martin McGuinness has impressed people who have dealt with him on questions of education. He has shown a good grasp of his brief and a great directness in stating his case. All of these things are extremely encouraging and show that these people are taking to parliamentary politics. This also applies to Assembly members.

I hope the problems on the North-South Ministerial Council can be resolved and it will be back in action soon. The decision of Mr. David Trimble may have given him a certain amount of short-term relief in a very difficult political situation but to continue with this serves no purpose. It has become a divisive issue. It is creating problems which are out of proportion to what is involved. I hope some way can be found to take this pointless and divisive issue off the agenda as soon as possible.

I was pleased the Minister mentioned in his speech that the time may now be right to look at the establishment of a North-South parliamentary body. I noticed that he said this was not a matter for Governments. He is right. This is a matter for parliaments. On an all-party basis in both Houses here and in consultation with the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly we should start to look seriously at the establishment of a North-South body.

We have seen from the success of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body that politicians across different divides have a great deal in common. We all deal with the same sort of problems and the same sort of people, constituents and the general public. We have a common language. We also have a great deal to learn from each other. We, in particular, with our long tradition of parliamentary democracy, would have a great deal to contribute in helping to solidify and confirm the members of the Assembly in their commitment to making their Assembly work. We could learn from them. They have begun a parliamentary life unencumbered by tradition. They can do things in a more businesslike and direct way without the need to reinvent things to have the appropriate circumstances. There is a great deal to be learned. We could have a very positive body. It would be a very positive move if steps could be taken. The Minister made the point that this was not a matter for Government. Perhaps it is a matter for the Houses of Parliament.

We could easily be discouraged if we took the problems in Northern Ireland one by one on a day to day basis. It would be easy to be discouraged by the instability which is evident at times in the leadership of the Unionist Party and the constant sniping and attempts to undermine the leader of that party. We see the unchanging nihilistic approach of the DUP, an utterly destructive mindset which, if given its way, would trap all of us in generations of blackness and paralysis. That has not changed and it is a great pity. We always have to be alive to the certainty that every bit of mischief and destruction that can be done by these people will be done. We must be able to withstand all of it.

The Minister also mentioned in very strong terms the nihilistic and very destructive approach of the so called Real IRA. These people still believe they can achieve their ends through violence and force the imposition of their will on people who have rejected them in every way possible. All of us share the Minister's determination that this group be given no opportunity to undermine the Agreements or bring about misunderstanding either between Governments or between democratic parties on any part of this island.

We see the disappointment felt by many Unionists, and not just Unionists, by the slowness of the decommissioning process and the failure of the IRA to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of the Agreement. We understand the problems and difficulties. If we are talking about confidence building there is a great deal that could be done and I hope it will.

I was very impressed by the way the Minister approached the Patten report and the reform of the police service in Northern Ireland. He is correct that what has been offered through the Patten Commission is a vision of how Northern Ireland could be policed in a different cross-community way. All sections of the community could have confidence in it and it would help bury many of the ghosts of the past.

The Minister was right to stress that a great deal of movement has taken place in the past couple of weeks on the Patten report. A lot of progress must be made. Nonetheless, it is moving in the right direction. The issue is being diffused. I hope we can see reforms implemented which would make it possible for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland to view the police force in the same way as we view the Garda Síochána or as people in other countries view their national police force. They view it as a police force that belongs to all of the people, that is not partisan and whose purpose is to serve and uphold the law.

We see all of these things. Each of them has the capacity to damage the current situation. But over the past while there have been huge pluses in Northern Ireland. I will mention three of them because we tend to take them for granted. The transformation of Sinn Féin has been extraordinary. It is now a professional, organised, very able and ambitious political party. I have no doubt that it is utterly committed to the principles of democracy and parliamentary democracy. I am sure it wants to work to achieve its legitimate ends. Any political party has the right to achieve its lawful ends through ordinary electoral and parliamentary politics. We, as politicians, welcome that. The more the institutions are seen to work the more Sinn Féin will find itself to be a legitimate political party which can achieve its aims in the same way as the rest of us.

It is very important at this stage to pay tribute to the very many people, in the US especially, such as Bill Flynn who did a great deal to encourage Sinn Féin in from the cold and educate them in the ways of parliamentary politics. He was able to give them access when others were not and he knocked some of the corners off the party. I believe the evolution of Sinn Féin is permanent and it is something all of us should genuinely welcome.

It is very encouraging that David Trimble has, in spite of many difficulties, stuck with the Agreement. He has shown considerable courage in facing down the wreckers in his own party. It must be very daunting to find time and again that small people in your own party, the destructive forces, are out to trip and hinder you at every possible turn. His courage in sticking with the Agreement is something that we here in the calmer waters of our politics should never underestimate.

As the Minister mentioned, we should be very glad that the public is still very positively with the Agreement. Ordinary people like what they see and they want to hold onto it. They like the possibility of building a society fit for the 21st century rather than harking back to the ghosts of old. The support of the people is still the strongest basis for having confidence that Northern Ireland will evolve in the way we hope.

The Minister was right to say that civil society needs to be more vocal. The business, academic and trade unions leaders, the newspaper owners and anyone who forms opinion in Northern Ireland all need to be more vocal in their support for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They should support it during the hard tough quiet days as well as during the days of great excitement.

One of the failures among many in Northern Ireland has been the failure of the educated middle classes to support the political process and those who go into politics, which is a very unglamorous, badly paid and often dangerous profession in Northern Ireland. They deserve far more support than they have got from the business and middle class communities, who are in many ways the main beneficiaries of peace and stability. The Minister was right to stress the need for strong backing from civic society.

The fourth great positive is the fact that the Governments of Britain and the Republic are working together. Of course, there are differences and things get a bit frayed from time to time, with public rows here and there. However, that is part of normal life. The reality is that the Governments and civil servants are working together. Each has a healthy respect for the other and neither takes the other for granted nor at face value. There is a cautious amount of trust. However, there is a working relationship which allows problems be resolved in an orderly way. There are procedures, processes and personal relationships there. A level of trust has been built up. That is part of the glue which will ensure the Agreement will be held together.

Northern Ireland will never be a very happy place. It is the nature of northern people everywhere to be chippy, fractious and combative. Nobody expects the Good Friday Agreement to deliver happiness. However, at least, Northern Ireland now has stability and the mechanisms through which it can resolve its problems. Perhaps it is time for it to start to fend more for itself and to depend less on the outside world to nurse it and resolve its problems. It now has the institutions through which it can resolve most of its problems. It will be a very happy day when the only relationship we have with Northern Ireland is on questions of tourism, sport, education and so on, working through institutions we both support and want to make work, rather than the fire brigade attention which so often passes for policy at present.

The Minister was right to say how much good could be done if certain outstanding cases, such as the Finucane case, could be resolved. They have the capacity to poison relationships over a long period. Hopefully, the Bloody Sunday inquiry will finally get to the truth of that horrific day and terrible episode. I hope all the truth will be told and that people will be able to live normal lives knowing, not that that wrong has been righted – it never can be – but that, at least, the truth is known.

However, I wonder if we are too prone to looking back. Sometimes, a little national amnesia is a very good thing. After our Civil War ended, people did not talk about the events. Children who grew up in the 1930s and 1940s were not told by their parents of the episodes of the Civil War. There was a sense that certain things were better left lie without stirring them up and keeping them going. Likewise, in France, after the Second World War, a whole generation grew up not knowing about some of the terrible things that happened in France. Sometimes a little forgetfulness is a good thing. One has to get on with life and move on.

While I agree with the Minister that the outstanding cases need to be resolved, it would be no harm if we could get to the stage where we could leave Northern Ireland to the historians, social scientists, other academics and the movie makers and let ordinary people move into the future. I compliment the Minister on doing his job very well.

Mr. Cassidy

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Cowen, to the House to update us on Northern Ireland, which is probably the most important issue we could discuss in Parliament. I congratulate him on his total commitment to sustaining the peace that has been achieved and trying to enhance and progress it.

The situation in the North of this island, saturated as it is with the passions, distrust and hurt which come with conflict, is an matter where Government policy should, above all, be dominated by the desire to establish firmly the values of partnership, mutual respect and equality in the day to day lives of the population of our island. It is only when these values are let flourish that peace can at last thrive. Where peace is allowed develop and grow, the potential of ordinary men and women will no longer be clouded by distrust and uncertainty. This potential will grow and shape a prosperous and just society for all.

The Good Friday Agreement provides the framework to establish these values. The Executive, through its leaders, seemed the most visible example of how the two traditions in Northern Ireland could work together in partnership, equality and mutual respect.

In the Assembly, representatives of the two traditions have debated many issues with much vigour and enthusiasm. We have witnessed these opposing traditions attempting to resolve their differences of opinion through a parliamentary process, where face to face contact and frank exchange of opinion have replaced the pre-Agreement position when no party listened to the other.

When we consider this great change in the context of the island as a whole, the frequent meetings of Ministers from both jurisdictions in the North-South Ministerial Council bring home to us all the progress which has been made. When we compare this normality to the reaction when the then Taoiseach, Seán Lemass, made the first tentative cross-Border contact with the then Northern Prime Minister, Terence O'Neill, or when a North-South council was mooted in the Sunningdale Agreement, we can truly appreciate the extent of this change in its historical context.

We cannot allow the Good Friday Agreement and the progress and change associated with it to slip away. It is the bedrock for the future. We cannot return to a situation where all the work to date is assigned to history and not built upon. We cannot allow a state of affairs to arise where future generations on this island are deprived of that spirit of peace and reconciliation which we, only lately, have experienced.

Formidable work has been carried out by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, the current Minister, Deputy Cowen, past Taoisigh, Ministers of State and everyone who has worked so hard to bring us to where we are today. Their approach has never been to apportion blame or to indulge in recrimination, but rather to progress solidly and diplomatically towards the goal of lasting peace. They have realised that recriminations have no place in the serious pursuit of reconciliation. From my personal knowledge of the present Minister and from his political record to date, I am very confident he will spare no effort in seeking to move matters forward. His sentiments in the aftermath of various outrages and crimes that have taken place in the North of Ireland are there as testimony for all to see.

In regard to the suggestion in the contributions of the Minister and Senator Manning in regard to all parties in the North and South getting together, I would see Seanad Éireann playing a major part in that regard under new Standing Orders or the Seanad review, whereby MEPs from the North and South could have the right of audience in Seanad Éireann to discuss the various European reports which are so relevant to the island of Ireland. There would be all party support for this proposal in the Seanad. I look forward to the day it becomes a real possibility.

We do not witness too often the great talents of Seamus Mallon, who was a distinguished Member of this House. He and I took our seats on the first day I became a Member on 7 May 1982. He was one of the most outstanding speakers in the House.

We are very well informed and briefed in the House. The Minister referred to the contribution of Senator Maurice Hayes. He is a treasured and valuable Member, as is Senator Haughey. They are in daily contact with what is happening in the North of Ireland and know at first hand what is happening there. I am grateful to the Minister for attending the House and allowing us to have this debate and I look forward to many further visits by him.

Dr. Henry

I would not like it thought that the Independent Senators were not interested in this extremely important debate. I was very impressed with the Minister's speech. Since taking up his appointment he has made great efforts to continue the peace process in Northern Ireland. That is to be much welcomed.

I attended a meeting recently at which Denis Haughey MLA spoke. When talking about the past he reminded us of the horrific events which took place in Northern Ireland. He spoke of a constituent of his, a man named Patsy Gillespie who made sandwiches and sold them to whoever came to him. He was kidnapped by the IRA, strapped to his car with a bomb under him and told that if he did not drive to an army base his family would be killed. When he got to the base and rolled down the window of his car he was vaporised by the remote control button being pressed to detonate the bomb. Only a few years ago such episodes were taking place in this country and bringing shame on all of us.

It is very important that this process continues. Of course there will occasionally be backward steps, but in general the process has moved forward. I was delighted to meet Deputy Albert Reynolds in the House today because it gave me the opportunity to congratulate him again on the establishment of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. That was one of the most important initiatives taken in the last 20 years in trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland. It broke down barriers between people who rarely met. How could each side have been expected to know what the other side was like? Nothing is more frightening than rumour and making attempts to assess the position of those of whom one has very little knowledge.

I was privileged to be a member of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Former Senator, Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness, did a tremendous job in chairing it. Splendid progress was made at that time and we must be very grateful to Deputy Reynolds for what he did.

It is very important that we continue with our endeavours to break down barriers. I have frequently bored the House about the need for co-operation between both parts of the island. I recently read the national cancer report and noted the close co-operation with Northern Ireland. Our genes and, regrettably in many instances, environmental conditions are the same. Co-operation at these levels is to the benefit of us all.

Senator Leonard spoke this morning about the need to develop acute hospital services in Monaghan general hospital. People there might do better to look north of the Border with a view to accessing facilities, rather than attempting to develop acute hospital services in small towns which do not have the population to sustain good modern medical practice. For example, great co-operation has taken place between medical practices in County Donegal and the hospital at Altnagelvin in Derry. The logic of the situation is to look to the best treatment available nearest to patients.

These kinds of practical initiatives are the most important way to go forward. In my profession there was never a North-South divide. The Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians are all-Ireland. The co-operation at the recent meeting in Cavan of the Northern branch of the British Medical Association and the Irish Medical Organisation was an unprecedented step. All those present asked how soon they could meet again to discuss further topics of mutual importance.

Social contact is also very important. The more we try to travel North to meet people the better. Sometimes this can get one into deep waters. I was grateful to Senator Ó Murchú for his help with the problem I encountered this week when I was asked if I could find an Irish pipe band to play at a festival in east Belfast. I explained to the Senator that the Irish pipe band scene is not one of my fortes, but we must make whatever effort is required.

I am delighted Senator Maurice Hayes was mentioned so warmly by the Minister. He has done tremendous work. He had a party of visitors from east Belfast last week and I was delighted to meet them and some other Senators may have met them. They told me they had visited Stormont and were a little anxious about visiting Dublin. However, they were very pleased to dis cover that we all spoke English. They said some people in Stormont spoke Irish and they were not sure what they were saying. I said it was a matter of politeness in this House to speak English, especially when there were visitors in the Visitors Gallery who may not be as familiar with Irish as the rest of us. We got good marks for our behaviour.

We should do our utmost to reciprocate visits from people like Sir Reg Empey, Lord Denis Rogan and Lord John Blaird who have made the effort to visit here by going to Northern Ireland again. Those who want to support the Agreement badly need our support and the more often we visit looking suitably normal the better. At the meeting where I met Denis Haughey MLA I was reminded of the time all the Ministers travelled to Armagh to attend the meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. They arrived in approximately 20 Mercedes cars, which caused a lot of trouble in the North. I said it had also caused a fair amount of trouble in the South, where people asked why they could not have travelled by bus.

The reciprocation of any practical facilities which are of value to the populations of both parts of the island is the way to proceed. As a member of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body I have tried to encourage Unionists to attend meetings of the body. It is extraordinary that at the last meeting there were observers from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, from Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Observers from Jersey sent apologies because they could not attend, yet we were not in a position to welcome Unionist Members of the Legislative Assembly in Belfast. We need to work on this.

There is still difficulty in receiving RTÉ in the Down and Antrim area. I have raised this matter since I became a Member of this House. It does not come under the aegis of the Minister's Department and apparently we cannot broadcast across boundaries without permission. However, it would be a great help if RTÉ was received in this area. We can see all about them, so to speak, and it would be no harm if they saw all about us. The Down and Antrim area is perhaps the most important in Northern Ireland in terms of having our programmes broadcast. It may even lead to improvements on programmes such as "Bull Island".

Mr. Lydon

When I last spoke on a debate on Northern Ireland on 9 March 2000 I said we were further back than when we started in that we had given away Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, none of the institutions referred to in the Good Friday were operating and that, once again, there was direct rule from Westminster. Fortunately, things have changed since then. Like the Minister, I recognise the statement made by the IRA in May. However, progress is so slow that it often seems we take two steps forward only to take one step back. If a perceived concession is made on the Nationalist side, the Unionists try to block it in whatever way possible.

We have, in effect, said goodbye to the Patten report. Dr. Clifford Shearing, one of the independent members of the Patten commission, stated that the new police Bill dismantled the foundation on which the commission was founded and went on to say that core elements of its report had been undermined. The Patten report envisaged that the new policing body would have genuine powers to require the chief constable to report on any issues pertaining to the performance of its functions or those of the police service. The Bill which has just been passed in Westminster shows that this will not happen. The chief constable will now be allowed to question almost any attempt by the board to obtain a report or to get further information on a report it has received. It has been said that the Patten report has been gutted, not merely cherry picked.

One of the key issues in the Good Friday Agreement related to the establishment of a neutral police force. Nobody from any part of the Nationalist divide can ever give true allegiance to the partisan police force which has existed for so long and which still exists. I recall Burntollet, I recall when the RUC went into the Bogside and broke windows and I recall having a gun shoved in my face as I travelled through the Six Counties on my way from Donegal to a football match in Monaghan. The situation has not altered very much since then. We still have the same police force which fatally beat Sammy Devaney in his own home in the 1960s and the same force which recently failed to protect Catholics from sectarian violence in Larne.

The Patten report proposed a 50:50 recruitment ratio of Catholics and Protestants in order that it might be possible in ten or 15 years' time that 30% of the police force would be Catholic. Mr. Trimble stated that 50:50 recruitment was an insult to human rights and should not be allowed. I cannot see what he is afraid of. Mr. Trimble should be reminded that there are 159 RUC installations in the Six Counties, backed up by 78 British Army installations. When one combines the membership of the RUC, the British Army and the Royal Irish Regiment, they number approximately 27,000 members who can protect Mr. Trimble. Mr. Trimble should also be reminded that 280,000 legally held arms remain in Unionist possession. If there is to be any progress in the Six Counties, it must have a neutral police force which comprises members from both sides of the political divide – Nationalists, loyalists, Catholics and Protestants – so that if we ever see another civil rights campaign, Nationalists will at least be allowed to march.

I am aware that the RUC has suffered, with many of its members having been killed or injured in the line of duty and their families devastated. I have heard complaints from some quarters to the effect that the RUC will not be answerable for events in the past. We should let the past go and address the imbalance in the force instead. Many of the men released from prison are not required to look back and the RUC should not be required to look back either.

This is a time of new beginnings. Unfortunately, the British Government has missed a great opportunity to assist, via the development of a new police force, in this new beginning. I did not expect much from Jeffrey Donaldson or Ian Paisley but Mr. Trimble, at least, should have had the wit to side with Patten. I certainly expected more from Mr. Mandelson, although it appears I was foolish to do so.

What can we do? We must stand up and be counted. Though a small nation, we have always been able to stand on our own two feet without fear. We must continue to show the resilience we showed in the past when de Valera ceased paying annuities to Britain. If we can stand up to a large nation and show our resolve, we will be respected.

The terms of the Good Friday Agreement are clear and, if they are adhered to by all parties, progress will be made in regard to the establishment of a lasting peace. If the terms of the Good Friday Agreement are implemented in full, the Six Counties will eventually become a place in which people will be able to live and work in a peaceful manner, irrespective of their particular allegiances or political persuasions. This will benefit all of Ireland and will ultimately benefit England, Scotland and Wales too.

The Minister stated that the Good Friday Agreement cannot be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. We cannot pick and choose from it. We must continually remind ourselves and others, particularly Messrs. Mandelson and Trimble, that all the institutions are interdependent. Whether Mr. Trimble likes it or not, there is an all-Ireland dimension to the Agreement to which he and his party have signed up. That dimension must be recognised, respected and implemented. The intrinsic political and economic values of North-South co-operation are obvious but such co-operation also has the potential to help us to address the challenges which face us. The all-Ireland dimension is significant across a range of Government activity, allowing for the pooling of information and resources, potential synergies, economies of scale and key policy approaches. Issues which impact on our economic competitiveness such as human resources, infrastructural development and e-commerce are common to both parts of the island and a joint approach will allow them to have far greater impact in both jurisdictions.

It is up to the Irish and British Governments to tackle this issue, on which the Irish Government has always taken a firm line. It has clearly enunciated time and again that the provisions of the Patten report must be put in place. The British Government, however, has not displayed a similar zeal in pursuing these objectives.

The Patten report is only one issue which requires action. Others include demilitarisation and the banning of Sinn Féin Ministers from attending North-South ministerial council meet ings. However, we should not become too disheartened. The Minister stated in his speech that just as one thinks one is reaching the top, a new and steeper slope appears. That is true of all negotiations, but particularly of negotiations in Northern Ireland. Having come this far, we can go further. The progress which has been made has been nothing short of revolutionary. What is more, it has been achieved through the ending of violence and through partnership rather than domination.

The Minister also stated that we have learnt that it requires co-operation to move forward. We can only achieve progress by co-operating with people of different persuasions and political beliefs. The Good Friday Agreement gives space for everybody's aspirations. If we implement the Agreement and abide by it, Unionists and Nationalists will have a place in the new society and the new Ireland. The Agreement was voted in by the majority of the people in this country – by country, I refer to the geographical entity – and only by adhering to it can we maintain the peace which has been achieved.

The other path has ceased forever although there is still a group called the Real IRA which causes mayhem. One need only think back to a very recent explosion to understand what will happen if we give way to these people. Everybody else is committed to the process in one way or another. People will not get everything they want at once but we must keep up the effort.

The Minister is recognised as having one of the best minds in the Cabinet and his dedication to this process is singular. If anyone can bring this process forward in a spirit of co-operation, he can and I wish him well in his task.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

Fáiltím roimh an Aire anseo agus tréaslaím leis as an obair atá déanta aige. Níl aon amhras ann ach go bhfuil an-chabhair tugtha ag an Aire do phróiseas na síochána agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh go maith leis amach anseo mar tá an-chuid deacrachtaí fós ann. Ach níor chreid éinne go mbeadh a mhalairt de scéal ann mar táimid ag plé anseo le stair agus leis na céadta bliain agus ní mór a bheith foighneach agus cúramach.

I compliment the Minister for his role in the peace process. He has demonstrated that he is exceptionally astute and at the same time co-operative. He is also very determined while being conciliatory. In many ways he is one of a new breed of statesmen who is able to rise above narrow definitions and provide us all with new goals, and for that I compliment him very sincerely.

No subject has occupied more of our time or generated more debate than Northern Ireland. There have been many debates on it in this House. We have normally looked for a debate when it seemed the peace process was in some danger. At the same time there has been progress from the last debate, which would have been seen as a crisis intervention, and we can see the organic development of the peace process.

Some years ago before the fall of the Berlin Wall I had occasion to travel from West Germany to East Germany, when I passed through what was a cage. I realised then what a physical barrier was between people. I was in contact with other organisations in Germany at that time and had the opportunity to observe the traumatic consequences which resulted from that division. On one occasion I brought a group from Germany to Northern Ireland. They were very surprised to see no physical barriers as we passed from the Republic to the North of Ireland. However, we know there are barriers which are not of a physical nature. There are walls of suspicion, hatred, misunderstanding and supremacy. These walls are every bit as difficult, perhaps more so, to demolish than any physical wall.

At the height of the peace process I had an occasion to invite a former loyalist paramilitary to speak at a function in Dublin. He was accompanied by his wife and I had the opportunity of discussing things person to person over a meal. I tried to understand their background and whence they came. Hopefully, he endeavoured to do the same with me. I learned quite an amount from him, for example, that royalty was not necessarily his heritage and that he had no particular reason to celebrate the world wars. Loyalists living in ghettos have not really benefited from the sloganeering of some of the Unionist leaders through the years. In many ways they have been as victimised as many of the Nationalists during that period. What most surprised me was the barrier which existed in terms of knowledge. For example, his wife had never heard of County Clare, which was very difficult to believe.

We must understand that we have much bridge building and interacting to do. Nationalists and republicans have been particularly generous in this regard. The leadership provided by the Irish Government has been very important, having always worked on the basis of consistency. The biggest danger is not having consistency in negotiation, because if the goalposts are being changed constantly it is very difficult to realise the aims. The Irish Government has been consistent throughout, up to and beyond the Good Friday Agreement.

We are particularly lucky to have the Good Friday Agreement in place as it is a charter with international standing and in many ways eliminates the possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It must be the basis of all our discussion. All parties have signed up to the Agreement and have benefited from it.

I was particularly worried to hear the member of the Patten commission using the term "gutted" in referring to the British Government's reaction to the Patten report. The member wrote at length in The Guardian. My understanding is that the gentleman is very honourable, very level headed and not given to any form of extremism, but is endeavouring to be helpful. Nevertheless he was clearly stating that as a member of the commission and having worked on the report he felt that not only were constraints being put on the report but an effort was being made to gut it. I am glad that the Irish Government and the Minister have not backed away from that challenge as it is so important that a future North of Ireland, a future Ireland and a future relationship between the North and South is based on justice. The edifice we are talking about is peace with a foundation of justice. Each time we chip away at that foundation we chip away at the possibility of peace. We have peace and that is important and the foundation is now being strengthened.

I have grave reservations concerning the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, in this process. I have read what he has had to say and have observed what he has done and the way in which he is able to sideline and avoid the core questions being asked, something he can do exceptionally well and with eloquence. He must answer those core questions. We all understand that Unionists may have their difficulties as they come from a background where they were never questioned or challenged in the past. They were able to live in an artificially created state. There is no doubt it would not have been accepted in any other part of the developed world.

The other night I listened to a report on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, to a tape salvaged from San Francisco and to a former member of the British Army who has since died, giving evidence of what he experienced and of the people shot around him on Bloody Sunday. He shed bitter tears that his former comrades were capable of acting in such a terrorising fashion with absolutely no discipline whatsoever. The big question is whether they were acting on higher authority, as I believe they were. If they were it shows two sets of laws and military codes existed. We see a similar position with the murders of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill, with no effort whatsoever being made at redress, even though they are cases which point glaringly to collusion on the part of the security forces. I cannot understand how a person who would claim to be a member of the mother of Parliaments can stand over such collusion.

These are the challenges facing us and we should not allow them to discourage us. In the North of Ireland of 25 or 30 years ago we see echoes of what is happening in Palestine. We can realise what might have happened, indeed what nearly happened in Ireland. It is good we had people who were determined to continue making an effort, even though it was very difficult.

I talk with no degree of bitterness. My own background is English, my mother, God be good to her, was English and I have nothing but the height of regard for British people. However, wherever Britain has gone in the world it has a black record. It must now come clean where Ireland is concerned. The Republic has borne the brunt of the Northern Ireland problems – the Republic has always been in the front line. We can see what our Irish emigrants in Britain have had to put up with as a result of the Northern problem. It is not right for people who have the power and mandate to do what is right to back away from that in any way.

We saw what happened the Stalker inquiry. All the inquiries which did not come up with the correct results were sidelined and the people selected by the Government to bring about those reports were demonised for having endeavoured to tell the truth. That is the background against which we are working.

Having said that, the prize is great. Twenty five or 30 years ago we talked about the prize of peace and justice. It is now within our grasp. We have actually experienced some of that prize and nobody wants to go back. I have had interaction with the people of the North for many years in different ways. I have found all sides to be honourable people. I act as chairman of the Irish Family History Foundation. Sir Robert Kidd was its vice-chairman and I could not praise him highly enough. When one gets to know people down through the years one realises there is a certain basis of ethics which we would all like to adopt. There will always be an element that will try to undermine it. Basically there has always been this code of ethics to which we could all work.

At the end of the day it is important to keep an aspiration of a united Ireland. By keeping that aspiration we are talking about a natural development. I can hear it more and more in debate, not only among Nationalists but among people of other persuasions as well. We are particularly lucky to have the present Minister giving us the leadership he has given. I have no hesitation in saying that were it not for the fact that we had Taoisigh, such as Deputy Albert Reynolds and Deputy Bertie Ahern, in place there is absolutely no way we would be where we are today. They took the risks. A particular Sunday newspaper, week in and week out, had four and five columnists attacking John Hume, Gerry Adams and Albert Reynolds at that time. When eventually the breakthrough was made against all the odds it was as if they had never written those demonising articles. We should not be swayed by that type of superficial and ineffective type of publicity. We should stand by what we believe in – humanity, the goodness of the vast majority of the people, justice and peace.

Whatever ripples there are at the moment can be overcome but not by the likes of Mr. Trimble, for whom I have much admiration in ways, taking it upon himself, perhaps to save his own bacon, to take from the Good Friday Agreement and unilaterally deciding that properly elected Ministers will be excluded and prevented from doing their duties. That is not a starter. Until that new maturity prevails – a maturity that, perhaps, was not necessary for Northern politicians in power previously, but it was always necessary for politicians in the Republic – and the responsibility that goes with it, we will always have an uphill battle but we should not lose hope.

I congratulate and thank the Minister for all his good work.

Mr. Glennon

I join my colleagues in welcoming the Minister, Deputy Cowen, to the House and congratulate him on a job well done. He continues a good line of Fianna Fáil Ministers for Foreign Affairs who have contributed hugely to the massive advances made in the area of Northern Ireland affairs in the recent past and I wish him well.

As a youngster growing up in Skerries, we lived in a rather cosmopolitan village. In the 1960s the economy of the town was built entirely around two months of the summer, July and August. This was in the days when package holidays to the Continent had not been heard of and the traditional seaside holiday resort was at its height in Britain and Ireland. Skerries had the good fortune to be a place of desirable resort for the middle classes of the north side of Dublin, while Bray fulfilled a similar role on the south side.

In Skerries we also had the interesting influence of a large number of Northern Ireland people who came for their holidays in July; the Dublin people came in August. I have an early recollection of asking my father why the Northern people came in July and the Dublin people came in August. I was told simply that the Northern people had to get out in July. I became very friendly with some people from Portadown who rented a house next door to me for five or six years – it seemed as if it was the entire period of my childhood. This was the first real indication I had of the difficulties in the North. Drumcree then did not have anything like the significance it has now. Not a 12 July goes by when I have not thought of that family and wonder where they are today.

For too long the difficulties in the North were tolerated with courage and stoicism. It is good for everybody, and particularly the Unionist community in Northern Ireland in the long run, that matters have come to the fore. It is regrettable in the extreme that they have been brought to the fore in the manner in which it has happened over the past 30 years.

Over the years I have had much contact through my sporting involvement with people of all persuasions in the North, particularly of the Unionist persuasion. I have looked on it as one of the more enriching experiences of one's life. It is said that travel broadens the horizons. Certainly travelling regularly to the North to play rugby broadened my horizons considerably and brought me into contact with a whole range of people whom I probably could not otherwise have expected to come in contact with on a regular basis.

I have often said while we seem to expect the people of Northern Ireland to travel to the South as a matter of normality and almost necessity, traffic in the other direction is much too infrequent and not nearly enough citizens from the Republic travel to the Six Counties either for business, pleasure, holiday or any other reason. Anything we can do in this House to encourage that kind of traffic should be done. The political in-phrase is dialogue, but dialogue is not just a political term and politics is not just confined to Government Ministers and politicians. Politics, the democratic process, is very much reliant upon the active participation of the ordinary citizenry who can do much to progress relationships with the people of Northern Ireland simply by travelling to the North and meeting them socially or commercially. It is not done nearly often enough.

There are some difficulties in the political process in the North. I congratulate the Minister on the hard work which I know is being done behind the scenes to bring about the resumption of the full working of the North-South Ministerial Council. It is unacceptable that any one party leader should take unilateral action which undermines the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement. While Mr. Trimble's difficulties with the Ulster Unionist Party are a fact of life, he should not address these problems by causing difficulties for the workings of the North-South Ministerial Council. The only way forward is the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It is only in this way that the IRA will be able to re-engage with General de Chastelain.

The tragedy is that the institutions of the Agreement, the Assembly, the Executive and the North-South Ministerial Council were by unanimous consent working extremely well. Even their harshest critics would admit they were working to a level of efficiency way beyond the expectation of most at the time of the Good Friday Agreement. Mr. Trimble should remove his sanction which would allow Sinn Féin to use its influence with the IRA to re-engage with General de Chastelain.

Another issue to which I would like to refer is the police Bill which passed through Westminster in the last couple of days. Policing is obviously a very complex matter and goes to the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. When quoting the basis on which his commission was set up, Patten asked in answer to criticisms of the report, what did the Unionists think they were signing up to. However, while Mr. Trimble and the Unionist Party can be criticised for their reaction to Patten and to the subsequent police Bill debates, the British Government should take most of the blame for the present difficulties. I do not think anyone could improve on the words of Professor Clifford Shearing, an independent member of the Patten Commission, who described the police Bill as gutting the Patten proposals. If a member of the commission from neither side of the community in Northern Ireland considers the police Bill has gutted the Patten proposals, what would Nationalists consider has been done?

One of the many central issues in the police Bill debate is the question of flags and symbols. By fudging these two central issues of flags at RUC stations and symbols on the uniform, Mr. Mandelson has tried to ride two horses at once and has ended up satisfying neither side. He said in the House of Commons on 21 November that he did not expect the Patten Commission's view that symbols for the new service should necessarily be free of all association with the symbols of the British and Irish States, yet he offered, or appeared to offer, comfort to the SDLP when he stated that its explicit consent would be required for the symbols and flags to be used by the new service. How he proposes to give an effective veto to the SDLP while at the same time setting up new symbols and flags for the new police service has not been explained. This issue can only be solved by strict adherence to Patten. It is vital that this is done without wavering.

It would be wrong to say that progress on Patten has not been made and I do not want to give the impression to the contrary. Much progress has been made but these issues remain to be resolved. The bottom line in relation to Patten is very simply – will this new legislation allow young Nationalists and republicans walk into a police station and join up? For me that will be the litmus test and we are a long way from achieving that.

I want to raise the issue of criminal justice reform, particularly in relation to judicial appointments. While the Criminal Justice Commission considered that merit, including the ability to do the job, must continue to be the most important factor in making appointments, there must be a programme of action to secure the development of a Judiciary that is reflective of Northern Ireland society in particular by their religious ethnic background and gender. It goes on to suggest various persons who should set up a judicial appointments commission. However, there are major difficulties in relation to the commission which would take a much longer debate than we have time for here. Does the Minister consider that the present judicial bench as comprised in the higher, middle and lower tiers adequately reflects the background and society in Northern Ireland at present? I do not wish to embarrass any judicial personage but does any member of the Judiciary consider himself or herself to be a Nationalist, never mind republican? Given that the SDLP and Sinn Féin represent in excess of 40% of the population of Northern Ireland, I believe they are not represented in like numbers on the bench. We are a long way from that.

It would be remiss of me to conclude my contribution to this debate on Northern Ireland without taking cognisance of the major difficulties of the Nationalist community in relation to obvious miscarriages of justice. The Stevens inquiry into Bloody Sunday is to be welcomed and I wish them well in their deliberations. However, there are other issues with which I would like to deal in some detail. Pat Finucane was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast on 12 February 1989. Since then, serious allegations have been made concerning collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries in this case. In March 1999, a police investigation was set up under John Stevens. In June 1999, William Stobie was arrested and charged with murder. This charge was recently changed to aiding and abetting others in murdering Mr. Finucane. The Stevens inquiry is still ongoing.

Following a meeting with members of the Finucane family on 24 February last, the Taoiseach expressed the Government's view that an independent judicial public inquiry should be set up to examine all the circumstances surrounding this murder. The Finucane family subsequently met with Prime Minister Blair. The British Government has said that it has not ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry but, to date, it has resisted calls for one on the grounds that an inquiry might interfere with the Stevens investigation. I renew the call for an independent inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane.

Without going into the detail of the other two cases, I echo that call in the case of Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill. These issues are of huge importance to the Nationalist community in the North, particularly in relation to the confidence building measures that are required to facilitate the implementation of Patten. I renew my call for public inquiries in these three cases.

I congratulate the Minister and his predecessors on the tremendous work that is in train in Northern Ireland. I wish him the very best in his future endeavours.

Mr. Costello

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I am sorry the Minister must leave.

I agree with the last request for an inquiry into the deaths of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill. These deaths occurred in extremely suspicious circumstances and I believe the issue should be cleared up by way of a public inquiry.

We all support the Good Friday Agreement. The role the Minister for Foreign Affairs is playing in Northern Ireland represents not just the Government's view but the views of the Opposition. There is currently unanimity in relation to the approach to be taken in Northern Ireland and there is no question of anyone on this side of the House carping or complaining about what the Minister is doing. I believe he has a steady hand at the helm in the way in which he is implementing the wishes of the people of this island and the Good Friday Agreement in so far as we have a role to play.

There are major problems with every agreement. What has been underlined in this Agreement is the principle of consent. For the first time both traditions accept an assembly on this island, we have consented to the removal of Articles 2 and 3, Unionists have consented to the ending of majority rule, an Assembly is in place and bodies have been established under its aegis.

A problem arises when we move from the underlying principle of consent to the implementation of the Agreement and try to make the institutions which have been established work in a co-operative manner. There are residues from the past. The greatest difficulty which hangs over the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is decommissioning. This issue arose at the beginning when Deputy Albert Reynolds began the process but it was not confronted. A decommissioning commission was established and it was hoped that a formula to deal with the matter would emerge in the fullness of time.

We have returned to an impasse. The Ulster Unionist Council has held the First Minister, David Trimble, a prisoner of its mantra of no co-operation without decommissioning while Sinn Féin and the IRA will allow inspection of weapons but will not surrender them. The North South ministerial bodies cannot function. A meeting is to take place tomorrow between the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, and the Northern Ireland Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, but the meeting cannot formally take place because the Northern Ireland First Minister has withdrawn authority for it. When the question is heard in court I believe Mr. Trimble will be found to have acted wrongly in saying the North South Ministerial Council cannot meet if Sinn Féin Ministers participate. This impasse prevents matters proceeding. A similar situation arose earlier this year.

It is almost 12 months since the ministerial cars drove to Armagh for the first meeting of the Ministerial Council which seemed to signal a new dispensation. However, this dispensation has not been formalised or implemented in a meaningful fashion. Because the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party refuse to co-operate with cross-Border bodies the process has stagnated.

The Patten proposals have been incorporated into a new Bill which tries to construct a model which would allow both traditions to give allegiance to a new police force. We hear alarming rumours from Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Government that it will be very difficult for the Nationalist community to give allegiance to the police force as proposed by the Patten Commission. If that is the case it will be impossible to police the two communities. A major problem in the past has been the existence of a Protestant police force for a Protestant state and people, with 90% of the membership of the force drawn from one tradition. If this continues the Northern Ireland police force will be meaningless. It is essential that the police Bill win the respect of both communities. It will be useless to enact legislation which does not do that. If the Bill does not have the support of one tradition in Northern Ireland it is a waste of time and it should not be enacted.

We are witnessing an upsurge in violence from the Real IRA and an upsurge in civil strife from Protestant loyalists. Both groups are dedicated to ensuring that the Good Friday Agreement does not work. We do not see proper policing of violent elements on either side. Police activity on this side of the Border has also been ineffective, given the stringent and draconian legislation enacted immediately after the Omagh bomb. Not a single member of the Real IRA has been convicted or even prosecuted. It is ineffective to place legislation on the Statute Book if it does not serve a purpose. It was for this reason that I was critical of the legislation when it was being debated. The legislation was enacted for show and I predicted that no action would be taken.

There has been very little effective action on the other side of the Border in dealing with extremists in either community. There is a deterioration in civil society with ad hoc policing by elements within communities. The situation has deteriorated and can deteriorate further. Let us not assume because the Good Friday framework is in place that everyone will eventually see the light and things will fall into place. If there is continuous frustration and a continual failure to overcome obstacles, the process could go back rather than forward. I am not happy with the level of progress since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. Considering the early progress made in the establishment of the Assembly, the elimination of Articles 2 and 3 and the apparent willingness of the Assembly to co-operate in working for the betterment of the people of Northern Ireland, subsequent progress has been slower than I had hoped.

We are enjoying an economic boom on this side of the Border. We recently heard of 700 new jobs in the Cavan area and there is to be considerable investment in the BMW region and in the Border region, North and South. We have the will and the money to bring about economic prosperity. In terms of a national spatial plan, I know Northern Ireland has drawn up a similar plan to that the Republic has drawn up but because the Department of the Environment is the responsibility of a DUP Minister, it has had to be done by the civil servants. They are extremely anxious that the Border area would cease to be the Border and would become the centre of Ireland and that attention would be focused on it as the central area for development in the context of a new Ireland in which there would be proper cross-Border activity and where the Border, as such, would disappear. That can only take place if we make progress on the institutions.

We have to look more widely at this because it is not just an institutional, a legislative or a statutory matter. In the final analysis it is a question of the quality of life – quality of life in terms of social and economic development and pluralism. We must get away from this notion of intolerance. There does not seem to have been one iota of progress made in terms of the suspicion which exists between the two communities. The bigotry is still there. I am afraid we will have the problems at Drumcree and the Lower Ormeau Road for many years to come. We can begin to move away from that if can move forward with the institutions and if we can overcome the stumbling blocks and hurdles that are causing all the difficulties we are experiencing at present.

We have had these debates from time to time on Northern Ireland. They seem to arise every time there is a difficulty, which means they are arising on more regular basis. We have something of a "benevolent uncle" role to play in terms of Northern Ireland because everybody on this side is agreed that we should disturb the situation in any way but that we should be a proactive and positive force. In that sense, as politicians we should be in a better position to reach out to Northern Ireland than perhaps we are doing. The British-Irish Interparliamentary Body is one aspect of it and the Council of the Isles is another. Our political parties are another aspect and we have not made any progress in that direction. For example, my party has sister parties in Scotland, Wales, England and the SDLP in Northern Ireland. There is no reason there could not be a conference of parties which share a similar political view on Northern Ireland to see what progress can be made on that basis. I am sure the Government parties have sisterly feelings towards some of the parties North and South and across the water.

Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Byrne)

With them all.

Mr. Costello

The great popular party of our time.

Mr. Byrne

Thank you.

Mr. Costello

I should have said populist party – I might have got it wrong.

Mr. Glennon

A Freudian slip.

Mr. Costello

There is room for some scope there.

I was delighted to hear the president of the GAA give, I will not say give the green light but certainly the orange light to Croke Park's being used for foreign games – perish the thought. It is high time, in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, that Croke Park lost its exclusivity and, where possible, opened up its borders, shall we say, to other games being played there. I think economic exigencies will ensure it does so in the future when the stands are finished and when it has capacity for 85,000 or 87,000 people. It will cost a small fortune to run it.

Considering the GAA does not use Croke Park for practically six months of the year and those six months are the time when other sports like soccer and rugby are played – the winter months – there is a fantastic opportunity for big international soccer and rugby games to be played there which would bring a significant amount of money into the kitty. In the context of the Good Friday Agreement, the GAA should be out there looking for business from those sporting areas.

Mr. Kett

I welcome the Minister of State. I thank the Minister, Deputy Cowen, for his most comprehensive contribution. Each time he comes into the House he demonstrates a real desire to impart as much knowledge and information to us as he possibly can which is deeply welcome. During Senator Costello's remarks on Croke Park, I envisaged a score line of Dublin 2-10, Portadown 1-11 or something along those lines.

Mr. Costello

Portadown might win.

Mr. Kett

I do not think so.

Since the Good Friday Agreement was signed in April 1988 and ratified overwhelmingly by all the people, North and South, considerable progress has been made. In Northern Ireland, we now have a democratic, accountable and inclusive Government. Politicians are really tackling the challenging issues which affect everyone's daily lives such as health, environment, transport, etc. This is something that would not have been envisaged in the past.

The Executive is working, decision making is in hand and local representatives are working tirelessly for the entire community. The basis for sound government and accountability has been achieved and that has ended a long standing democratic deficit in that region. David Trimble, Seamus Mallon and other Ministers in the Northern Executive from the pro-Agreement parties are meeting under the North-South Ministerial Council. The interaction between these Ministers represents a huge step forward in terms of relationships on this island. I have no doubt that the discussion taking place between these people on a wide range of issues can be of benefit North and South. It is also helping to cement greater friendships and greater trust between these people who may never have met.

The council, we are told, is focusing its work on the six implementation bodies which administer agreed functions on a cross-Border and on an all island basis and on the six agreed priority areas for co-operation, named at the time as agriculture, environment, health, education, transport and tourism. Every matter being considered is clearly in the interest of both parts of this island. I am told the meetings are extremely positive and constructive. At the first meeting, the council adopted a programme of work to which it was going to give very early consideration. Those areas included matters such as the environment, drugs, transport, social inclusion and the economy. They are all very important issues which have real relevance to the daily lives of people North and South. It will focus its attention principally on combating the evils of drugs and drug-related matters. We do not have to look too far back to realise the level of additional violence that drug use and abuse has brought to all communities in Northern Ireland.

As the work of the Council and the implementation bodies progresses and grows in a way that is consistent with the wishes of all the participants, there has to be real and tangible benefits for all us both North and South. The development of trade and tourism and the quality jobs which, hopefully, that will bring eventually will also be of great benefit to us. I am a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Tourism, Sport and Recreation and we are meeting our counterparts from the Northern Ireland Assembly committee on 14 December to exchange views and to look at ways in which we can interact on matters of culture, arts and leisure. Programmes to combat educational under-achievement and special needs, a matter that is dear to my heart, as well as better strategies for tackling the levels of cancer on both sides of the community and health issues in general are examples of the real benefits that will be gained by engaging in these areas.

An equally important aspect is that the new institutions are about bringing people together. For too long on this island there has been complete distrust between us and there were times when we treated each other with suspicion. All this can be ended by working together to an agreed agenda. From there, we can build better futures and relationships. As the Minister alluded to, some elements of the Agreement still have to be tackled and a great deal of work remains to be done.

Since the Good Friday Agreement was signed and endorsed by all the people of the island, it has become obvious that confidence among the Unionist community in the benefits it will bring to it has been badly shaken recently. A majority of those who support the Union would continue to support the real essence of the Agreement, but there is a need to address their concerns just as there is a need to address the concerns of Nationalists. It would be foolish to believe that there are not real difficulties that must be faced. The fact that the First Minister, Mr. David Trimble, refused to sign the nomination papers to enable the Sinn Féin members to attend the North-South Ministerial Council and the fact that counter legal action was taken by Sinn Féin to sort out the matter demonstrate the gap that exists between the communities.

However, there are many positive elements. It is clear from opinion polls that the support among the people for the Agreement is as strong now as it was in May 1998 when they voted on it. It is proven that the ministerial council has operated effectively. As the Minister stated, the Northern Ireland Executive has adopted its budget and its programme for government. He also alluded to the second inspection of the IRA arms dumps and he suggested that the international inspectorate was happy with the commitment of the IRA to advancing the peace process and continuing its efforts to bring about greater effectiveness in that regard.

We have built on the positive elements and on the confidence on all sides to bring about greater effectiveness. We must move forward in a balanced way and discharge all the commitments placed on us in terms of working the Agreement. Other speakers referred to the report of the Patten Commission. It provides an opportunity for new beginnings in policing. There is a shared objective to have a police force in Northern Ireland that is capable of attracting and sustaining support from all sides of the community. I was encouraged to note recently during the Committee and Report Stages in the House of Lords that there was a meaningful and positive debate on this matter. I was further delighted to hear the Minister say that he would redouble his efforts to bring about a solution to the serious problems that appear to have presented themselves in that regard. I wish everyone well in terms of what they must do in the months and weeks ahead.

Mr. O'Brien

Peace on this island was a prize long sought. Thankfully, we now have peace and its benefits are enormous and way beyond our dreams not only in the six Northern counties but throughout the island. The benefits of peace can be seen. As a representative of a Border county, I was well aware of what 30 years of violence did. My county of Monaghan was badly affected by the Troubles. We suffered from a lack of development and many other side effects.

Good Friday 1998 was the conclusion of an enormous amount of good work. The risks taken and the sacrifices made by many gave us a whole new future as we entered the 21st century. It was a new beginning for the whole island where people of different political and religious persuasions could live at peace with one another, respecting their traditions and beliefs.

The road to the Good Friday Agreement took great courage on the part of many people such as the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Gerry Adams, Mr. David Trimble, Mr. Séamus Mallon, Senator George Mitchell, Dr. Mo Mowlam and many others. Their work was at times very difficult, but they had the goal of building a new future and moving on from the sufferings of the past. Their convictions gave us a peaceful future. However, 30 years of violence left many broken hearts and great division. It will take time to heal that division and allow trust to be built between the people of Northern Ireland.

While Good Friday 1998 was a new beginning, nobody thought the road ahead would be easy or that there would not be difficulties along the way. I always believed that, with the will to succeed of so many behind it, problems must be overcome because we cannot go back. The institutions resulting from the Good Friday Agreement are working well and producing positive results for the whole island. Trust and respect are being built on daily in the communities of Northern Ireland.

The recent decision of the Ulster Unionists to exclude Sinn Féin Ministers from the North-South Ministerial Council is regrettable and most unfortunate. It is vital that the principles of the Good Friday Agreement are upheld. The international body for decommissioning has confirmed its satisfaction that the IRA is fully co-operative with its inspections. This is proof of the IRA's commitment to a peaceful future. It is clear that we can only achieve our shared goal of a lasting peace, prosperity and partnership through the continuing full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The issue of policing must be resolved urgently. However, the full implementation of the Patten report is most important.

Those who seek to destroy the Agreement seek a return to the past when grief and heartbreak were the norm. I compliment the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, on their good work. I wish everybody well in the future. It is good to see the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, in the House. He is always welcome.

An Cathaoirleach

That concludes the statements on Northern Ireland, When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Glennon

On Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.