I welcome the Taoiseach to the House.
Northern Ireland Peace Process: Motion.
I move:
"That Seanad Éireann:
—commends the Government for its handling of the peace process to date;
—notes the comprehensive proposals published by the two Governments that the parties have been considering;
—urges the Government to continue to secure agreement and closure on what, by any standard, is a hugely impressive, indeed a landmark, package; and
—acknowledges that the comprehensive proposals would bring closure to issues left incomplete and specifically notes, that there is a real prospect of:
—ending paramilitary activity;
—completing the process of IRA arms decommissioning in a rapid timescale;
—securing a basis for the full operation of the institutions of the Agreement, on an inclusive basis;
—improving the accountability and effectiveness of these institutions, while also staying within the fundamentals of the Good Friday Agreement;
—achieving the support of the republican community for the new policing arrangements; and
—getting ahead with the many other important commitments that have been stalled because of the absence of overall agreement."
I welcome the Taoiseach to the House.
I second the motion and wish to reserve my right to speak later, when the Taoiseach and Senator Brian Hayes have contributed.
I am grateful to this House for affording me the opportunity to report on the progress made last week on the Northern Ireland peace process. I would like to explain why the recent developments are important.
It is my belief that we have reached the final, difficult phase of our peace process. I have heard some people say that things are quiet in Northern Ireland and that we should leave well enough alone. In my view, however, this would be an entirely wrong approach. We must continue, in every way that we can, with the efforts to try and bring agreement and final closure all round. I was privileged to have been part of history at the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. It is now my responsibility and duty to make history work fairly and well for everybody.
The proposals we published last week cover key issues that must be resolved to finally and definitively assure peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Blair and I had obviously wished to be able to present our proposals in the context of full agreement but we are not quite at the point of total success. Our work will, therefore, continue to secure closure on what, by any standard, is a landmark package.
Since the devolved institutions were suspended in October 2002, there have been two previous intensive negotiations designed to achieve a comprehensive agreement that delivered acts of completion on all sides. They were not wholly successful but each, in its own way, pushed the process forward and helped to bring us today to the point where completion is achievable.
When the results of last year's election became known, many believed that it would never be possible for the two main parties involved to work together. I did not share that pessimism. Following my meeting with the DUP at our embassy in London in January this year — the first such meeting between the DUP leadership and the Government on political matters — I was convinced that the DUP recognised this responsibility and wished to pursue a solution.
At Lancaster House in June this year, after several months of tentative engagement, both Governments identified four critical issues that had to be resolved as part of any comprehensive agreement. They were a definitive and conclusive end to all paramilitary activity; the decommissioning through the IICD of all paramilitary weapons to an early timescale and on a convincing basis; a clear commitment on all sides to the stability of the political institutions and to any changes to their operation agreed within the review of the Good Friday Agreement; and support for policing from all sides of the community, and on an agreed framework for the devolution of policing.
Since then, we have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on these issues, the satisfactory resolution of which would open the way for the widest possible agreement. The package published by both Governments last week seeks to address and resolve the four core issues identified at Lancaster House. It does not in any way transcend the Good Friday Agreement, whose principles and values remain the template for both Governments.
Sometimes it is a good idea for everyone to step back for a moment and pause. That is what we should do when considering what was published last Wednesday. We considered that the publication of these proposals was appropriate at this time. Both Governments made it clear in publishing their proposals that, while considerable progress had been made, not all elements were agreed. Nonetheless, we expressed the hope that the people of Northern Ireland would reflect on what was in prospect and the opportunity which the agreement, if accepted in its entirety, represented.
The proposals of the two Governments address, first, the ending of all paramilitary and other illegal activity. This is a prospect that everyone on this island will welcome. The ending of all paramilitary activity must also encompass all other illegal activity. The IRA statement on Thursday, while confirming its intentions regarding that organisation moving to a new mode, issuing instructions to volunteers and completing decommissioning to a rapid timescale, did not address this issue in the clear terms required by the Government. What we have been talking about was the completion of decommissioning by New Year's Eve.
Clarification is required that the IRA's commitment is, indeed, to a complete ending of paramilitarism and other illegal activity. The whole initiative is based on this vital premise. Any ending of paramilitary activity and other illegal activity would continue to be monitored by the Independent Monitoring Commission, which was set up jointly by both Governments last year.
The second issue with which we are dealing is completing the process of IRA arms decommissioning in a rapid time-scale. The proposals envisage two independent witnesses and the availability of photographs for inspection, as well as their later publication. The Governments' proposals in this respect continue to represent a fair and reasonable judgment and in the context of an overall comprehensive agreement, should have been sufficient to close the gap on this most sensitive issue.
I should make it clear that we always understood the photographs issue would be a difficult one for the IRA. However, in the context of an overall package, it was our understanding that this proposal would be considered by it. It has, of course, since said that they are unable to agree to it.
The third issue concerns the Governments' proposals seeking to secure a basis for the full operation of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, on an inclusive basis. The question of changes to the operation of the institutions of the Agreement has been exhaustively discussed and analysed since the review of the Agreement commenced in February of this year.
We were open to sensible changes which improved the working of the institutions or which addressed operational difficulties that had been experienced between 1999 and 2002. However, the fundamental architecture of the Agreement was not open to change, nor were its fundamental principles.
The Governments' proposals do envisage change in the operation of certain aspects of the operation of the Good Friday Agreement. Inevitably, every aspect of these institutional changes will not attract total agreement from all sides. However, the Government is fully satisfied that they respect and protect the fundamentals of the Agreement.
In the context of an agreement, I welcome the prospect of the DUP operating and participating in all the new arrangements. I acknowledge, too, the support of Sinn Féin, which Gerry Adams has confirmed to me, for the political aspects of the Governments' proposals, which include those relating to the review of the Good Friday Agreement.
Fourth, we have agreement on the basis on which the republican community would support the new policing arrangements. Agreement on the modalities of the devolution of justice and policing will be difficult but if enactment of the legislation can be secured as envisaged, it should allow Sinn Féin to take a positive decision on policing later next year. Such a decision by Sinn Féin on policing would be an enormous breakthrough and radically alter the climate of confidence and trust throughout Northern Ireland. I have always believed that the completion of the policing project would represent the consolidation of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland.
The Governments' Joint Declaration of May 2003 outlines in considerable detail the many other issues that will be addressed in the context of overall closure, including moving ahead rapidly with reducing the British military presence and addressing the matter of on-the-runs, or the OTRs as they are known. I have had further copies of the Governments' Joint Declaration placed in the Oireachtas Library as it is an important part of the architecture of the completion we are trying to secure.
The combined impact of our proposals would fully realise the vision of a new beginning promised by the Good Friday Agreement and the agreement of last week. Compared to where we were a year ago, the Governments' proposals represent a dramatic surge towards final closure. I have made it clear that the Government would play its part in addressing those areas, although few in number, that are relevant to us in this overall context.
Each of us — Governments and parties — must fulfil our obligations, some of which, taken in isolation, present the most profound difficulties. For our part, there are three such issues. First, there is the case of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe and the wounding of Detective Garda Ben O'Sullivan. I have previously addressed, in a comprehensive way, the circumstances in which their release would arise but let me repeat what those circumstances are. It will only arise in the context of a comprehensive agreement in which the International Monitoring Commission reported that all IRA paramilitary activity had ceased and the IICD reported that all IRA arms had been decommissioned.
I said in Belfast that nothing can console those who were bereaved. The last thing we wish to do is to add further pain to the suffering these innocent families have already endured. My only hope is that the full knowledge of the comprehensive agreement that we have been seeking to secure will help clarify the environment in which we have been working. It was always the intention of the Government that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would meet with the McCabe and O'Sullivan families in advance of any decision on early release. Consultation with the GRA was also envisaged.
Second, there is the issue of the so-called "on-the-runs". These are individuals who have been on the run for crimes committed prior to the Good Friday Agreement. The two Governments agreed in Weston Park in July 2001 that these cases would have to be addressed. We went into some detail on this in the May 2003 Joint Declaration. Again, the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform addressed this issue in the House earlier.
Third, on the question of following-up, in an appropriate way on the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution (Seventh Report), this is an issue that has been discussed many times in the Dáil. I have frequently registered my support for the proposal to invite, on a periodic basis, Northern Ireland MPs to a committee of the Dáil regarding Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement, as I have for inviting MEPs from Northern Ireland to attend Seanad discussions on EU matters. Both such proposals are properly a matter for the Oireachtas itself and would have to be the subject of consultation and agreement with parties in this House and in the Dáil. There have been exaggerated reports about all of this. These proposals would not involve the granting of any rights or privileges. There would be no constitutional implications, nor would there be any question of cutting across the architecture and operation of the Good Friday Agreement.
In the context of Seanad reform, and recognising the contributions made by Senators from Northern Ireland in the past to the work of this House, people such Seamus Mallon, Bríd Rodgers, John Robb, Gordon Wilson and, now, Senator Maurice Hayes, who have given insightful perspectives that have proven invaluable, I support increasing membership of the Seanad to provide cross-community representation from Northern Ireland. This could only be done by referendum. I imagine this is a matter on which all parties will have views. For my part, I would like to see such a referendum before the next general election.
The scope of what is in prospect is of real potential. The future lies in sorting out our differences through politics. Through politics, we have come a long way. The package that was unveiled last Wednesday is the signpost to a shared society. What is now required is a collective decision by all concerned to leave the past behind. I hope people will resist the temptation to score short-term political points against each other and see the opportunity that is staring us in the face for what it is. Another prolonged fallow period will only make the urgent task of building a new society more difficult. We need everyone's support to fully secure this comprehensive agreement. If we do not get agreement soon, we risk major delay in the restoration of the institutions. I therefore strongly urge all the parties not to delay unduly and to seize this moment of opportunity and real hope.
Let me add to what was said earlier today. It is clear to everybody now, a week on, that what was on offer was full decommissioning of the arms held by the IRA GHQ staff. The issue of the modalities of decommissioning, which had not been quite sorted out, was finalised at meetings between the IRA representative and General John de Chastelain which concluded in Friday night.
There were questions regarding whether the issue of demilitarisation in Northern Ireland had been worked out between the parties, namely, Sinn Féin and the British Government. They are not issues that would be helpful, and that was accepted by everybody in the other House today. There was also the issue of making sure the agreement was fulfilled and ensuring stability of the institutions. There was also the very important issue of getting Sinn Féin and the IRA to sign up comprehensively on the issue of illegality. The Government statement right through this process included not only paramilitary activity but also illegality.
I want to make one further point which I made earlier today. In the context of the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe, some people referred to the fact that in 1988 the Government was very strong right through the discussions. Perhaps those of us who have been dealing with this matter over the past number of years understand it so well that we expect everybody else to understand it as well. When we moved in the past two years, and particularly in the past 20 months, to acts of completion, we did not set the agenda. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, made a speech in Belfast in October 2002. I made a similar speech shortly after that. We said that many issues in the Good Friday Agreement were not completed, but there were also issues that were not in the Good Friday Agreement with which we had to deal to get to a comprehensive statement.
Since that day in October 2002, two years and two months ago, we have been trying to get a comprehensive deal. The issue was moved along in March of last year and again in October of last year but was not finalised and moved to the final stage. We do not decide what are the acts of completion for the other side. I wish I could decide the acts of completion with the British Government, the DUP, the UUP, the PUP, Sinn Féin and everybody else. Everybody has issues.
In the discussions to bring an end to the IRA, to move it to a new mode, to end the decommissioning issue once and for all, for the IRA to give in its guns to an international commission, to have the monitoring commission examine and monitor the new mode put on the table by the IRA, the release of the five remaining prisoners, we have left out the 57 others since 1988 to 1999. A number of those were in for capital murder and would not have been released until 2025. Those who killed Garda Hand and Garda Quaid, and many other prisoners, would not have been released until 2015-18. They have all been released.
However, we did not allow the McCabe killers out. Six and a half years on this was an issue. It was not open to us in negotiations to end the IRA in the form in which we have all known for 30 years if not longer, to eliminate arms, obtain stability of the institutions, and to leave the prisoners in jail. It would have been great if it was. Arguments were made against releasing them. However, saying we were in favour of a comprehensive agreement and leaving out the bits we did not like was not a choice that was open to the Irish Government or to the British Government — I am here today in the Seanad to speak for the Irish Government. It was an impossibility to say that all the aspects were right, that we were right to try to end criminality and illegality, but that the issue regarding the killers of Garda McCabe should not have been conceded. Let us call a spade a spade. To say that we should not have conceded on a certain point would mean one is not in favour of a comprehensive agreement because that was part of it and we could not negotiate it. I want this to be very clear because there has already been mention of "no fudging". To say one is in favour of a comprehensive agreement implies that one must be in favour of all aspects of it.
We did not decide this and would perhaps have liked it to be another way. Certainly, we would have liked a situation where the killers of Detective Garda McCabe would never be considered for early release. If one takes that view, however, then one must accept that decommissioning and other aspects of the settlement will not be achieved. I wish to be clear on this point.
We will obviously continue our efforts and will carry on as far as we can in dealing with the fundamental issues that must be resolved around the question of illegality. We hope to make progress on this and on the issue of the transparency of the entire operation of decommissioning, including independent witnesses, photographs and other issues. Our position in this regard remains the same as that outlined last week. We will continue with our efforts. Some helpful suggestions were made in the Dáil today which we will consider seriously, as we will any suggestions made in this House.
I thank the Leader for inviting me to the House and affording me the opportunity to speak on this issue. This is the last occasion on which I will be in the House before Christmas. I wish the Cathaoirleach, all Members and staff a happy Christmas.
On behalf of our group and all Members, I welcome the Taoiseach back to the House. He has been here on two occasions since the new Seanad was elected in 2002. Whatever our differences about some of the details of the matter, which the Taoiseach put on the record, everyone in this House recognises the major contribution and effort his Government and officials have made. It is painstaking work, requiring significant amounts of time and sincere efforts to try to resolve the remaining problems that lie in the way of the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. My party recognises that and I thank the Taoiseach for coming today.
I do not need to put on record the historic role played by my party in advancing the peace process, not just over the past ten years but over the past 30 years. This role has included involvement in the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, when there was, unfortunately, a breakdown in the bipartisan approach that had historically been taken on Northern Ireland, through to the party's short period in Government when the Framework Documents were published.
There is no greater prize in this country than peace and a total end to the violence we have seen over the past 35 years. This is the greatest national objective we face. It is important to state that this is everybody's peace process. It does not belong only to the IRA and Sinn Féin whose members regularly tell us we would not have a peace process if not for them. We had a peace process years before the IRA decided to stop its murderous campaign.
Those of us in constitutional politics have argued and conceded the principle of consent. Fine Gael did so through the document published in 1971 by former Taoiseach Garrett FitzGerald and former Deputy Paddy Harte, entitled Towards a New Ireland. Fianna Fáil conceded the principle some years later. Constitutional Nationalist politicians have always accepted the peace process. I get frustrated when I hear those most recent converts to the notion of peaceful politics lecturing the rest of us on this issue. The peace process belongs to everyone and we each have a responsibility to make it work.
I am somewhat alarmed by developments in recent years whereby those parties that have done so much to foster peace and reconciliation, particularly the SDLP and Mr. David Trimble's UUP in Northern Ireland, are now somewhat at the edges. Having failed to build a process on a multi-party basis, we now seem to work on the basis of the two extremes, the DUP on one side and Sinn Féin on the other. In a sense, those two parties have done everything in their power in recent years to make their own political ends from the Agreement. This is reprehensible.
I wish to echo a comment made by former Senator Seamus Mallon over the weekend. He said, "We do not want to see the Balkanisation of Northern Ireland, where we have the leadership of Nationalist, Catholic, republican Ireland through the form of Mr. Adams, and the leadership of Unionist Ireland through the form of Dr. Paisley." There are many parties in Northern Ireland, all with something to contribute. I plead with the Taoiseach to take on board the sincere views offered by the SDLP, through its leader, Mr. Mark Durkan, over the past 48 hours. We must involve everyone. This type of zero sum game which excludes some opinion to the advantage of the larger parties is doomed to failure. The Taoiseach is sensitive to this and understands it, especially in regard to the SDLP.
I wish to raise three issues, the first of which relates to Seanad reform. Over the years, we have had many fine contributions from colleagues from Northern Ireland. The current representative is Senator Maurice Hayes, who is a great tribute to this House and a great proponent of peace. His perceptions and views add significantly to debate in the House. Even at this early stage, however, and having listened to the Taoiseach's view, I contend that the process of Seanad reform should not be cherry-picked. If the Seanad is to be reformed, all relevant proposals should be on the table and we should see it through.
Hear, hear.
I signed off on the document the Leader launched some two years ago, which outlined the views of the Sub-committee on Seanad Reform. The foreword to this document states:
We strongly believe that the recommendations should be implemented in their totality as a package. The sub-committee therefore recommends that the Taoiseach should nominate two Senators from Northern Ireland, one from the Unionist and one from the Nationalist traditions. The sub-committee recommends that these two nominations should be specifically designated, either by way of a constitutional amendment or legislation.
If the Taoiseach proposes to bring forward a referendum on this issue only, many of the graduates who voted 25 years ago to have the rights of the third level sector recognised may be in disagreement. I have nothing against the proposal the Taoiseach is bringing to the House. However, it must be couched in terms of general reform. Will the Taoiseach consider this?
I disagree with the Taoiseach about the question of the release of the killers of Detective Garda McCabe. The Taoiseach is aware of the views of my party on this issue. In all of this, the Taoiseach has been sincere. I do not believe the suggestion made by Mr. Gerry Adams last weekend that the Taoiseach was not absolutely clear about this issue in 1998. As a Member of the other House in 1998, I recall a private discussion with the Taoiseach in which he said that he was clear in informing IRA representatives that the Agreement did not include the killers of Detective Garda McCabe.
I ask for some modicum of understanding regarding our position on this important issue, which goes to the heart of what we are as a country. We all made compromises in 1998, including the release of 54 killers in this jurisdiction and more than 400 in Northern Ireland. That was the deal that was done and we were clear about that commitment. However, some time between March 2003 and May 2004 the question of the release of the McCabe killers was conceded. My sincere view is that we should never have conceded on this issue.
What would the IRA and Sinn Féin have done if this concession had not been given? Would they have said it was the end of the process and that they would wait until the killers were released? If we had stood firm, we would have overcome. Unfortunately, a gun was put to the Taoiseach's head when the IRA and Sinn Fein demanded this concession. Most decent Irish people abhor the notion that these people should be let out of prison before they have served their term. Doing so serves to legitimise in some way the appalling act they carried out. The Irish people are divided on that matter, which the Taoiseach knows as well as I do.
I welcome the clarification on the issue of criminality by both Government parties last week. We must resolve this issue. In this State, Sinn Féin has been allowed to get away with murder, literally. In many constituencies it runs roughshod over disadvantaged communities. We must take a firm stance and make it clear that the end of criminality means once and for all an end to the kind of policing that organisation wants of some communities and an end to the torture and humiliation of people. We must fight for that and I wish the Taoiseach success in this matter.
I welcome the Taoiseach to the House. I also welcome the rapidity with which he agreed to come. All parties in the House were firm in their resolve that he should come here to discuss Northern Ireland and bring us up to date. As Leader of the House I am pleased to contribute to this debate and to listen to the points of view of other Senators. Members of this House have always reflected a wide range of views and contributed enormously to our understanding of Northern Ireland issues, a point made very tellingly by Senator Ross last Friday, when he said that the contribution of Northern voices here helped to add to the texture of debate in the House.
The Government's comprehensive proposals for agreement and blueprint for progress published last week represent a remarkable achievement. When the Taoiseach made his contribution, we could see the steps that have been taken in the past 12 months, their acceleration and where each step has led, to the point where the prize was in our grasp. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes in saying that the attainment and consolidation of peace is the biggest prize we as a Parliament could get.
I pay tribute to the work of the Taoiseach and Taoisigh down the years, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his predecessors, including the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, in difficult and complex negotiations that culminated in the publication of the Government's proposals. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes's outline of the steps that led to this point. We did not reach this stage because somebody woke up one day and suggested having a review and an independent monitoring commission. All along the road flag-posts had to be passed, culminating in this.
The full acceptance and implementation of this landmark package would be a huge step forward towards putting the conflict of the past behind us and building a better future for everyone on the island. I urge all parties and all communities to persevere in fully securing the potential. The Government's comprehensive package has the capacity to resolve the key outstanding issues, which the two Governments identified at Lancaster House in June. The Taoiseach stated that some positive proposals had been made in the other House. While this may be a small one, I want to make this proposal regarding having a clergyman from each of the two denominations present with the military personnel to vouch for the decommissioning. Verification seems to lie at the heart of the present impasse. Placing greater emphasis on the presence of two clergymen and their capacity to contribute could be very fruitful. While they have been mentioned, this point has always been glossed over.
The completion of the process of arms decommissioning addresses the definitive ending of paramilitary activity. It ensures the stability of the institutions and of dealing with issues of policing and justice. While it has been a long and difficult road, it is clear that all sides have travelled a great distance towards achieving an agreement that addresses the key issues that have bedevilled the process since the Good Friday Agreement was signed. It will all lead to a better society for everyone.
I agree with the Taoiseach that some people believe things are going fine in the North. There seems to be peace, business is good and people are going about their communities. As Senator Ó Murchú said here last week, a vacuum is dangerous and a vacuum in place of a democratic institution can be extremely dangerous. A democratic institution allows those of different persuasions to manage the affairs of their communities. Throughout our lives all of us in democratic politics have striven to allow people to govern themselves. When the Northern Ireland devolved institutions were operating there were several area, particularly agriculture, where a firm hand on the leadership tiller facilitated bringing a community along a very difficult road.
We all seek the restoration of the institutions because a vacuum is very dangerous. We seek a society free from sectarian harassment, where the people can give their full allegiance to the police service, where normal security arrangements apply and where people no longer need fear the scourge of paramilitarism. Under these arrangements the IRA has made a commitment to achieve a totally peaceful society and has committed itself to putting all arms completely and verifiably beyond use.
The DUP has made a commitment to participate in all the arrangements provided for in the Agreement and to work in an inclusive way in constructive partnership with all the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly for the benefit of the whole community. The DUP also commits itself to meet its obligations in each of the strands of the Agreement, including the North-South bodies, which represents a massive step forward for that party. From the days of saying "No" to everything it is now committed to working the North-South bodies, which, when operational, worked very favourably for the whole island.
Like the Taoiseach in Belfast last Wednesday, I would like refer to something said by the then chairperson of the international body on decommissioning, Senator George Mitchell. When Fianna Fáil was in Opposition from 1994 to mid-1997, we met Senator Mitchell on many occasions. He said that decommissioning should not require that any party be seen to surrender, on which I believe agreement exists across the board.
As we are in this Chamber, which has been the subject of Seanad reform, I wish to stress that we did not present the report to the Taoiseach two years ago, but in April 2004, as the other parties involved in Seanad reform know. In the early 1980s I was a Member of this House for two short terms when Séamus Mallon and Bríd Rodgers were Senators. Now we enjoy the company and contributions of Senator Maurice Hayes, whom the Taoiseach appointed. They offer a different point of view, bringing us a sense of what it is like to live in another part of this island. They bring a civic contribution to the affairs of the nation. Formalising that would be an excellent step.
I attempt to soften my tone, as we should be prudent in our language. It is not a matter of cherry-picking. We are talking about the North, which is why I have highlighted that issue. If we were discussing university Senators I would mention the pending legislation to give all third-level institutions a voice. Most Senators who spoke had grievances about aspects of Seanad reform. However, on the matter of Northern representation all were ad idem and wished to see it happen. They were pleased by the Northern voices, not in any way in a sense of patronage but in a sense of appreciation that ultimately we are all from one island and their voices are valuable to us. I again thank the Taoiseach for coming to the House.
With the permission of the House, I would like to share my time with Senator Norris.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is very rare that a Minister, let alone a Taoiseach, gets universal applause from the House. We might not all agree with everything he has been doing regarding the Northern Ireland peace process. However, we salute the energy and dedication he has shown and applaud him on the relentless way he has pursued peace in this country.
Whatever our differences on other issues, it is remarkable that in recent times debates of this sort have revealed a unity which is to the tremendous credit of the Seanad and its Members. The Leader and the Taoiseach will recall that less than 15 years ago we could not debate Northern Ireland in this House without fire and brimstone descending and rash and foolish comments being made, which were somewhat primitive in their origins and were extremely unhelpful in bringing peace to this island. It is right that the Taoiseach and his predecessors, Albert Reynolds, Deputy John Bruton, Garrett FitzGerald and Charles Haughey should be saluted for the great work they have done in respect of the peace process. Some of them do not get the credit they deserve. It may be that the Taoiseach will be given final credit for bringing peace to this part of the island but there is a pantheon of heroes who have done a great deal in the pursuit of peace.
The latter should be recognised by me and others who come from what is undoubtedly a different outlook on this subject. I was not brought up in the same type of atmosphere, with the same basic beliefs or in the same tradition as some Members of the House. However, those of us who come from different traditions — by that I mean different religious denominations — must recognise that whereas we have come some way, others have had to make an even greater effort to meet our beliefs on this matter. We should salute them for that. Senator Mansergh, with whom I have had many spats on other minor issues, has played a tremendous part in the peace process and that should be recognised.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I wish to address one or two of the issues that have been raised. As Senator O'Rourke correctly stated, the contribution of those Members from Northern Ireland who have served in the House has been tremendous in terms of helping us to accept what is the great challenge in Irish life and politics at present. I do not wish to name any of them in particular. It is perfectly acceptable and welcome that the Taoiseach should continue to nominate people from Northern Ireland to serve in this House. If necessary, he should appoint as many as four Members from that part of the island. There would be dangers in enshrining this in the Constitution and I fail to see the benefits of doing so.
As Senator O'Rourke stated, Senator Maurice Hayes plays a leading and authoritative role in bringing us some knowledge of Northern Ireland. Mr. Haughey started the very successful experiment of nominating people from Northern Ireland to this House and what he did has been continued by nearly all of his successors. I see no reason for changing the current method of nomination because it has worked extraordinarily well.
The Northern Ireland issue has tended to be above and different from the normal cut and thrust of politics in this country. Successive taoisigh have regarded and treated it as such. Their nominees to the Seanad have reflected that and I am happy with the current position.
I thank Senator Ross for sharing time. As I did on yesterday's Order of Business, I commend the Taoiseach. Like Senator Ross, I come from a different background to some Members of the House. I was formerly a southern Unionist, I am Church of Ireland, I am not republican and I am a Nationalist only in so far as I love this country.
I commend the Taoiseach because he behaved in a manly, courageous and courteous way in dealing with the Reverend Ian Paisley who, I will limit myself to saying, is a rather difficult political entity.
That is putting it mildly.
The Taoiseach showed great maturity and the vast majority of the decent, ordinary people of Ireland, among whose ranks I include myself, strongly supported and saluted the Taoiseach for what he did on that occasion.
I also like the approach taken by the Taoiseach in his speech. If it is a question of the glass being half full or half empty, the Taoiseach unhesitatingly states that it is half full. He stated that certain matters were "not wholly successful" and indicated that he is "not unduly pessimistic". That, in my opinion, is the way to approach this issue.
As Senator Ross stated, we have tried to have debates on this matter on several occasions in the Seanad but we were informed at times that the issues involved were too sensitive. Does the Taoiseach really believe that Mr. Adams and the Dr. Paisley are sensitive little animals? I do not believe so. I also do not believe the negotiations would be blown off track by something said in this House. I doubt that anyone pays a great deal of attention to what we might say.
In my view, photographs are largely an irrelevance. We should put it right up to Dr. Paisley and inform him that he is welcome to observe historic acts of decommissioning in person and report back to his people on them.
I am amazed at the sensitivity of Sinn Féin and the IRA. I recall a time when they used to use a visual image accompanied by the legend "sniper at work". That was a particularly nasty, vindictive and humiliating image. I wonder how it ran with the families of people such as Stephen Restorick, a decent young man who was gunned down.
I share the sympathy all people, including the Taoiseach, have for the widow of the late Detective Garda McCabe. Everybody must feel that sympathy at this time of year. It is important that contact be maintained on a continual basis with Mrs. McCabe. The Taoiseach is usually very good at dealing with human issues of this nature. However, it must be stated that those involved were engaged in a bank heist. They carried out the cold blooded murder of a defenceless man who was strapped into a car. By first denying and subsequently claiming these individuals, the IRA has defined itself into an area of criminality. There must be an end to this. The Taoiseach massaged the language when referring to this matter by stating that it was "illegal activity". It is illegal to have a dog without a licence but nobody would place that in the same category as approaching a defenceless man in a car, pulling the trigger and killing him. We must state that there can be no criminal activity. The IRA is not in charge of language. It cannot state that certain things are criminal for everybody else but not for members of its organisation. I do not believe the people of Ireland would accept that.
It is important that the Taoiseach has come before the House this evening because the Seanad has become involved in these issues. While the House has been enriched by the contributions of Members from Northern Ireland, such as former Senator John Robb and Senator Maurice Hayes, their presence here came about as a result of nomination by the Taoiseach. I am not sure it is wise to make constitutional provision for representation from the North of Ireland. There was an interesting letter on this matter in The Irish Times this morning which I am sure the Taoiseach has read. The points therein are well made and should be borne in mind.
I wish the Taoiseach well. I hope the IRA goes out of business. It is about time this happened. There is something sadly anachronistic about the name of Sinn Féin which translates as "ourselves alone". In this complex world of globalisation and interrelatedness, nobody is on their own. Sinn Féin must learn that it cannot be on its own.
I commend the Taoiseach on his valiant efforts in respect of this matter and I wish him success.
I welcome the Taoiseach and congratulate him on the work he has done to date.
All Members bring with them life experiences, on which they are expected to draw when they contribute to debate in this House. In keeping with that tradition, I speak in this most important debate as a proud Member of Seanad Éireann upholding those principles. Diversity of views shared in a House of this sort is the essence of democracy.
Like previous speakers, I congratulate the Taoiseach, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Government on their handling of the negotiations on the peace process to date. Many Irish citizens have short memories. They would prefer to forget our troubled history and the fact that, in the aftermath of 1969, the country teetered on the edge of anarchy. The strong Government, together with the loyalty of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána, ensured the country was not propelled into the abyss.
I spent 21 years of my life serving this country as a member of the Defence Forces, working side by side with my colleagues in the Garda Síochána. We were loyal to the State, loyal to the Government of the day and carried out our duties without fear or favour in the interests of the democratic society in which we now live. I, like my colleagues on the day we were commissioned, swore an oath that I would be loyal to the Constitution and the State. In carrying out those duties, we did so in the clear knowledge that the same State and Government we served would reciprocate loyalty. Some paid the ultimate price for that service and those of us who wore the uniform of the State are more conscious of that than most.
I now find myself on the other side of the fence as a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Peace on this island is worth fighting for and no true democrat should stand in the way of that prize. The views I express this evening are my own personal views. Since I entered politics I have consistently stated that I am opposed to the early release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. In doing so, I put tremendous pressure on other members of my party and the Oireachtas who are similarly disdainful at the prospect of this happening. This is not my intention. I have searched long and hard to find it in my heart to move on in the interests of the greater good, to seize the opportunity offered at this time for a complete and final settlement of the problems that have bedevilled this island for so long.
The Government of this country, which is elected by the people to serve the people, is being asked to do the unthinkable, to free the unrepentant killers of a member of the Garda Síochána who died protecting the very people the Government is elected to serve. Sinn Féin has forced the Government into this position. Sinn Féin is a party that is part of our democratic process yet it is making a demand which flies in the face of democracy. No party, bar one, wants these men released.
I voted for the Good Friday Agreement and, in doing so, I accepted the early release of garda murderers. When doing so I believed that the killers of Detective Garda McCabe would not be released because I clearly and unequivocally considered the killing to be an act of murder carried out by criminals, criminals who were disowned by Sinn Féin and then, when caught, were given comfort, succour and support by Sinn Féin.
In recent days there has been much talk about a full and comprehensive end to criminality. I, together with the vast majority of Irish people, felt that such an end was inherent in voting for the Good Friday Agreement. I drew the line in the sand that day and since then what did I get but a Sinn Féin interpretation of peace and democracy, a continuation of kneecappings, punishment beatings, exiling, extortion and racketeering. The witnesses in the trial of Detective Garda McCabe were intimidated, resulting in a charge of murder being reduced to one of manslaughter. Is that the democracy we want?
Hear, hear.
Now, to end that version of democracy, Sinn Féin demands the release of the criminals who killed Detective Garda McCabe. How can Sinn Féin convince me and others like me that in crossing this new line, it is sincere about ending all association with criminality? How can it condition my mind to allow me even to contemplate such a move? How can it tell me that I should once again betray the memory of an innocent servant of the State? Sinn Féin's current inflexibility hardly engenders trust.
Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Féin has led us a merry dance. First it walks away then it offers to return provided we grant just one more concession. On each occasion, it ratchets up its bottom line. The Irish people also have a bottom line. They are saying loud and clear, "Thus far shalt thou go and no further."
In recent days, Sinn Féin has said it will not be humiliated by photographs of decommissioning. As a Member of the Oireachtas, I respond by saying that I can see no greater humiliation than Members of the Oireachtas posing for a photograph in prison with the killers of a member of the Garda Síochána.
Senators
Hear, hear.
As Archbishop Brady said, we should talk of humility, not humiliation. I fully understand and accept the decision the Taoiseach and the Government have made. I know they have reluctantly accepted the dishonest demands of Sinn Féin in the name of securing peace. I am not here to criticise or condemn. The Taoiseach carries a huge responsibility, as does his Government, on behalf of the Irish people. As the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said in the Dáil today, the Government is as one. My views are my personal views. My contribution may not be the support the Taoiseach needs at this time but I also know that the concerns of the people who share my views are entitled to be aired in this debate. I am sure the Government accepts that point.
I ask the Government to make it clear to Sinn Féin that it must start to deliver. It cannot continue to make more demands as the peace process evolves. Full and total decommissioning must take place within an aggressive time frame. There must be a signed commitment to end criminal activity and paramilitarism in all its forms for once and for all. We, as a democratic State, cannot be constantly bullied into conceding what we should not.
Hear, hear.
The ultimate measure of a person is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at the times of challenge and controversy. This is where Mrs. McCabe and her family, the Government and the people of Ireland stand today when faced with the possibility of the release of the killers of Detective Garda McCabe. The only promise I can make to Mrs. McCabe and the other victims of this awful period in this history is that the line has to be drawn on the IRA. It must disarm and disband and I, in my role as a Member of this House, will do all I can to force Sinn Féin to deliver.
I am glad I am a member of a party where I am allowed to express my views without fear of being kneecapped, beaten with a baseball bat or exiled.
Hear, hear.
All I ask of Sinn Féin, on behalf of the vast majority of the Irish people, is to stop brazenly demanding the morally undeliverable and, instead, honestly and forthrightly, work with us towards making a true and lasting peace, embrace democracy and all the responsibilities that go with it in the name of Ireland so we can share our Irishness in a peaceful and democratic society.
I am glad the Taoiseach came into the House. I will not bother with one detail of last week's business, with which I had a presentational difficulty, it is an issue for another day and a different debate. There are far more fundamental issues at stake.
I will be partisan and mention Mr. Dick Spring for his considerable contribution, together with Mr. Albert Reynolds, to bringing about the achievement of a ceasefire.
That is well justified.
That brought about the major change in climate and in saying that I am not belittling the contributions of others. As a party colleague and a friend of Dick Spring, it would be remiss of me, however, not to say it.
I have always been in a peculiar position about the North in that I spoke sympathetically about Sinn Féin and its supporters when no one else did, at least publicly; I know of the private work done by many in this House, including Senator Mansergh. I talked about the need to draw people in, to get people out of a cul-de-sac, which I concede was of their own making, and now find myself quoting Dr. Ian Paisley about the need "to bite our lips" on some issues. Some of us who put our necks on the line politically to achieve that 15 or 20 years ago are entitled to say now that enough is enough. It is time to end the political dance into which we all have been hauled in recent years.
Many Senators find it extremely difficult to stomach the political opinions, leadership and role of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party. Some people feel, however, that it is somehow less insensitive and less threatening to the peace process and everything we want to achieve to say something negative about him, than it is to say something about the leaders of a political and paramilitary movement that has deliberately killed hundreds of our fellow Irish people. How have we lost a sense of the difference between political disagreement and the fundamental moral gulf that separates us from a political organisation that engaged in a campaign of violence that did not have any moral or political basis?
The IRA is not the ANC or any of the liberation movements which I have supported throughout my political career. Its members were never in the situation in which Nelson Mandela found himself in South Africa and I am tired of the posturing of those who claim that they were. That type of nonsense was encountered again last week when the IRA said it will not do anything that would undermine the Agreement. Its representatives have said for the past two years that the IRA has done nothing to undermine the Agreement. They have pointed the finger at others over and over again.
I do not want to be unhelpful in this regard. People like me were willing to work, as a necessary part of being helpful, with people from Northern Ireland who had Sinn Féin and republican — with a small "r"— sympathies as part of an attempt to open doors. We should make clear to such people that they have alienated further many of those with whom they never had much sympathy. I refer to their scandalous political attacks on the Progressive Democrats, for example. I do not agree with the Progressive Democrats about much, or even anything.
They will be glad to hear that.
I am relieved.
I have a good story about that, which I will share with the Senator privately.
Senior Sinn Féin figures use a certain type of language when speaking about the minority Government party. If any of the rest of us used such language when talking about Sinn Féin, its members would be in front of the television cameras using the classic old phrase "hit me now, with the peace process in my arms", which they are inclined to use over and over again. It is time they became fully involved in the norms of political debate. Others are entitled to hand out to Sinn Féin members what they hand out to others. I am not trying to be destructive when I argue that they should engage in the normal routine of political debate, as we do in this House on a daily and hourly basis. I hope those of us to whom they looked for some sympathy when nobody would talk to them can have some modicum of influence over them. We can help them to realise that they are rapidly backing themselves into the cul-de-sac from which they escaped.
Society does not have room for the shadowy enforcers of law and order, many of whom are involved in anti-drugs campaigns, who are found in many working class communities. I refer to those who knocked on a door in Tralee and, allegedly, used their eloquence to persuade somebody to gently hand back a stolen television. We are expected to believe that hardened criminals changed their minds and handed back stolen goods, simply because of the eloquence of senior members of Sinn Féin, but we know what was behind that. It was criminal activity, which should be clearly understood as any activity that is in breach of the law of the state in which one lives. Criminal activity is not what one chooses to call it. If we are to make progress, we should dismiss any suggestion of moral equivalence. There is, and never has been, any room in Irish society for the killing, murdering and maiming of other people in the name of any political objective. It needs to be stated bluntly and clearly that we have waited long enough. We have held our peace, kept our silence and restrained ourselves.
I do not agree with many Senators on the issues arising from the murder of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. If the release of his killers was the only thing preventing the achievement of an otherwise comprehensive, enforceable and permanent agreement and a political party in this State was willing to be involved in such an agreement, we would have to bite our lips again. Irish people are entitled to ask the party that is calling for their release how we can trust it inside or outside Government, given that it has changed its mind. How can we trust Sinn Féin, given that it told lies about the matter at the time, for example by pretending that it had nothing to do with the killing? That, and not whether certain people will be released from prison under certain as yet unrealised circumstances, is the fundamental political question. How can a political party expect decent law-abiding people in this State to trust it when it denied that the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe were aligned to it until the dust had settled on peace? That, and not the potential release of the people in question, is the fundamental issue.
As Senator Maurice Hayes said eloquently in the House some weeks ago, we have to understand the position of those who have endured the agonising process of watching killers being released. I understand their position, but I am entitled to ask the political party that sees the issue as being part of a comprehensive agreement what it really stands for.
It is quite moving to follow the last two speeches, which were very strong. I commend Senators Minihan and Ryan on their contributions. I join other Senators in thanking the Taoiseach and paying tribute to him for the work he has done. It has been pointed out that he is one of a long line of taoisigh, Ministers for Foreign Affairs and others who have kept this process going for so long. As someone who lives in the North, I may have a more vested interest than most in this matter. Many of us think that the bipartisan policy in this jurisdiction has been one of the great stabilising factors during the process. People in this State have not made the North a political football. That tradition has been continued in the tone of the debate in this House and elsewhere. It has been a hugely important contribution to stability.
In examining the current difficulties in the North, it is easy to forget from where we have come. Ten years ago, Christmas in the North was marked by the sound of shattering glass, as towns and cities were blown apart. It is now marked by the rattling of tills, particularly in places like Newry and Belfast, as people travel across the Border for cheap booze. Progress has been made, the parties have moved an enormous distance and guns have remained silent. We are moving towards an endgame. I am encouraged by the approach and remarks of the Taoiseach.
Two or three aspects of the process need to be addressed. I refer to the question of trust, for example. We need to find a means of validating decommissioning that enables the DUP to satisfy their sceptical followers and others without causing republicans to feel they have to jump through the hoops of public humiliation. The issue of guns is becoming less and less important as time goes by. The need for decommissioning exists in the areas mentioned by Senators — criminal behaviour, intimidation, oppression and domination of communities, rough justice, extortion and involvement in various forms of criminality. I am not saying all republicans are criminals. I was interested in a definition I read the other day to the effect that no republican could be a criminal. This is very pleasant news.
The paramilitary organisations on both sides of the divide have used criminal methods and others both to impose themselves on communities and to raise funds. Some have not grown out of it and cannot desist from it. We will not see an end to criminality. A problem in much of Northern Ireland is that one is not sure whether the criminal organisations are smugglers moonlighting as paramilitaries or paramilitaries moonlighting as smugglers. This view will continue to be held. However, it is important that there be no organic connection between any political party and any organisation tainted by criminality.
How can an organisation demonstrate this? Sinn Féin could do so in a very marked way by getting involved in the policing arrangements and not waiting for some possible date, perhaps two years down the line, when everything else has been put into place. If it did so, it would be much easier for it to convince the sceptical public of its bona fides on decommissioning. There can be no higher proof of one's commitment to the values of a state than one's willingness to enforce the laws of that state. Sinn Féin could adopt this principle now.
Enormous changes have been made in policing in recent years. The report of the Oversight Commissioner, whose function is to implement the recommendations of the Patten report, states that it is now critical to have the involvement of all parties, by which the commissioner means Sinn Féin. One may say one has abjured criminality, knee-capping and vigilantism, but one must ask who will engage in policing. Who will protect old ladies and children if the policing arrangements have not been signed up to? My main appeal to Sinn Féin is that it get involved in policing. This would carry the party a long way.
I was pleased to note the Taoiseach's refusal to do nothing. There is a very dangerous canard circulating in respect of devolution. I do not blame people in the South for losing patience with the peace process because it is generally the case that the process of clearing up after a war takes much longer than the hostilities themselves. This is particularly true of civil war, as we know only too well in this country. We must not expect miracle cures but, at the same time, the worst thing we could do is say the various parties involved should be left to their own devices and that they are happy enough with devolution. This actually discredits very rapidly those people who have, through great effort, convinced an organisation that saw no other approach but the gun to begin to espouse the way of democratic politics, even if it has not done so as quickly or as fully as some of us would like.
Conflicts such as that in Northern Ireland seem to operate on a cyclical and generational basis. If the people who convinced the paramilitaries to espouse the way of democratic politics are discredited, another group of younger, more radical and disaffected people will say they have had their go at politics and failed and they will turn to violence. It is vital, therefore, that we make politics work. I commend the Taoiseach in this regard. It is a great pleasure and honour for me to congratulate him on his work, support him and encourage him and the other parties to keep at it.
I apologise for not being present for the Taoiseach's contribution. I would have liked to have heard him but I was delayed at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Article 35.4.1° of the Constitution.
I rarely speak on Northern Ireland issues in the House but I have recently felt rather emotional about them. What has probably energised me is the unfair criticism on the part of Fianna Fáil to the effect that Fine Gael has deviated from what has always been classified as bipartisanship on Northern Ireland issues. Senator Mansergh did so in last Saturday's The Irish Times and Deputy Noel Dempsey did so today, as did the Taoiseach. I have mentioned the Jerry McCabe issue previously and it has been mentioned many times in this House. Senator Mansergh referred to it in The Irish Times last Saturday. I make no apologies for making a stand on it because I feel very strongly about it.
One may ask why I make no apologies. I have never spoken in this or the other House about an experience I had in west Limerick on 31 March 1990, 14 years ago, when I was a newly elected Deputy. In that year, the IRA ran a lawless campaign in which it robbed post offices and set fire to cars. I ask Members to visualise themselves in the circumstances in which I found myself. I was getting out of my car to go to a political function when a guy wearing a balaclava came alongside me and pointed his pistol or gun at me. I believed at first that it was an April fool's joke on the basis that 1 April was the next day, but I realised how serious the matter was when two other guys came out of the shadows, one of whom had a petrol container. I visualised straight away that my car would get torched like other cars had been torched, not realising what the three men would use the car for. I was told to open the boot and wondered if I would be put into it. I recall getting into the back of a car and the guy at the back pushing me down on the floor, taking off my glasses and putting a balaclava on me back to front so I could see nothing. They were talking on the basis of "No. 1", "No. 2" and "No. 3" and one recognised me as a local Deputy.
I was thinking of Bill Fox who had been murdered near the North of Ireland and did not know what would happen to me. I recall saying an act of contrition in the car because I was absolutely petrified and the men were accusing me and all politicians of being collaborators. I was then dropped off at the side of the road and they took off and warned me not to move. I was petrified over what would happen if I did move.
Eventually, I walked to Rathkeale, which was a mile away and where I saw the fire station lit up and wondered what was happening. What had happened was that my abductors had set fire to the shop of a person who had a late-night business in the town. They set fire to it for their own ulterior motives. I will not expand on that because the shop-owner has gone out of business since the event. He was entirely traumatised afterwards because the men were never tracked down. On the Sunday evening after my abduction, I saw my car on a transporter being brought to Dublin for forensic analysis.
I have a clipping from the Limerick Leader issued at the time of the incident. It claims that on the day following the event, one of those responsible phoned and said that Deputy Finucane would confirm he had not been harmed. This was true but the men frightened the life out of me and my family.
Events such as that described are bound to influence one's thinking. I am thankful that I was spared. I have put the event to the back of my mind and have not referred to it in either House in 14 years. However, I refer to it now in the context of what happened to Jerry McCabe — God be good to him — and to Ben O'Sullivan in Adare in 1996. I am thankful that Ben O'Sullivan recovered. Such events are bound to colour one's assessment and that is why I resent Fine Gael being criticised for expressing its view. I feel perfectly entitled to express my view because I feel very strongly about the issue.
It is correct for Mrs. McCabe to feel very upset on the basis that she was promised that the killers of her husband would not be released. One may argue that they can be exonerated and that their release is justifiable and sustainable as part of the peace process. Is this argument valid?
The SDLP has recently criticised the Good Friday Agreement because the impact of the text on it and the Unionists has been changed. The people who held faith with the peace process through difficult phases have been sidelined. Gerry Adams was on "The Late Late Show" last Friday spinning and criticising Fine Gael because its members dared to express their views on the release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe, which reflected the thinking of approximately 80% of the population.
The leader of our party expressed himself extremely well in the debate in the other House today when he outlined Fine Gael's role in the peace process over the years. We will not accept lecturing on this issue. We have always been fair-minded on this and supported the Taoiseach in his intense efforts to resolve this problem. We did not play the blame game although we could if we so wish wonder about some of the changes and utterances in the past week and if there is confusion about the Good Friday Agreement. We will not do that because it is not constructive. Let us point a way forward for the future.
Sinn Féin members on television and radio are masterful at spin but I criticise television and radio journalists for at times failing to ask hard questions. Gerry Adams got a deafening round of applause last Friday night on "The Late Late Show". Pat Kenny did not ask him any difficult questions during that debate and those questions should be asked.
Sinn Féin appeals to a young electorate. We grew up at a time when Che Guevara was regarded as a hero in South America and was probably respected in this country because he was then a revolutionary. Our educated young people are giving the same respect to this party because they do not remember past incidents or what happened during the Troubles. They are influenced by the media and the spinning. Gerry Adams has no right to lecture Enda Kenny.
Hear, hear.
When Sinn Féin decides to come in from the cold and get respectability within the body politic, it must stop masquerading. When Gerry Adams says he must find out what the IRA thinks it is as if the mirror is fogged and he asks the reflection what it thinks. People's minds are divided when Sinn Féin members and the people in charge speak, wondering whether they are expressing their own views or speaking on behalf of the IRA. Many people seem to know what the IRA wants to say.
I have often criticised the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this House but I respect his intolerance for an agreement to which Sinn Féin or the IRA would sign up that did not define the criminality factor. Gerry Adams said it is clear what the IRA will do. If it is so clear, why does he not ask the IRA to sign up to it? Then we could move the peace process on.
I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for his latitude. I apologise if I am emotional but certain thoughts from the past related to this debate returned to me.
I pay tribute to the great work done by the Taoiseach with his colleagues and civil servants over the past ten years on this but particularly since he became Taoiseach seven years ago. It has taken a great deal of time, been very arduous and required many sacrifices of him. We were privileged to listen to him today and have made significant progress to the point where closure is very near.
We should not put off achieving closure for 12, 18 or 24 months. That would be disadvantageous for the Northern Irish economy, from the point of view of moving on from the current lawlessness and level of crime. We have the opportunity to make a clean break with the past in terms of paramilitarism and of a consensus on policing and people joining up and participating in policing. None of those developments should be put off. There is a great onus on the parties in Northern Ireland and on the Governments to work hard before Christmas to try to crunch these issues and not to talk in terms of waiting until after the next elections and so on. We do not know what may happen, what accidents may occur to upset calculations. Let us strike while the iron is hot.
Reference has been made to four or five problems. The first is the language left out of the IRA statement. I will read it — incidentally it does not mention the word criminality — it states "...consistent with this and recognising the need to uphold and not to endanger anyone's personal rights and safety". How could anyone object to that? It was put to me on radio yesterday that this somehow involved the IRA admitting its campaign had been criminal. That is nonsense. Those words do not justify that interpretation. The Easter Proclamation contained the language "we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity or rapine". Was that an insult to, or slur on, the volunteers who took part in the Easter Rising? Of course not.
The notion that by definition the IRA does not commit crimes is preposterous. Even if it does compare itself to the ANC, that group, to its credit, admitted, before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that it had committed many crimes which were not justified. It is fine for somebody from the DUP to say that he or she is not overly concerned about the issue but criminal, illegal activities are more likely to happen within the Nationalist community or the jurisdiction of the South. They are not likely to happen in loyalist east Belfast so that is not an adequate argument.
Transparency is the issue underlying photographs. There was insufficient transparency and that led to the problem. Part of the solution is that General de Chastelain should be allowed to say much more than he has been able to say in the past. The two clergymen should be allowed without restriction to say what they have witnessed. In a religious context I have difficulty with the maxim, "seeing is believing" because in many ways in the Christian religion believing is about not seeing.
We were all moved by Senator Finucane's comments about the indefensible attack on the integrity of a citizen of this State, let alone a legislator. If the killers of Garda McCabe are to be released in the context that I need not repeat, that does not in any way legitimise an absolutely appalling act. The Government's line in the Good Friday Agreement, and in most other statements, was rightly that these prisoners would not under any circumstances benefit from the early release terms of the Agreement.
They have not done so, and they will not be specified as prisoners. If there is ultimately any release, it will be carried out under other legislation and will not fall into that context. Regarding the SDLP, whose representatives members of many parties may have met yesterday, the case has been outlined here. The point must be made that the vast majority of its problems relate to strand one, the internal organisation of Northern Ireland, including such matters as the election of a First Minister.
The Irish Government has no role regarding strand one, the internal operation of the Agreement. It cannot fairly be criticised for what has been negotiated. In the statements last week, for example, there were proposals from the British Government for changes to strand one institutions. Technically speaking, when we voted, we did so on the British-Irish Agreement, which did not contain material relating to the internal workings of the institutions. We also voted on changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. I am not convinced that the criticisms of the changes to strand one have the force the SDLP maintains, but it is fighting a political battle with Sinn Féin, something that we must understand. Of course, it was most unfairly criticised by Sinn Féin on policing, to which it signed up.
I will briefly address Seanad reform. There should be a constitutional provision, and it should be entrenched, since taoisigh are under a great many political pressures after an election. If it is not entrenched, one cannot guarantee it will always happen. There is practically universal agreement that Northern Senators have contributed very substantially. For example, Senator Maurice Hayes does not contribute solely on Northern Ireland or Europe; he brings a Northern perspective to a great deal of legislation we discuss in this House. That comparative perspective, whether on health or justice, contributes a great deal. If I have a criticism of the Seanad report — I have made it before — it is that two seats are not enough. If there are only to be two seats, they will inevitably go to someone associated with the two majority parties.
My final point is very important. The peace process has not been, as is sometimes implied, one of appeasement, whereby Sinn Féin has been getting more and more. We must remember that we have been making many more demands on Sinn Féin. We have gone far beyond the text of the Good Friday Agreement. We are involved in a very important process of establishing full democracy on this island, something that has not fully existed in our lifetimes. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the IRA was there in the background. We look forward to a situation of complete democracy, and we should not represent the peace process as a one-way street in which we have been giving ever more to Sinn Féin. The republican movement is giving more and more to us and to the democracy of this country.
I am glad of the opportunity to say a few words on this important motion. I thank all the speakers I have heard so far and pay particular tribute to my colleague, Senator Finucane, for his account of what he went through personally. As I heard him say, he had never before spoken on the issue in either House. We have heard the sort of story which touches the soul and helps one understand how people can feel such hurt and pain regarding Northern Ireland.
In the summer of 1996, I attended the funeral of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. I did so because, some weeks previously, he had been with us when we had a meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body in Limerick, and because I felt such sympathy for the family and empathy with the gardaí. As one would appreciate, that Monday morning in Limerick was one of profound emotion, sorrow and anger. However, it was an ironic coincidence that, on that very day, talks were due to resume in Northern Ireland.
During the mass, after communion but before final prayers, the priest asked the congregation if it would excuse the Taoiseach, former Deputy John Bruton, the Tánaiste, former Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Social Welfare, former Deputy De Rossa, who had to leave the church to catch a helicopter to Belfast to continue the Northern talks. He expressed the wish, as the three were leaving, that their talks might be successful and that, through that political process, they might help ensure that no family would have to undergo what the McCabes were going through that day. In a sense, that must be our starting and finishing point. The brutal reality of terrorism that came home to the McCabe family in the summer of 1996 should not be visited on any more families, North or South.
My colleagues have very clearly expressed the position of the Fine Gael Party on the McCabe killing and killers. Our party leader, Deputy Kenny, gave a fine contribution on that issue today. Something that has always amazed, surprised and upset me regarding the McCabe killing — I should say "murder", for that is what it was — was the fact that the Sinn Féin Party and the IRA never said sorry. As we know so well, language is very important in the politics of Northern Ireland, and we sometimes hear half-sincere regrets and mealy-mouthed sympathies being extended. However, in this instance, where a person who was upholding the law and the integrity of this State was brutally killed by a criminal gang, we should have heard the word "sorry". To Gerry Adams and his colleagues in Sinn Féin, with whom we must all deal in our own way from time to time, I say this. If they are asking us to contemplate seeing the McCabe killers released at the behest of the Government as part of an overall completion package, as the Taoiseach called it, they should at least have the decency to express profound sympathy and a genuine apology for the killing.
Regarding the present talks, the point on which Senator Mansergh concluded is worth reflecting on, namely, what has been given by Sinn Féin. Senator Finucane rightly pointed out that they are masters of spin. Through that, they have hidden the fact that the political landscape of this island has truly changed. We all know what Sinn Féin were demanding ten, 15, 20 or 30 years ago; that is no longer the case. On this island, every political party is now in agreement with the right of the Unionist people to remain such for as long as the institutions of Northern Ireland provide for it. We have changed our Constitution to reflect that amazing transformation.
If one were to make any criticism of Unionist politicians or their negotiators, it is that they have not clearly outlined in the requisite detail to their own voters and supporters what they have achieved. In the course of the past ten years since the 1994 ceasefire, we have given an absolute guarantee — not merely in writing but through a vote of the Irish people — to the Unionist family that, as long as they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, they will do so. That was something we could not have envisaged 25, 30 or 40 years ago.
When we talk about the ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland and the need to find a comprehensive solution to it, we must be careful about using the concepts of winners and losers. We cannot have winners or losers in this conflict. If one side is seen as having clearly won, unfortunately, that means that the other side has clearly lost. A settlement of that type will not last.
Those on the two sides of the equation should take much more note of what they have achieved. The Unionist people of Northern Ireland can take profound and quiet satisfaction from the fact that they are no longer under the military and political threat they were under in the 1970s and the 1980s. Nationalist families and communities in Northern Ireland tend to take great satisfaction from the fact that, having been in a sectarian state, they now have the full protection of both Governments, their integrity is guaranteed and they have full rights of government. That is the transformed Northern Ireland of today.
We have not reached the final solution to putting in place the political structures to underpin what we all hope will happen. However, I listened to what the Taoiseach said today and, as Senator Norris said, he tried to show the glass being half full rather than half empty. Major progress has been made and let us not lose that now. To ensure we do not do so requires more quiet diplomacy, understanding and direct dialogue, but both sides in Northern Ireland have achieved a tremendous amount over the past ten years. They have achieved progress which was unimaginable 30 years ago. Let us not go back to the situation in the past. During the first term I spent in this House in 1987 to 1989 we discussed on almost a weekly basis the most recent outrage in Northern Ireland. Thankfully, we do not have those sort of debates any longer. We should not go back to that situation but should go forward and let everybody work together to achieve peace on this island which everybody deserves.
I wish to share my time with Senator Michael Brennan.
That is agreed.
I regard Senator Finucane as an honourable and decent gentleman and I have always found him to be so. The graphic description of his personal ideal would touch any heart. In a way it is indicative that at the root of seeking solutions there is the human element as well in the suffering people have gone through.
Last year I was invited to give an oration at two commemorations in Ireland of two Irish leaders who took opposing sides in the Civil War, one was General Liam Lynch and the other was Major General Donnacha O'Hannigan. My background would be republican and that would be my outlook. When I was unveiling the plaque to Major General O'Hannigan, I made the point that I felt at present we were experiencing a confluence of eras and aspirations.
The Civil War was a terrible time in Ireland where brother fought brother, family fought family and some terrible things were done in the name of Ireland. If one reads the debates of that time, it is easy to be circumspect and say that people made very wise comments and were very forgiving and accommodating against that tragic background, and that is true. There is an echo of that today in trying to find a solution to the long-standing Northern Ireland problem. I genuinely believe that and have said so on several occasions here, including on the Order of Business in recent times.
I salute all men and women of all shades of political opinion and those of no political opinion who have made a contribution to bringing us to where we are today. We have come a long way from that infamous dictum of a former British Prime Minister when she told us "out, out, out" in respect of every effort that was being made to try to stop what was happening here, to try to bring about a just society and above all else to establish a permanent peace.
We are down to the specifics in our discussions and because of that to some extent it gets more difficult. When one talks in general terms or to some extent embraces rhetoric, it is much easier. However, when one comes down to decisions and the things one has to do, which go against the grain of what one believes in and stands for, that is when it gets particularly difficult.
At the beginning of the peace process I invited David Irvine to Dublin. One would have associated him with the loyalist side of the dispute in Northern Ireland. On that occasion Senator Mansergh chaired a debate. About 200 people turned up for it and they were not the type of people who usually attended such a debate. I was surprised at the type of people who came along from industry, the arts and other walks of life. They were not prompted to come, they had only become aware of the debate. This group was a microcosm of Ireland. It was not a focused audience from one particular aspect or one political group.
I particularly praise the Taoiseach and all those who have been involved in the process. It is my firm hope that we do not lose the opportunity to grasp the prize. I met a group of community activists form Belfast today. They made the same point that Senator Mansergh made. They said that so much has been given by the Nationalist community that at times they do not feel that has been reciprocated. They said in particular they are subject still to brutality at the hands of loyalist mobs. I am only making this point to illustrate that when we are trying to come to a conclusion, every aspect of the picture must be taken on board. That will be the sacrifice and the difficulty. The tone of this debate indicated quite clearly that we will stay together in that effort.
The poet, Gerald Griffin, best describes my home village of Adare in the following lines:
Oh Sweet Adare! Oh lovely vale!
Oh, soft retreat of sylvan splendour,
Nor summer sun, nor morning gale
E'er hailed a scene more softly tender.
This was also the scene of an act which shocked the nation where Detective Jerry McCabe was shot to death and Detective Ben O'Sullivan was wounded on Friday, 7 June 1996. These two detectives were on duty escorting a post office delivery of money to pay old age pensions and social welfare benefits. This act was carried out by an armed gang in battle dress.
Many views and opinions on this act have been expressed by the public and questions asked. Can it be lawful for the Government to release those who killed Detective Garda Jerry McCabe and wounded Detective Garda Ben O'Sullivan in Adare? In the minds of the public his killers were never to benefit from the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The members of this gang were convicted of manslaughter, the lesser charge, as a result of intimidation of witnesses. Any reduction in sentences being served would not serve the greater good and would erode the confidence of the Irish people in our justice system. The ability of the Irish people to live and work together does not and should never depend on the early release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe.
I refute the claim by Gerry Adams that no republican activist can be a criminal. Criminality, including punishment beatings, knee-cappings, bank and post office robberies, including other acts, must end once and for all and must be included in any agreement reached. In a matter of weeks and months decisions will be made by leaders of Governments which will affect all our lives. There is a golden opportunity to take that final step towards peace and reconciliation on this island. Something of which all generations have dreamed is now within our grasp.
I have every confidence that the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the members of the Government, together with the leaders involved on all sides, will have the courage to bring about a comprehensive and just settlement, and that the communities, North and South, will have the will to accept its implementation to a final conclusion. I have seen in my home village Catholics, Protestants and Methodists — people of all religious persuasions and none — work together and for one another within our community. Should it not be our dream to see that peace and tranquillity extended North and South within the island of Ireland in our lifetime?
In conclusion, there is a small marble plaque on the wall of Adare Garda station. It reads: "In memory of Detective Jerry McCabe who gave his life in the service of his country at Adare on 7 June 1996." There is an image of a dove on that plaque showing the outline of the face of Detective Garda McCabe on its wings. However, equally important, a message is written in stone around the verge of that plaque which reads: "For the Peace and Love of my fellow man. For the Justice of my Fellow Man. Peace and Understanding of my Fellow Man." I wish the Taoiseach well in his work for a lasting peace in our land.
I wish to share time with Senators Coghlan and Cummins, by agreement.
I would hope to share one minute of that time also.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This is an important and relevant debate and I thank all responsible for providing the opportunity to hold it before the recess. In acknowledging the work of all in this process, we must consider the wider context of how far we have all come. In this regard, I single out the work of the Taoiseach and do not think anyone would want to take from his stand in regard to moving the peace process forward. The House and the Oireachtas generally have an important role to play in what we say and how we say it, and in the leadership we can provide.
To pick up on a comment which many will have noted, Gerry Adams, the Sinn Féin leader, stated on radio on Monday last that republicans are not involved in criminal actions. However, anybody would say a post office robbery is a criminal action. In that context, my thoughts moved to the question of what is and who are the IRA. When growing up in this country in the 1970s against the backdrop of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the situation in the Republic, the IRA was considered to be "over there" while we were all "over here". To a large extent, we still see it that way. However, whether we like it or not, the IRA has grown out of and is part of our history. In ending what the IRA is and in seeing it finished and consigned to the past, there must be a process in which our community asks what is and who are the IRA within the community and what we, as civil society, must do to ensure its role is over and done with. This includes criminality.
Standing against criminality is extremely important and must be done. I know all Members in both Houses of the Oireachtas stand firmly on this issue. However, simply to state that criminality is wrong will not on its own end what the IRA is. This country has a long history in which the IRA has been part of our community. Therefore, I am not answering the question but asking what we, as a community, a society, a nation and a country, North and South, must do, and who we have to be to bring the role and presence of the IRA to an end.
I salute Members for the remarkable degree of unanimity which exists among all in the House. This is a matter which touches everybody engaged in the business of politics and it is remarkable we have such similar views. We rightly salute the achievements made to date, such as the ending of paramilitary and illegal activity and the completion of the process of IRA arms decommissioning within a rapid timescale. As the Taoiseach stated, there has been agreement in regard to the full operation of the institutions of the Agreement on an inclusive basis and on a basis on which the republican community will support the new policing arrangements.
This is fantastic progress. Who would have thought one year ago that we would be where we are now in this regard? As political opponents, Members on this side of the House greatly compliment the Taoiseach, in addition to his team, for his relentless pursuit of the goals successive Governments have tried to achieve, his immense energy and his ongoing dedication. It was stated during the debate that the Taoiseach sees the glass as very much half full, which is the spirit in which we must continue to move forward.
While we agree on most matters, I have some concerns. When considering illegality, which must finish completely, we must not forget the loyalist paramilitaries who have engaged in similar activities involving drugs, alcohol and so on. I share the concerns of Senator Brian Hayes in regard to the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party. We want to be all-inclusive, on which the Taoiseach remarked. However, there is a feeling, which was ventilated yesterday by Mark Durkan-——
The Senator's time is concluded.
In that case, I conclude by stating that credible verification is also very important.
I join with Senator Coghlan in complimenting Members on their contributions, which have been of the highest order and befit the Seanad. Members spoke of their experiences and gave heartfelt and forthright opinions. Each contribution was important.
Fine Gael did not put down an amendment, as would be normal for a Government motion. This is in keeping with the bipartisan approach Fine Gael has taken in regard to the Northern Ireland situation through the years.
Senator Brian Hayes referred to the Fine Gael approach of over 30 years ago. Our policy then was the reunification of the country by peaceful means and with the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. We were vilified by many at the time for the reference to reunification by peaceful means and the question of the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. I am glad opinions have changed among so many members of political parties in the intervening years and that people have come around to that way of thinking. The Good Friday Agreement copper-fastens the concept that any reunification talks would be brought about only by peaceful means and would have the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland.
We have travelled a tremendous road and major change has taken place in Irish society in that 30 year period. We need to continue with that spirit of generosity from all sides to reach the peaceful conclusion we all want, with peace, reconciliation and harmony among all communities, North and South.
I wish to join in the tributes that have been paid to the Taoiseach for the tremendous investment of energy and commitment he has put into the peace process. That has been recognised not only in this House but also by the various parties in the North. The Northern parties — particularly the SDLP and the UUP in the early stages — also deserve our congratulations. It is easy to forget that the UUP, under the leadership of David Trimble, moved considerably.
Yes.
It is not that long since David Trimble was in the Vanguard Party which, given what Vanguard stood for at that time, shows the transformation in thinking that has occurred there. We now have Sinn Féin and the DUP, and everyone would wish them well. It is difficult for both those parties which will have to bring with them trenchant supporters who are committed to past ideologies. It is not easy to shift such positions. It is worthwhile investing the time in order to see that under the current leadership of both parties, this transformation will take place. That will make an agreement sustainable to a degree that might not otherwise be the case.
As regards Seanad reform, I do not agree with those who are suggesting that there should be an additional two Members from Northern Ireland. That will not change or effect any transformation in thinking anywhere. I also do not agree with the Seanad report that suggested an extra five Members from the North. The figure should be in the order of eight to ten but more probably ten. I say that having spoken to elected members of the UUP and the DUP. Surprisingly, they have conceded to me that they would take up such positions but only on the basis that there were sufficient numbers for them to be able to do so. In other words, that they would not be isolated within their own community. That point should be borne in mind. It is interesting that Senator Norris and others often object to that proposal on constitutional grounds. A partitionist mentality has evolved here, which sometimes has parallels with the partitionist mentality within the Unionist community. It is important for us to challenge that.
Absolutely.
If we want to go along the road to a united Ireland — and I am totally in favour of a united Ireland by agreement — then we must put in place the mechanisms that will enable us, first of all, to reach a mutual understanding.
As regards the North-South bodies, concessions were made on Spy Wednesday, leading up the Good Friday Agreement, which significantly diluted the agreement. They were made under pressure to get all sides on board. There is a danger that that could happen again. I would prefer it to take two or three weeks longer so we would have a sustainable agreement. It is important to activate the North-South bodies. I was at a conference in Enniskillen two weeks ago where that was advocated strongly, particularly by those within the Nationalist community. It was also supported by people within the Ulster Unionist Party.
The six areas of co-operation must also be activated because they are more meaningful and will impact more on people's lives than will the North-South bodies. We can build on that and will gradually build the Ireland we want for the future.
Motion agreed to.