Northern Ireland: Statements 24th February, 2000 Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Cowen): I am very pleased to participate in this House's debate on the peace process. I do so deeply conscious that Members of the Seanad attach the highest importance to this issue, as demonstrated by the holding of this debate. By the same token, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, there is no issue among my responsibilities to which I attach greater importance.

These are difficult times in the process. The problems which gave rise to the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly have served as a sharp reminder that conflict resolution is a long haul business. Mutual mistrust, suspicion and recrimination continue to have a major impact on relations between all sides. The pessimists who long argued that our problems are insoluble appear to have been given more evidence in support of their case. The problems we face can and will be resolved. The fundamentals in this process are sound. We are quantum leaps ahead of where we have ever been before. Quite simply, we are not going to let this go. All those involved, whether at the level of the two Governments, the parties or the people, North and South, have invested too much to let that happen. I am certain this view is shared by Members of this House. The Good Friday Agreement is at the heart of our optimism. Whatever way one views it, the Agreement got it right, in terms of its comprehensiveness and the honourable accommodation charted concerning the core constitutional questions which have dogged relations in and between these islands since the 1920s. In particular, I refer to the imaginative new institutions reflecting the three central sets of relationships, institutions which the Taoiseach recently described as the heartbeat of the Agreement and about which I will say more. Valuable arrangements were agreed as part of the equality agenda which quite properly established a human rights culture at the heart of the new dispensation. Provision was made for issues which I could broadly describe as part of the transition from conflict to peace - the normalisation of security, reform of the policing and criminal justice systems, prisoners and the decommissioning of arms. Finally, and very crucially, the Agreement has a provision, first mooted by John Hume, that its terms should be validated by simultaneous referendum, North and South. The Good Friday Agreement is the template for the future and has been massively endorsed as such by the people of this island. The fact that we have such a template profoundly distinguishes the difficulties we currently face from crises in the past. Then we had nothing to go back to. Each time we had to begin again and all the while violence continued on a daily basis. On this occasion we have undoubtedly suffered a setback but no more than that. It is hugely significant that all the parties remain totally committed to the Good Friday Agreement as the only way forward. Opinion polls consistently make clear that this approach continues to be endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the people, North and South. Thankfully, despite the difficulties, peace has held strongly. I referred to the importance of the new institutions. Their record in the brief period since 2 December provides further comfort as we address our current difficulties. It will be recalled that before the institutions went live, the sceptics were arguing that the new structures were too complex and complicated and that they would never work. In particular, they argued that an involuntary four-party coalition was a guaranteed recipe for paralysis. One of the new pieces of information we now have, which we did not have three months ago, is that the sceptics were wrong. This process works and people like it. They agree that local politicians, accountable to them, should take decisions on matters of critical importance to their daily lives. Decisions were taken by that Executive and Assembly about hospitals, schools and roads. Not everybody would have agreed with every decision, but the new dispensation and its potential was popular and many would like it back. Tremendous strides were also taken in that brief period in terms of the new North-South institutions. The North-South Ministerial Council met five times, beginning with the historic inaugural plenary meeting which I had the privilege to attend in Armagh on 13 December last. This was followed in the new year by four meetings of the North-South Council in its sectoral format. These meetings covered trade and business development, education, health and food safety matters and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. Serviced by the new North-South Joint Secretariat based in Armagh, council meetings in several more sectors were planned for the coming weeks. The six North-South Implementation Bodies are up and running and pressing on with their important remits. In all the areas covered by the council, major programmes of work are being planned. On the basis of the work and the meetings to date, we can have high hopes about the potential of the new institutions for tangible benefits for all people of this island. The new North-South structures will also bring tremendous benefits in terms of deepening bonds and mutual understanding between the traditions on the island. Already in the short period since 2 December, John Hume has been shown to be correct in his prediction that the real healing process will take place in working together on issues of common concern. I acknowledge the very positive approach of the Unionist Ministers to their engagement in the North-South Ministerial Council to date. They have made clear that they recognise the potential for mutual benefit by the North-South process and want to develop that potential to the maximum. It is an approach which bodes well for the future. Meanwhile, in east-west terms, the inaugural meetings of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference have taken place and there is a strong determination on all sides to ensure the undoubted potential which exists in this axis is also realised to the full. I am confident that, through these institutions and through fora such as the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, whose membership includes some distinguished Members of this House, we are on the threshold of a positive new era in relations between these islands. All of these factors seem powerful arguments for the case that in seeking to break the current impasse we are building on extremely solid and stable foundations. The impasse is once more centred on the interaction between the institutions and decommissioning. It is a conundrum which we hoped we had cracked in the Mitchell Review. The Government still believesmuch progress was made in that review process, particularly to deepen mutual understanding. While there is clearly some further way to go before a definitive resolution is found, the Mitchell process will move this forward. It underlined again the crucial role of the de Chastelain Commission in resolving the decommissioning crux. This factor was very important in resolving our legislative difficulties. The Good Friday Agreement and the Mitchell Review make abundantly clear that primacy on the question of decommission rests with General de Chastelain and his colleagues in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. That is why the Taoiseach and the Government attach such importance to the commission's report of Friday, 11 February. That statement changes the context, it is the floor from which we can now build a resolution to this problem. In it, the commission states in categorical terms that it believes that the new commitment it has received from the IRA "holds out the real prospect of an agreement which would enable it to fulfil the substance of its mandate". Think about those words. In the welter of charge and counter-charge that followed the suspension of the institutions, their import has been lost. They are, in my view, profoundly important. What we have is the body charged by the Good Friday Agreement with resolving the issue of arms formally stating its assessment that it will be able to fulfil its mandate. It did so on the basis of detailed interaction with the representative of the IRA and with those of the Loyalist paramilitaries. What is now essential and what the Government is seeking actively to do in tandem with the British Government and the parties is to build on the critical progress that has been reported by the commission. The role of the two Governments in the next phase will be central. This House will agree that the close co-operation between the two Governments has been essential to the securing of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process as a whole. In particular, there has rightly been huge praise for the dedication and commitment to the process demonstrated by the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair. From the few weeks I have served as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I can testify to the enormous energy and time the Taoiseach puts into this process. I am sure the same is true of Prime Minister Blair. Nobody denies that there were some differences of emphasis between the two Governments on the issue of the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly two weeks ago. However, as the Taoiseach made clear, we have put those differences behind us and we are moving forward together. It is another sign of the new maturity in Anglo-lrish relations that we have been able to do so quickly. I have been and will remain in close touch with Secretary of State Mandelson and the Taoiseach remains in the closest contact with Prime Minister Blair. Of course, nothing can be done without the parties. Their commitment to the process has been immense and it is right that we should acknowledge that again in this debate. History will judge the leaderships of the pro-Agreement parties in very positive terms. As the largest party in the Assembly, a special debt of gratitude is owed to the SDLP under the leadership of John Hume and Séamus Mallon. In many respects, the vision of the Good Friday Agreement is their vision. John Hume's wisdom and clarity of thought have been profoundly important to the charting of a new way forward on this island and they will continue to be so. Séamus Mallon has been outstanding as Deputy First Minister and has demonstrated in that office a breadth of qualities that we always knew were there, but which simply did not have the opportunity to be expressed until now. Similarly, Mark Durkan, Séan Farren, Bríd Rodgers and Denis Haughey, as Ministers in the Executive, have underlined the tremendous contribution to wider society the SDLP can make and which it will bring to bear again once the institutions are reinstated. It is a contribution which has been deeply valued by every Irish Government of the past 30 years, none more so than that of which I am a member. As leader of the UUP, David Trimble has shown vision and courage in the most trying of circumstances, with the active assistance of senior colleagues such as John Taylor, Reg Empey and Ken Maginnis. David Trimble had brought those same qualities to the position of First Minister and his relationship with Séamus Mallon in the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers was a tangible manifestation in personal terms of the positive power of the new dispensation. We value also the new positive spirit which has developed between the UUP and the parties in the Houses of the Oireachtas under the current leadership of the party. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness have ensured, by their skilled leadership, a central place in the process for Sinn Féin. The party's Ministers, Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún, have played a very positive and constructive role in the Executive and the North-South Ministerial Council. The commitment of the party to the ending of conflict and to exclusively peaceful politics is beyond doubt and, despite the huge demands that this will make on those involved in personal terms, the leadership will have a critical role to play in the breaking of the current impasse. Similarly, great credit is due to Séan Neeson and Séamus Close of the Alliance Party, David Ervine and Bill Hutchinson of the PUP, Monica McWilliams and Jane Morrice of the Women's Coalition and Gary McMichael and David Adams of the UDP, for the strengths and qualities they have brought to the process - separately and collectively, they are making a truly critical contribution to the ending of conflict and the building of a better future. I have deliberately paid express tribute to the leaderships of each of the pro-Agreement parties because I believe that in the hurly-burly of politics it is easy to overlook that, in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, there are enormous personal demands made on these people. That personal dimension is often overlooked and it is only right in this debate that we should mark it. I have had but a brief glimpse of the pace of Northern politics in recent weeks and it is indeed intense. Many of the people to whom I refer have operated at this pace for decades and at great personal risk and cost. They deserve our very real gratitude and admiration. Last week I met representatives of all the pro-Agreement parties in the Assembly. A number of these meetings took place during my visit to Belfast. Our discussions were positive and frank. Inevitably, I encountered a wide range of views. I also found many of the parties frustrated with the fact that they are caught up in a situation not of their making. However, I was deeply impressed by the commitment on all sides to finding a way forward out of the current situation and to making the Agreement work. Furthermore, the parties appreciate that the resolution of our difficulties can only be found on an inclusive basis and that the institutions must also operate inclusively. It is the business of Governments to solve problems and to find solutions. I am confident that, given the rock we are building on - the rock that is the Good Friday Agreement - and the commitment and determination of the parties, the two Governments will ensure that a way through our current difficulties is found. Our objective was, and firmly remains, the crafting of a future of peace, prosperity and partnership for all the people of this island. I know the Government has the full support of the Seanad for this noble and achievable objective. Senators: Hear, hear.

Visit of American Ambassador. An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Before calling the next speaker, I am sure Members will join me in welcoming to the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery the American Ambassador, Mr. Mike Sullivan.

Northern Ireland: Statements (Resumed). Mr. Manning: I welcome the Minister to the House. This is the first occasion on which he has addressed us as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He is aware that I have a high regard for his ability and integrity and I wish him well in what is probably the most daunting task he has yet faced as a Minister. He knows that he will have the full support of all parties in this House in seeking not just to resolve this seemingly intractable problem but also pushing the process forward. I join the Leas-Chathaoirleach in welcoming Ambassador Sullivan, a person in whom this country has a good friend who carries great influence.

Last week I attended a meeting, present at which were a number of the most senior people from the spheres of politics, the media, the Civil Service etc. who have dealt with the Northern Ireland problem during the past 30 years. I have never before experienced such gloom, even in the worst days of those long years when one atrocity followed another. It suddenly seemed that this problem would baffle the best minds. In spite of the Minister's upbeat presentation - he is right to be upbeat at this stage - this problem does not seem to allow for an immediate solution. However, as he stated, it is the job of Governments to solve problems. Politics is the art of the possible and every effort must be made to ensure that we move beyond this impasse. The gloom and grimness I experienced among the professionals to whom I referred is not matched by the situation which obtains on the ground. In my opinion there is an air of optimism in Northern Ireland which has not been present in the past. There is a belief among people in the South that the problem will be resolved. That is partly because we have become used to expecting success in dealing with Northern Ireland. In spite of various difficulties, we have been on something of a rollercoaster in recent years. First we had the ceasefires, then the Good Friday Agreement and finally the establishment of the institutions. As the Minister correctly stated, we need only consider all that has been achieved in recent years, and contrast it with what any of us would have regarded as being impossible ten years ago, to realise the extent of what has come to pass and the determination of people not to let matters slide at this stage. It is in the underpinning of this process by the support of people on both sides of the Border that the enduring possibility of its survival lies. The Minister is right when talking about the Good Friday Agreement to say the essentials are in place and, in many cases, strong foundations have been laid for the institutions which arise out of the Agreement. We have all noted the progress and sense of excitement about the potential which has surrounded the putting in place of the Good Friday Agreement. The Minister and this House are right to applaud it and to give credit where it is due to all those involved who have made this possible. Sidney Webb went to the Soviet Union in the 1920s and said, "I have seen the future and it works". He was not a very good prophet in that case. However, we have seen the future in Northern Ireland and that it can work. There is a new future, beginning and life for the people in that part of the country and the country as a whole. The Minister is also right to praise the parties in the process in Northern Ireland. He put the SDLP top of his list and I would put them top of mine, as would most of us. The SDLP has constantly run the danger of being marginalised as the conflict becomes one, at least in the media, between Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party. However, all of us who know anything about the politics of the past 30 years know that without the SDLP constitutional democratic nationalist politics would not have survived. We all know that during the most difficult days it was the SDLP which went about the dreary daily work of trying to ensure that some sort of decency remained in politics and that those who were not addicted to or would not kow-tow to violence would have their say. We have now seen the full flowering of Seamus Mallon and others who, when given their chance, have shown what they are capable of. That is one of the reasons this must work. We have seen the friendship that has been established between leading Unionists and politicians from all parties in these Houses. We have seen the enthusiasm which people like Sir Reg Empey bring to their work and the possibilities they see for their people. There has been an extraordinary breaking down of barriers and prejudices over the past while. The Minister is also right to include in his praise the other parties, such as Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin has come a very long road and has more ghosts to bury and more history and baggage to carry than perhaps any other party. It has made a great deal of progress. Its two Ministers in the Executive showed an appetite and a capacity for the dullness of routine politics that is normal to us. They showed a capacity and a willingness to take decisions and to get on with the business. There have been some disquieting occurrences over the past couple of weeks, the first of which is the ease with which people got into the blame game. I was shocked that certain politicians here and the media, especially, rushed to judgment on Peter Mandelson and to blame him for the collapse of the process to date. Unless we accept totally, as the Minister does, that this is a joint venture between the British and Irish Governments, that they are as committed as we are and that their faith is as good as ours, we will go nowhere. It is disappointing to see people revert to the easy Brit bashing and Unionist bashing which was such a common feature of our politics some time ago, without seeing that the British and the Unionists have as much of a vested interest in making these institutions work as has any party in this House. Peter Mandelson had to make a judgment call. It was a difficult decision because he was damned if he did and damned if he did not. He made that decision. It may have been right or wrong. Possibly, from where he stood he had very little choice. However, let us accept it was made in the best of faith and in the hope of getting the best possible outcome, rather than reverting to this attempt to blame people and impute bad motives, which so many of our trendiest and most fashionable journalists did with such great speed. The Minister was not specific about what might happen on the decommissioning issue. I do not think any Member would expect him to be. I was struck by the potential he sees in the statement made by the IRA at the very last moment. He sees more in than I do, but then he is working with top officials behind the scenes and I am sure there has been a teasing out of what was meant in that statement. I hope the Minister's confidence is justified. There is a danger in being over optimistic and in seeing the IRA as a body that does not have another agenda. The IRA is traditionally, historically, psychologically and emotionally anti-democratic and sees itself as having rights above those of normal democracy, the rule of law and the rest of us. It has a total inability to understand that politics is about accepting the rules, advocating one's point of view, trying to persuade people and accepting the decisions of the people. We are foolish if we ignore or fail to take fully into account that deep, dark part of the IRA culture. I do not know what can be done. Sinn Féin constantly says not to ask it this or that question but to ask the IRA. I wish we could ask the IRA. I wish we knew who these anonymous, unelected people are. I wish we could ask them about their claim to hold a veto over the right of the rest of the island to get on with democratic politics. Gerry Adams may well reach a stage where a split is not something which must be avoided at all costs. The leaders of Fianna Fáil in the 1920s had to decide which route to go - to stay united and go into a cul-de-sac with obscure theological republicans, perhaps too close to people ambivalent to violence, or to follow the path that Éamon de Valera and Seán Lemass had the guts to take and to break with the past, found a new political party, go into parliamentary politics, make a great success of it and become the dominant party in the State. Sinn Féin might never have that possibility but it might find itself faced with having to decide between being a fully democratic party or carrying on the baggage of the past with an unseen veto in the background. These are the hard facts which may well have to be faced. However, for the moment, all I want to say is that I wish the Minister well. He has the full backing of all parties in this House. The Minister is a plain speaker, a clear thinker and a determined person. He will need those qualities over the coming weeks. Perhaps the best we could wish him at this stage is a period of silence all round, so that he and his colleagues can get on with the work of trying to persuade and tease out matters free from publicity. I hope the next time the Minister comes to this House, where he is always welcome, he will have more specific good news for us. Dr. Haughey: I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also welcome Ambassador Sullivan. I thank him, the US President and George Mitchell for their excellent work on Northern Ireland and for their efforts to bring peace to our nation. One must ask whether there is a degree of urgency in the minds of politicians in Northern Ireland. When I say "politicians", I mean the leaders. It is remarkable that so soon following the suspension of the Belfast accord three major players - David Trimble, Martin McGuinness and Peter Mandelson - are in the United States. It appears that at this time they are more interested in convincing the United States that the blame for the present and future impasse is attributable to somebody else than in getting down to restoring the suspended institutions. These gentlemen should take cognisance of the loud and clear message they have received in public from George Mitchell. He has said that he has had enough and that he is not going back. The last time I spoke on this topic in this House my words were cautiously optimistic and many well-meaning colleagues were joyous and enthused that the Assembly and cross-Border bodies were up and running. I heard the phrase "Good Friday Agreement" used constantly. It is a misnomer to use the word "agreement". An agreement between two countries in relation to peace is a treaty. A treaty, or part thereof, cannot be unilaterally suspended or changed. Therefore, one must ask if the Good Friday Agreement is legally in suspense. Having come such a long way and having received the overwhelming endorsement of the people, the suspension is a sad reflection of the situation. There is no point in attributing blame. There has been an enormous amount of such analysis in recent weeks. The truth is that there is no goodwill or trust between the parties. No agreement will sustain if one of the parties wishes to jettison parts of it. On close examination of what has transpired, one must question the sudden actions of Peter Mandelson in suspending the institutions of government in Northern Ireland. A few weeks later we are now no nearer resolution than we were 12 months ago. I am confident that the institutions will come back but we must look at this critically. I would go as far as to say that we are worse off now because the mistrust between the participants has been exacerbated. Who is to say if the issue of decommissioning was settled in the morning that another issue would not arise and cause the parties to threaten a walk out if they do not get what they want? That puts an odd complexion on democracy. No negotiated agreement has ever worked in Northern Ireland. I regret that the only accord that sustained in Northern Ireland was the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which had to be enforced. We are now left with no Anglo-Irish Agreement, Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution removed, the cross-Border bodies and the Assembly suspended and direct rule restored. I am confident, however, that we will get back on the rails. There must be a certainty that those who do not adhere to the democratic will of the people, which should be fully implemented, will be strongly disadvantaged. One must ask where we will go from here if we cannot find agreement or those who have agreed walk out on what they have agreed. We are surely forced to follow the precedent of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and impose the democratic wishes of the people on those who have refused democracy. We are now at the stage where the only thing that will work is joint authority. This is a phase which will drive a cold sweat down the backs of many people. The reality is that the guns have been silent for five years and the overwhelming majority of people want to live in peace and harmony, to earn a decent living and to provide the best for their families, yet we are stifled by allegations, counter-allegations, distrust and recalcitrance. Political parties are putting a spin on the lack of goodwill needed to get together in the best interests of the people and to give the institutions an opportunity to work for those people. Surely it is more important to have the guns silent, the country working and good government available to the people rather than satisfying a mythical belief that the decommissioning of weapons will lead to better government and stop those who are hell bent on causing trouble and using violence as a means of enforcing their will on others. We should stop fooling ourselves. Decommissioning will not stop that. If the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish and British Governments do not get the institutions of government reinstated in practice and in spirit in the very near future, the ingredients are there for the rebirth of the intolerable situation we had for the past 30 years. If those parties cannot agree then the British and Irish Governments have an obligation to act in unison to fill the void and put in place a system that will guarantee justice and equality for all people and afford protection from the trouble makers to all those who want to live in harmony with respect for each other. Time is not on our side. Mr. Norris: I join my colleagues in congratulating the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland and giving our thanks, as southerners, to them. I also congratulate Senator George Mitchell who showed infinite patience, General de Chastelain and President Clinton, who made this a clear objective of his presidency and gave it a priority in the scheme of American foreign policy which Irish affairs did not have until recently. We are in their debt. We are also fortunate that Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson are involved, as well as our own new Minister for Foreign Affairs, to whom I offer my good wishes on his appointment to what is undoubtedly the plum post in Government. We are confronted with a very difficult situation. The progress made cannot be rolled back, people have had a taste of real democracy in the North of Ireland and they were heartened to see Government Ministers from such a variety of parties. Three years ago it would have been unthinkable that there would be Ministers from the Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP working together and discussing the local issues which are so relevant to people. That brief taste of politics will prove to be extremely important. We are, however, at a difficult stage. I welcome Senator Manning's comments about the response of the media. Some elements of the media here have been irresponsible, and not just in print. I was appalled when I listened on the radio to Tim Pat Coogan attacking John Taylor, by no means my favourite politician, in the most grossly personal terms, saying that he was too rotund to be called the mad hatter. That is not a very high level of political debate from someone who describes himself as a historian. On this occasion John Taylor was moderate and controlled in his response, but it made the arguments coming from this part of the island look very thin indeed. We should look at the position of Sinn Féin. It is crunch time for that party. I recognise that it is not easy and that a long and difficult road has been travelled, at some personal risk, by people like Gerry Adams. I also note, however, the behaviour of people such as Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris in the United States, where they were clearly playing a game of poker when they told the American audience that there would be no decommissioning and that Trimble could not afford to be seen to have the institutions suspended. How wrong they were. It is also important to pay tribute to David Trimble. I never liked him. I never liked his appearance on radio and television. I saw him as threatening, intolerant, bigoted and rough tongued. However, he also has changed and he has been seen to be flexible. He did jump. I remember his phrase "jumping together". Mr. Trimble jumped while Mr. Adams and the rest sat on the ditch sniggering. They did not jump. A catalogue of things has been done. The institutions of Government have been established, Sinn Féin Ministers have been in Government, prisoners have been released and there has been a certain de-escalation of the military situation by the British. What has happened on the other side? We are told the guns are silent. Is this something for which we ought to give a chorus of praise? Is the silence of guns not what should be the normal sound in a democracy? We are entitled to expect a little more. I condemn the loyalist side. They have committed some of the most appalling, barbarous and outrageous acts of the past 30 years. However, they have apologised. Some may find this sickening, and any apology is inadequate for the bestial excesses committed by these people, but they said they bitterly regretted what had been done. There was also decommissioning and they issued a statement saying the war was over. Where is the balancing of this on the other side? I have yet to see it. The suspension of the institutions was part of what appeared to be a very dangerous poker game played to the end. All of us were losers. Apparently a proposal was put by the IRA to representatives of General de Chastelain at a time when it was virtually impossible for it to be considered by Peter Mandelson and the Northern Ireland authorities. This was deliberately done, yet commentators said it would be impossible, having placed such a proposal on the table to withdraw it. I heard many seasoned commentators say it would be unrealistic and unthinkable. Nevertheless, it was whipped off the table. That was astonishing behaviour and it begs the question, was it a real offer?

I call on Sinn Féin and the IRA to spell out with absolute clarity and to confirm in public what precisely were the terms of that offer. I also call on them to make it clear that it has not been removed and that it is once more on the table. If this is not done, it shows not only that poker was being played but that it was a very childish game. It is the kind of thing children do when they are in dispute with each other. One says he will not play any more and will take his toys home. We have gone beyond that and we must demand that the proposal is now reinstated. Movements should be made by the British which could perhaps help to restore some degree of confidence. For example, there should be a full independent investigation of the murders of people like Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finucane. There should also be a detailed inquiry into the destruction of arms that were used on Bloody Sunday in Derry. That kind of thing is intolerable. Very few people will be able to have confidence in an administration that presides over this kind of suspicious behaviour. It is clear that leaders on the republican side have travelled a good way and I applaud that in so far as it goes. It was noticeable that Sinn Féin found itself incapable of condemning in clear and unambiguous terms even the Omagh bombing, an event of seismic proportions on this island. However, things have changed and when Mahon's hotel was bombed recently at a critical point in these developments, Gerry Adams found it possible, for the first time, to condemn this kind of thing. That is to be welcomed. However, there is further to go. Even during the period of the Administration it was significant that Minister Bairbre de Brún was unable to support the officials in her Department who were subject to threat. Today again there is news of ordinary workers in the electricity industry being brutalised in south County Armagh. This kind of behaviour is intolerable. Of course it is true to say, as John Hume has said on many occasions, that the divisions in our society are not on a map, they are divisions within the minds and hearts of people. In the same way decommissioning is a kind of token gesture because people can easily re-arm if they want to. Nevertheless, it is a confidence building measure. If people are committed to democratic government they certainly will not want semtex. Senator Manning made an important point when he said that Gerry Adams may well find that it is not the worst situation to confront if there is ultimately a split to be faced, because a crunch moment must come. If people will not give up undemocratic methods and will not stop resorting to the bullet and the bomb instead of the ballot box, anybody who is genuinely committed to democracy must take a different route. This is what happened in this country. If the Sinn Féin people were in government and holding Ministries, would they not perhaps be the best people to deal with the subversives from their own background? When I look at the behaviour of these people, their background and training, I weep for their idea of patriotism and nationalism. Throughout recent history the armed republican movement has had a shameful record of collaboration with the enemies of democracies, both within and outside this State. During the 1930s and 1940s they actively collaborated with the Nazis and subsequently with the Stasi in East Germany and the KGB in Russia. There are recent reports of a splinter group being trained in Kampuchea by the remnants of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. "By your friends shall ye know people." It is for these reasons it is very important that the republican movement is now seen to jump. Mr. Trimble was invited to jump, there was a suggestion that there would be a "jump together", but the other side has not jumped. It appears as if certain undertakings were tacitly understood and a great deal of parsing and analysis went on in the media here and in England about what was meant by the phrase "tacit understanding" - how real could it be, how substantial was it, what did it mean, did it have any standing? I put that in the context of the fact that at some of the meetings where these nods and winks were exchanged, the Sinn Féin side insisted that there should be no note taking. That seems to have escaped comment down here, but when I heard about it I wondered why. If there is this kind of discussion, if it is genuine and if they wish to build trust, why are they afraid of the taking of notes and a record? Are they afraid that it would then be seen that they had committed themselves to much more than they were prepared to admit in public? For this reason and for the reasons of openness and accountability, the IRA and Sinn Féin must place on the record exactly what was suggested to General de Chastelain. There is no doubt that there will be continuing problems, even if the most positive gloss is put on this developing situation. What, for example, will paramilitaries do as these people exercise power and have status and authority within their communities which derives not from the ballot box but from the gun? When the gun is taken out of the equation what authority or status will they have? Are they likely to easily withdraw from this situation of influence? I think very serious questions are posed by this situation. Many of these people, particularly those on the fringes, have been involved in racketeering, drugs and protection. Will the paramilitaries give up these sources of income? I think this will become a very complex situation. Will these people receive IRA style pensions? How will they be kept content and out of circulation? There is a danger, even when peace is finally copperfastened, that because of the long drawn-out conflict over 30 years we have allowed develop a Mafia style network of contacts. We see the interpenetration of so-called ordinary decent criminals with republican groups in the criminal underworld both North and South. I remind the House that this is exactly how the Mafia began in Italy, a movement which was first established to protect individuals and society but which became a criminal movement. I wish the peace process well. We must be very honest on both sides of the Border. We should be outspoken and the demands made of the different parties should be clearly levelled at them. Irish people who have spoken through the Good Friday Agreement have a right to expect no less than the highest standards or democracy and accountability from all parties which are currently represented in the political process in the North. Mr. Cassidy: I wish to share time with the deputy leader, Senator Dardis. An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed. Mr. Cassidy: I also welcome the US Ambassador, Mr. O'Sullivan, to the House. It is good to see him here taking such a keen interest in the affairs of our country. As a representative of the US and of President Bill Clinton, he is most welcome. I also welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Davern, and congratulate the Minister, Deputy Cowen, on his appointment. Those of us who watched the television programme on RTE last Monday at 9.30 p.m. saw the route through which our country was established and the difficulties people such as the Leas-Chathaoirleach's grandfather, Éamon de Valera, Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith and all the great men and women who fought so hard for our freedom had at that time. I welcome and congratulate Deputy Eoin Ryan on his appointment. I am reminded of the proud tradition of his family and the Leas-Chathaoirleach's family through the years. Their grandfathers and fathers made a remarkable contribution, a tradition they are carrying on. Deputy Davern's family has also made a marvellous contribution in this regard. Without such a strong past and such a strong commitment to peace on this part of the island many Members of both Houses would not have the desire, motivation or determination to serve our country as long and hard every day. I listened attentively to previous contributions. I live in a parish in Leinster which is on the Ulster border and I have much experience of the massive difficulties which the people in Northern Ireland have experienced over the past 30 years or more. Before entering this House I spent at least 40% of my time working in Northern Ireland and saw how prosperous it was at that time. It was years ahead of the economy and infrastructure in the South. To see what has happened in the North in comparison to how we have progressed and prospered in the South in the past 30 years gives great testimony to what can happen when there is peace. We are full members of the EU and have gained from all the benefits of membership since the late Jack Lynch, when Taoiseach, signed the accession treaty. There is much rhetoric with people making statements about things that might and might not happen. The fact of the matter is that we have peace. Who is afraid of peace? Albert Reynolds, as Taoiseach, helped broker the ceasefire together with John Major and the various party leaders in the North at that time. All Taoisigh and Ministers for Foreign Affairs did their utmost to bring about peace and I congratulate and laud them for their massive efforts in this regard. We have peace and let us hope and pray to God that it will last. We are perceived as a peaceful destination and right across the world we are admired as a friendly race which was never afraid to work to the best of our potential no matter what country we landed in. Most people who emigrated did so through lack of employment. It is hugely positive that we no longer have that problem. We have turned around our economy because we are a determined people led by determined Governments. While the media and most commentators might from time to time be in the business of speaking negatively about politicians, if we were part of a plc we would be in the top league in the world for our stewardship of the economy and other affairs on the island, particularly since 1987. Peace is an even greater bonus and the greatest achievement since we gained our freedom in the South. We hope that what we say will help the process. It may be a short step back, but I know and hope this is going to be a lasting peace. I look forward to the contributions of our eminent Senators who live in the North. I thank the Minister for coming to the House at reasonably short notice and I thank the various groups in the House for their understanding over recent years regarding the timing of statements on Northern Ireland. It was necessary to have statements today in light of what is currently happening. Mr. Dardis: I join in welcoming the Minister of State, Deputy Davern. I commend what the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, said and I wish him well in the onerous responsibilities he is taking on, including his work on the peace process, on behalf of us all. There is general disappointment, not just on this island but also across the Atlantic, that the Northern Ireland Assembly and power sharing Executive have been suspended and that the IRA has not commenced decommissioning arms and explosives. Nevertheless there is much from which we can take solace, such as the fact that we have not gone back to the dark days we experienced when we repeatedly had to mourn the victims of bombings, shootings and sheer bloody murder. There were too many Greysteels, Loughinislands, Enniskillens, Darkleys, Warrenpoints - the list goes on. It was an unending catalogue which culminated in the barbarism at Omagh. Ironically, there is a lesson of hope in the Omagh tragedy. The calculated diabolical plan to wreck the peace process failed after the Omagh bombing. Having come through that, we can get through the present impasse. Since the suspension of the institutions the blame game has been played out ad nauseum in the media. I agree with virtually everything Senator Manning said. Apportioning blame is a futile, sterile exercise. For once we must look to the future and concentrate on how to advance peace and understanding on this island and restore normal democratic political activity in Northern Ireland. There appears to be something in our character which demands that we continually look back and dwell on what might have been. It is a natural trait but Irish people seem to indulge in it to a remarkably exaggerated extent. George Mitchell referred to that in his book which described his work leading up to the Good Friday Agreement. In one of his few outbreaks of frustration he found it virtually impossible to understand how we can circle an issue and talk about it interminably without ever getting to the heart of it and appearing to want to resolve it. That was one of the few occasions when he was critical in his book. The nub of the issue is how to restore the institutions and at the same time secure an unequivocal commitment to decommissioning from the IRA and ensure that all the conditions of the Agreement are met. As the Minister remarked in his contribution, which I applaud, it is the template upon which everything else is built. It had the overwhelming endorsement of all the people on this island and its conditions need to be fulfilled. There is a dangerous vacuum and it is the job of all politicians on these islands, but especially in Northern Ireland, to ensure that it is filled quickly. The longer it exists the greater the danger that the impressive progress that has been made will be lost. Our appeal to everyone, especially the parties in Northern Ireland, must be to continue to work in order to restore the institutions as quickly as possible and to take the gun and bomb out of politics in this island permanently. We have come too far to turn back, as Prime Minister Blair and others have said, but it is an obviously important statement to make. The extent of progress would have been almost unimaginable just five or ten years ago other than to the most optimistic people, who would have been laughed at. The Minister was correct to state that the fundamentals are basically sound because in terms of the normality of political life, Ministers, senior politicians and civil servants are moving freely between Dublin and Stormont, Dublin and London and across the Atlantic and vice versa. Internal movement on this island, in particular, would have generated banner headlines not very long ago but it has become routine in terms of democratic cross-Border co-operation. Parties which would not even communicate with each other work together and those of us who were fortunate enough to be members of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation experienced that at first hand. I recall attending Dublin Castle on the first day of the forum and wondering how I would greet members of Sinn Féin and whether I would shake hands with them. All of us stepped forward but the step which others have taken has been much greater and that must be acknowledged. Northern Ireland politicians are working for the North. One of the great aspects of the normality which has entered politics there was farmers protesting outside Stormont. The Minister of State will relate to this because we have become accustomed to that, even though we do not always welcome it. It was great that people could protest outside their Parliament building, a right which is part of the democracy we espouse. Everyone in the Assembly and the Executive applied themselves with great vigour and energy and there was a genuine sense of achievement when the different political bodies were functioning well without any sign of obstruction, which some people had gloomily forecast. It also demonstrated the appetite that exists for normal politics in Northern Ireland. No party was merely going through the motions in the new institutions or biding its time as it waited for the new political edifice to crumble. It is obvious that the will is manifestly there to move forward. All of that could only have been achieved through the building of mutual trust painfully and laboriously. I welcome the presence of Ambassador Sullivan in the House. When he arrived on this island I was fortunate to be near him when both of us attended the European Rugby Cup Final at Landsdowne Road and witnessed the wonderful celebration of what it meant to be from Ulster. He did not understand very much of what was going on on the pitch but it was a great day. Perhaps our interminable talking, notwithstanding what George Mitchell said, has merits. The greatest prize is the silence of the gun. I agree with Senator Norris that that is not a matter for praise but one for tremendous relief and celebration. The world stands by bewildered and exasperated having witnessed the events of recent weeks, including the suspension of the Assembly and Executive. We must ask ourselves how much longer we can test the patience of our American and other overseas friends. We must be aware of the fact that Mr. Clinton will leave office shortly and we must acknowledge and salute his support for the Northern Ireland peace process. We must wonder whether his successor will be as supportive and become engaged in the problems of this island. The people have spoken overwhelmingly, powerfully and unequivocally in terms of their support for the Good Friday Agreement and the democratic institutions. As democratic politicians we have no right to reject the endorsement of the Agreement. There has been a certain revisionism about the redrafting of Articles 2 and 3 in that we might not have done it had we known what would happen. Young people who see themselves as citizens of a wider Europe and the world carry no baggage in regard to these Articles, nor should we. We are faced with a tiny, unrepresentative group to whom the voice of the people is meaningless. These people are fundamentalists. Ayatollahs are present in south Armagh, Portadown and elsewhere and they are immutable, regardless of anything we say in this House or the voice of the people. We must recognise that but it is our responsibility, as practising democrats, to ensure that our will is not subverted by a tiny group of people who bear nothing other than fundamentalism and hatred in their hearts. We have the responsibility of bringing the Agreement back into play with all its conditions and the institutions attendant on it. I commend the Taoiseach, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Trimble, Mr. Mallon, Mr. Adams and all the others who are involved in this work. We have seen too many funerals to go back. I hope and pray that we will not see any more. We want normal democratic politics to operate without any claims or threats by anybody. On these occasions we are conscious of what Gordon Wilson said when he was a Member of this House. Mr. O'Dowd: This is an important debate and I agree with everything that has been said, especially by Senator Dardis. He took the words from my mouth. We have travelled so far along this road that it would be utterly unacceptable to stop now. As the Minister said clearly in his contribution, we are not going to let this go. The clear message from the Government, the Opposition and the whole community is that the benefits of the Good Friday Agreement, including the silencing of the guns five years ago, have been tremendous for the whole country. I live in a Border county, County Louth, which has made significant economic progress since the first IRA ceasefire. As a result of inward American investment, thousands of jobs have been created in the county, particularly in Dundalk, where upwards of 3,000 new jobs have been created since the ceasefire and the change in the economic and political conditions. Obviously we would like a better distribution of these jobs throughout the county. I cannot speak for all the other Border counties but the ceasefire has made a significant impact which has transformed our local economy. That would never have happened were it not for the influence of President Clinton and his Administration and the goodwill they brought to the whole Irish question. President Clinton will leave office at the end of this year and I hope the new President will have the same interest in our country. As Senator Dardis said, we cannot continue to look for another broker outside these shores to solve our problems. I understand clearly the exasperation and the concern of the international community in regard to the affairs of our small State. We have brought this process so far, and it has involved the most powerful and influential nation in the world, along with Britain, but we suddenly find that it is falling apart. It is great to see everybody renew their efforts and try once again, but how long can we continue in this vein? How long can we continue to seek a permanent resolution to this problem? Looking at events as they unfolded on television recently upset me and the whole country. There is a need for greater statesmanship, particularly on the part of the leadership of the Unionist party and of Sinn Féin. I detected notes of triumphalism on both sides recently which are erroneous and give the wrong message to the wild men on both sides. The leadership of the main parties in the North need to think again before matters are allowed to be driven to that extreme. The de Chastelain report, which was published post these events, seemed to have indicated significant progress. Some people say if it had been published some hours or even a day earlier, it would have made all the difference. The reality is that politics is the art of the possible and I cannot understand why it was not possible to make that progress before the last moment had passed. The mechanisms involved in this delay brought about the current crisis and everybody is trying to get the process back on an even keel. The Government cannot allow this process to drift. We support fully the efforts of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and everybody else involved, particularly President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair. We are fortunate that such people are in power in those countries. If we cast our minds back to the leaders in Britain and the United States in recent years, they would not have had the same interest, and other leaders may not have the same interest in the future. We must find a resolution now. There is a significant role for Sinn Féin south of the Border. In my county, County Louth, Sinn Féin has become involved in local politics, and we welcome that. There is a place for them, they have an important voice and a contribution to make. No matter how much we dislike what they say on issues such as landfill, employment and so on, and no matter how much they keep us on our toes, we welcome their participation. It is far better to have democratic exchange and to debate the issues about which people are concerned in our newspapers and on the radio than to go back to the situation that existed previously. Senator Manning made the point that at the end of the day Sinn Féin has to choose between the dark path and a bright future. It must make the choice between democracy and chaos for themselves and for the country. Nobody wants to go back to the way things were and I would like Sinn Féin to consider carefully all of the benefits for it in the democratic system, including Ministers in the Northern Assembly and potential TDs in the South. Sinn Féin and its supporters have an important and recognised role. They worked well with the SDLP and the Unionists in the North and there is a significant place for them in the South also if they keep to the path of peace and remain committed to democracy. That is the choice they must make. They have made that choice in the past but they have to go further down the road and if that means telling the men of violence in their midst that this is the end, so be it. Every effort must be made by all of us in the South through our Government to resolve this matter. The bread and butter politics of job creation and looking after our communities North and South rest on this carefully crafted Agreement, and it must work. To repeat the words of the Minister, we must see this process through to the end and every effort must be made by all the other parties to ensure that happens in a spirit of statesmanship and commitment. We must look to the future and, for the sake of the next generation, it must succeed. Dr. M. Hayes: I welcome the Minister and I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Cowen, on his appointment to this extremely onerous role. I welcome him to the citizens' club of those of us who, for the past 30 years or more, have been pushing this great rock up to the top of the mountain, only to see it roll down again. The Good Friday Agreement presents the best opportunity for a long time, and there is no likelihood of any better being produced in the immediate future, of a structure which is capable of keeping that stone in place. I am sorry Senator Haughey has left the Chamber because I would like to refer to his contribution. I have not worked out fully what he was saying - I will read it - but I hope it was not an expression of Government policy because that would worry me. There was an element of trying to put a lot of blame on Peter Mandelson, which is not going anywhere. It appeared to be an element of Unionist bashing. There was an indication that we should perhaps pursue this matter in the courts. I know he has a peculiar appetite for litigation but these are not legal problems, these are political problems to be solved politically. That is what we must address ourselves to. If one wishes to throw petrol on the flames, one can start talking about joint authority. Nothing is more likely to rouse the sleeping wrath of loyalist paramilitaries. I was delighted the Minister paid a generous tribute to all the parties in Northern Ireland. Like others, I was particularly glad to hear the names of John Hume and the SDLP, the people who tended the democratic flame for so long. It is good to see some return coming to them now. As a former Northern Ireland civil servant, I was delighted and stimulated to see the Executive working. It was wonderful to see the distressed farmers of Northern Ireland suddenly find a voice in Bríd Rodgers. It was great to see Martin McGuinness taking crisp decisions in support of integrated education and to see Peter Robinson begin to get a grip on transport policy and roads. People on all sides appreciated it, as did the public servants with whom they dealt. It represents the best hope for the future that people work together on social and economic problems and learn to trust each other in that way. To come back to the current impasse, I believe the process is bumping along the bottom. I hope it can bump into clear water with a bit of luck and goodwill. If it does not, it might remain stuck for a long period and that should be a cause of worry to everyone. I do not foresee a return to immediate terrible war but one can envisage a situation in which peace, which people have come to value and enjoy so much, could begin to unravel. We need to support the people on both sides of the equation, as it were, who are anxious to make this process work. We should encourage the democrats on the Unionist and republican sides. If decommissioning is voluntary, so is participation. We cannot have a settlement without the Unionists and we cannot have a settlement without Sinn Féin. What we must do is help them to create the circumstances in which both can sit down together again and begin to repair the institutions that still exist but are currently unmanned. The bedrock of the process over the last few years has been the unity of purpose of the British and Irish Governments and the fact that they have moved together with the common aim, perhaps with a difference of nuance from time to time, of making the process work. I commend the Minister for reasserting that. The Taoiseach, who has done wonderful things in the process and has worked unsparingly at it, will keep at it along with Tony Blair. Senator Dardis spoke about the will of the people. The will of the Irish people was never so overwhelmingly expressed as in the referenda North and South on the Good Friday Agreement. It was particularly strongly expressed among Nationalist and republican voters - 94.5% in the North. The people were voting for the agreement, for politics, for an end to violence and to say that any further differences people might have on this island can and must be resolved through politics alone. It would be a shame for all democratic parties on this island if that democratically expressed will were to be frustrated or flouted by a small number of people who wish, for traditional, emotional or whatever other reasons, to hold onto the materials of war. The real problem for Unionists and other parties is that the republican movement is a two-headed creature and when they are dealing with it they need to know which head is giving the orders. We had hoped that the cliché of the Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other had been removed and that there was no doubt that the way forward is the ballot box and nothing but the ballot box. That is the crucial point which needs to be made. I share the view of many that the war is over, has been over for some time and that what we have been trying to do is to find for people a way out of the positions they are in so they can move with dignity, without loss of face and without appearing to surrender elements or traditions that are valuable to them, into the new dispensation of politics. We should all be in the business of encouraging emerging democrats, from whatever side of the divide. The IRA statement which was handed to General de Chastelain was, for those of us who study this type of rhetoric, a significant movement forward. If it had come three months previously, we would not be in the current position. At the time it arrived, whether it was 4.55 p.m. or 5.30 p.m., its form was not sufficient for the Unionists. It merely moved the grammar from the subjunctive to the future conditional and it added a couple of other conditions which were unexplained but which made matters a good deal more difficult. Nevertheless, it is an important statement. It is a statement which the parties should now attempt to build on, to flesh out, to see what can be got from it and to see what movement there is. Decommissioning has become one of the great symbolic issues and the form and methodology of decommissioning is a good deal less important and infinitely more negotiable than a declaration of intent. The Unionists want to know, more than anything, that the guns will not be used against them. They need to know that they will not be shot at, that there will be no more incidents like Teebane, no more atrocities. They want to be reassured that if there are political difficulties, the Armalite will not be picked up again. If such an assurance could be given in terms sufficient to convince General de Chastelain, the timing and nature of taking arms out of the equation is negotiable and could be dealt with. However, that is a prerequisite. We should leave it to them and General de Chastelain to deal with it. We need a trade off that enables the Unionists to be reassured in that regard and enables the other parties to be reassured that there will be full implementation of the Agreement. Full implementation of the Agreement means implementation of the human rights agenda, the review of the criminal justice arrangements and the implementation of policing reforms. It is possible if people keep their heads, insist on not recriminating or looking for scapegoats and encourage people who wish to be democrats to become democrats. The will of the people needs to be expressed, that is, those who have tasted peace, who can now let their children go to the pub at night without fear of it being broken up, who see their husbands going out to work knowing that they will not be blown up on the way there or back, the wives of policemen and others who see their husbands and fathers go to work and come home again. That has been an enormous prize. It has been said before that we have made so much progress over the past few years it would be wrong to become dispirited and cry doom because we have hit a rock. I wish the Minister, the Government and all the parties well and pray to God that they can bring the process to a reasonable and successful conclusion. Dr. Henry: It is hard to follow the wise words of Senator Hayes. It is good that the tone of the debate has been one of going forward rather than of recriminations about the last blip on the political horizon. It is important that we try to think about and concentrate on the good that has happened in the past few months as well as setting our minds towards resolving the situation so that the Assembly can resume. Good exists in many areas, such as the cross-Border bodies which are working very well. I heard no complaints from people in the North about the performance of their Ministers. Northern Irish people on a cross-party basis seemed to be pleased with them. Smaller efforts exist and I would especially like to highlight the establishment of the George Mitchell scholarships. The importance of the American input into the peace process in Northern Ireland cannot be underestimated. I pay great tribute to Trina Vargo who was for years Senator Edward Kennedy's political adviser on Northern Ireland. She decided to establish this institution, on whose advisory committee Senator Manning sits, to encourage the establishment of scholarships for young Americans to come to Ireland to look at cross-Border institutions and the political process here. It is good to see the establishment of such initiatives. The first scholars will arrive in the autumn and they seem to be a prestigious body of young people. I will not bore the House with the number of joint initiatives which have been taken by the health Departments in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for the betterment of patients in both jurisdictions. They have resulted in much less travelling, especially for people from Donegal who are now treated in Northern Ireland, and the initiatives are good for the training of young doctors who can undertake part of their training in either jurisdiction. The British Medical Association and the Irish Medical Association will for the first time ever later this year hold a joint conference in the Slieve Russell Hotel. The more institutions - professional, trade union, academic, community or whatever - which involve themselves in cross-Border initiatives, the better because the problem has been not only that the two communities in Northern Ireland do not know each other but also that the contact between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been too remote for too long. I welcome a change in that regard. People have stressed Unionist fears and most, if not all, Unionists are Protestants. I saw an opinion poll in The Irish Times today carried out in Northern Ireland which showed that 36% of Protestants felt there would be a united Ireland within 20 years. I regret they did not greet that with enthusiasm. I could have done with some support on certain occasions down here. It is sad to see that we are still viewed in many cases with such apparent fear by Protestants and I will certainly do all in my power, as will many of my co-religionists, to dispel this notion. There is a feeling on the part of many Protestants in Northern Ireland that people in the South in the new millennium exist in a world more reminiscent of the 1950s. A great deal more social progress has been made in this part of the island than has been made in Northern Ireland. I will not deal with my usual topic of fresh atrocities against women or something similar, but the involvement of women in the political process has been greater in the Republic of Ireland than it has been in Northern Ireland. It is interesting to note that the two women involved in the Executive are from the Republic of Ireland. I will try to ensure that more women become involved in public and political life in Northern Ireland. I thank Ulster Bank for asking me and others, such as Professor Helen Burke and Dr. Margaret McCurtin, to speak at cross-Border, middle management seminars involving people from the Civil Service, the medical profession and various other disciplines in Northern Ireland. Ulster Bank and Sir George Quigley have been very generous in funding small seminars such as this. Giving insight into each other's activities is incredibly important and cross-Border communication is one of the most important issues. Senator Maurice Hayes spoke about decommissioning. I find it depressing that the power to block progress has again been handed to those who have guns. I am sure it was done unwittingly, although it is rude to say that as it implies that those who did it did not understand what they were doing. However, if one group says to another that it will not do something unless the other group does something, the latter group will gain power if it does not do what is requested of it. That is regrettable. I hope the various paramilitary groups understand that the word "decommissioning" does not have to mean going to the nearest RUC station and handing in guns. The Bishop of Derry made a good offer last week when he said that ordnance could be brought to him. Those types of solutions are possible. I remember about five years ago suggesting at the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation that leaving a large box of semtex without a detonator in a field in Cavan would be useful in progressing matters. Even without that, we have made progress. I hope we will manage somehow to make progress again, despite this block being allowed to get in the way. I understand the concern about the quantities of semtex, guns and ammunition in Northern Ireland and not just those held by the paramilitaries. I attended a meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body last week. I express my regret at what appears to be the death of the chairman of the committee on which I sit, Michael Colvin, in a tragic fire in his home last night. I asked at that meeting if the British Government would consider extending to Northern Ireland the gun laws introduced in Great Britain after the Dunblane massacre because there is an enormous amount of weaponry in the North. There are gun clubs and people with hand guns, all of which are legally held. There seems to be a gun culture there and I would like to see the legislation in force in Great Britain extended to Northern Ireland. Deputy Flanagan raised the matter when he made a report to the BIIP and I thought it was a useful suggestion. I approached some of the British Members after the meeting to suggest to them that it might be useful if there were movement on all sides as regards guns. Perhaps the Minister might put that on his agenda when he next speaks with Mr. Mandelson. The fact that there is so much semtex is a constant worry because preventing leakage of such ordnance must be extraordinarily difficult. It must be remembered that the IRA was on ceasefire when the worst massacre of the troubles, the Omagh bomb, took place, and it was carried out by one of the splinter groups. It is almost impossible to see how such leakage can be prevented, even if people think it can. Decommissioning does not have to mean visiting the local RUC barracks - any venue can be chosen. The gun laws in Great Britain should be extended to Northern Ireland so that guns from all sides are handed in. Cross-community groups in Northern Ireland have been extremely important in the past 30 years. Now is the time to spend whatever money we have to help them - one should not economise when in difficulty. If money is needed for a project, it should be spent on it now. There is no point having that money in the bank. If cross-Border or community groups in the North or South ask the Minister for financial help, I hope he spends the money available. Now is the time for action. I was alarmed to hear Danny Morrison the other night on "Questions and Answers" when he appeared to ask if Tony Blair's response would have been different on that fateful Friday if the IRA had sent a note to London stating that a car bomb had been planted instead of sending a second message to General de Chastelain. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but I regretted his comment. None of us could survive the thought of notes being sent in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or Great Britain stating that unless a certain action is taken, a car bomb will be planted. I hope we move forward with the ballot box. Mr. Lanigan: Sometimes when we speak about Northern Ireland affairs it feels like we are talking to ourselves and that our message does not reach those outside the House. However, it is important to continue to speak about such matters. The guns are silent and that gives hope for continuing peace in the North of Ireland. However, there are dangers in that a great amount of armaments and ammunition are still held in the North of Ireland which could be used if there was a resumption of violence. It is difficult to be positive when the institutions have been suspended. I do not know how the Minister, the Government, the British Government and the parties in the North will find a way to reinstate the institutions. I am sure everyone agrees with Senator Maurice Hayes's statement, particularly as he has been involved in analysing the situation for the past 30 years. We must acknowledge that someone had enough influence on the people holding the guns and ammunition, whether it is semtex or whatever else, to force them not to use them. The issue of decommissioning has been the bugbear. There has been no other argument about the Good Friday Agreement over recent months. Arms should be given up under the Agreement. I have not heard the IRA state that it will give up guns and ammunition. We do not know the people in the IRA, although people say that Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison speak directly for that organisation. However, today's statement by Gerry Adams that he will no longer be a messenger boy must be taken into account. The only way forward is for General de Chastelain to speak directly to the IRA. The Minister said that the commission states in categorical terms that it believes that the new commitment it received from the IRA "holds out the real prospect of an agreement which would enable it to fulfil the substance of its mandate". We must listen carefully to what it said because it could be the way forward. Who will the British and Irish Governments talk to if they cannot talk to Gerry Adams? I do not know if General de Chastelain can encourage the IRA to sit down with representatives of the two Governments. It is obvious there was direct contact between civil servants in both Administrations with members of the IRA in recent years, otherwise we could not have achieved what we did. The Good Friday Agreement led people to believe that peace was coming to the North. It is no longer a harrowing experience to go to work in the morning or to go out at night. People can go to sporting events, to the pub or to their job without the fear of being blown up. They do not have to ring their neighbours or friends on their route to ask them about signs of problems. There is peace in the North. People are confident that they can grow up in peace and do normal, everyday things. It will be difficult for any section of the population to go back to the old days of the bomb and the bullet. The majority of the people will not allow that to happen. We must compliment the Taoiseach, the previous and current Ministers for Foreign Affairs and the Department officials for their energy and work in ensuring that progress is made in the North of Ireland. It would be a pity if the island's prosperity was harmed by a return to violence. The Celtic tiger economy has improved people's incomes and lives in the South. I hope that if peace is maintained in the North the economic growth will spread to the entire island and benefit everyone. People have complained that Peter Mandelson jumped the gun, although that phrase could be inappropriate. He, the Irish Government and all politicians were brought to the brink by various people and just when we had gone over the threshold, the IRA sent its statement to General de Chastelain. The institutions have been suspended but the commission must state that it holds out the real prospect of an agreement which would enable it to fulfil the substance of its mandate. We must sell that point. I do not know how the Government will sell it to the IRA. It is an IRA statement but it must be sold in order that Unionists can believe that there is a real agreement. Members often feel that they are talking to themselves in this House. Nevertheless, it is important that we give the Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs every encouragement to go on even though, as he said himself, he did not realise the large amount of commitment, long hours and hard work that has been put in to reach the present stage. I know he has the commitment and energy to continue that work and I wish him well. It is in all our interests that a peaceful and final resolution is found to the problems that have beset this island for so many years. Mr. Costello: I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the House and I congratulate him on his appointment. This is a sad occasion for us to debate the North because over the past two years there has been a wonderful sense of hope and optimism that the elements in the Good Friday Agreement would mesh together and become one in progress towards the eventual solution to the impasse in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, events in recent weeks have dashed that hope to a considerable extent. The suspension of the Executive is a serious blow to the way forward and the progress that was being made. The reluctance of the IRA to come forward with a formula on decommissioning and its decision to end direct contact with General de Chastelain are negative and adverse events. The impasse is becoming more difficult as times goes by. A range of comments, recriminations and bitterness have been expressed, along with blaming and seeking scapegoats. We are almost back to the days of megaphone diplomacy by many of the participant parties who seemed to have been communicating well recently. We look wistfully at the success of the Executive which was in place for a brief eight weeks, at some of its achievements and at how people were taking to democracy so quickly and easily. I mention specifically the success of Martin McGuinness as Minister for Education. People laughed at his appointment initially, but he had the vision to introduce a measure to provide for free pre-school education in Northern Ireland. The measure is far ranging and one that we could well examine here. In many ways we are back to the old days. The Minister in his statement expressed considerable optimism. He said that "The problems we face can and will be resolved. The fundamentals in this process are sound." I am not as optimistic as I was previously that that is the case. The Good Friday Agreement is the benchmark for all. It is a wonderful document but all its elements needed to be implemented if we were going to make it a success. We seem to find it impossible to get past the decommissioning question. On the one hand, getting the IRA to face up to the issue - it sees it as a major symbol of surrender. It refuses to take a step forward on it and it seems now that it is determined not to decommission. On the other hand, it is the perception of the loyalists, Mr. Trimble and the official Unionists that decommissioning must take place prior to the final elements of the Good Friday Agreement operating permanently, particularly the Executive. All of us would like to see a way forward and we would like to think that it is not the case that the extremists on both sides have got much of what they want. IRA prisoners have been freed and considerable progress has been made on the police issue. The loyalists have got rid of Articles 2 and 3 and the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Extremists on both sides could say they are happy with what the Good Friday Agreement has delivered and that they will not take the step we expect of decommissioning and the final establishment of the Executive. We must try to find a way forward. We are in a new phase - as Senator Maurice Hayes said, a new dispensation - which may be outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement remains fundamental, there may now be a period of time when we will not simply be progressing within its parameters. There is now a sense that the IRA is looking at demilitarisation and the removal of all weapons in Northern Ireland as a starting point or a parallel point for its weapons being removed. It will see the British Army and its installations as parallel decommissioning bodies, as it were. That issue will probably have to be explored given that it is everyone's desire and the thrust of the Good Friday Agreement that all weapons be removed from Northern Ireland, whether they are paramilitary or military. That matter must be resolved and will be examined in the days to come. I made a proposal at a British Irish conference last week on decommissioning. In 1922 there was a level of decommissioning by the IRA. It presented a selection of weapons to the National Museum because at the time it seemed to be the end of the conflict. If a similar presentation was made now of a selection of weapons they could be held for posterity as a sample of what was used in the conflict. This measure could not be interpreted as a surrender in symbolic terms. There is a precedent which could be examined again. On a lighter note, Senator Henry suggested that a bag of semtex could be left in a field in Cavan. The farmers in Cavan would be delighted if it was a bag of fertiliser. It seems that the war is over. The guns are silent and it seems that the mindset of more extreme republicans is for a continuation of that state. If we accept and operate within those parameters we can make more progress. I know it will be difficult but they are important and fundamental parameters, and while they may not correspond with the institutions we want to see under the Good Friday Agreement, they can be built on. Speech Menu Top