| Mr. Cowen:
I readily acknowledge the positive aspects of the IRA statement of 25
October, in particular its reiteration of the IRA's commitment to a
just and equitable peace settlement. The IRA said it will resume
discussions with the commission only when it is satisfied that the
peace process will be advanced by those discussions. However, it is
clear to me that the process will always be advanced by such
discussions.
In our statement in May, the
two Governments asked the independent commission to consider, in
consultation with representatives of the paramilitary organisations,
whether there are any further proposals for decommissioning schemes
which offer the commission greater scope to proceed in more effective
and satisfactory ways with the discharge of its basic mandate. This is
clearly an area where substantial progress on resolving the question
of arms can be made through dialogue.
The two Governments also
have a vital role to play in creating the context in which progress
can be made. Policing is a matter that goes to the very heart of the
new dispensation envisaged in the Agreement. Success on policing is,
not to overstate it, essential to the success of the Agreement as a
whole. For Nationalists, it is a touchstone issue - a willingness to
accept transformative change on this issue is a vital signal that the
new beginning for society can be achieved. Policing was too difficult
and too emotive an issue for the parties to the Agreement to be able
to resolve themselves. Therefore, they rightly left it to an
independent commission to come forward with proposals that could
embody the vision of the Agreement - a vision of a new transformed
society with which Nationalists can identify and in which they can
play a full, involved and active part, a vision where the differing
identities and aspirations of the two communities are given equal
respect and weight.
Through its work, the Patten
Commission sought to make that vision a reality and I again pay
tribute to the distinguished role played by the commission - including
the Members' colleague, Senator Maurice Hayes, who made an immense
contribution to its work and who continues to bring his formidable
talents to bear in this House - in bringing forward a comprehensive,
balanced and achievable set of recommendations. The approach of the
commission was right from the outset. As its report stated, the
commission "did not try to balance what may be politically
acceptable to this group against what is reckoned to be acceptable to
that". Rather, it brought forward proposals for a policing
service which, in the words of the Agreement, "can enjoy
widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the
community as a whole".
The Bill to give effect to
the Patten recommendations brought forward by the British Government
in May was, as I said at the time, deficient in many respects. Now
that it has completed its passage through Westminster, it is only fair
to acknowledge that efforts have been made to assuage Nationalist
concerns in key areas and that the Bill has been improved in several
important and significant respects. However, perhaps in part due to
the adversarial nature of the legislative process, there is a fear
among many Nationalists that the big picture, the vision in the
Agreement and in Patten, has been lost sight of, a fear that seeking
to weigh what is sought by one side against what is perceived to be
unacceptable to the other could affect the transformative capacity of
the project.
I believe that the
Nationalist parties continue to want to see the project as a whole
succeed. At his party's conference, Séamus Mallon, for whom the
question of policing has been a vital issue throughout his long and
distinguished career, said that his party is willing to work the new
arrangements if they are workable, but that the British Government
must demonstrate this not just in the Bill, but also in the
implementation plan and its wider attitudes. Sinn Féin also stated
that it is prepared to withhold its definitive decision until the
final version of all the various components is in place.
The time has now come to
study and to reflect, to assess objectively how far we have come and
to see what remains to be done. We need to work to build on the
improvements that have been achieved so that there is certainty and
clarity about what will happen and when. Most of all, perhaps, we need
to work to build confidence and to provide reassurance that the vision
and values of the Agreement and of the Patten Commission continue to
lie at the heart of the policing project. Bringing a satisfactory
conclusion to a number of well-known cases that have undermined
Nationalist confidence in the administration of justice would also
greatly help in creating a new context.
We will continue to work
constructively with the parties and with the British Government in the
days ahead. In doing so, our priority should be clear. The policing
project is too important, too central to the Agreement, to run the
risk of failing. Without that Nationalist support, it simply cannot
succeed. We must continue to work to ensure that it does.
Throughout the peace process
we have learnt that it takes co-operation to move forward, that the
greatest progress is made when the two Governments work closely and
co-operatively together. We have come to realise that neither
community - Nationalist nor Unionist - can succeed in having its needs
met without the co-operation of the other. Like the institutions, the
futures of the two traditions on this island are interlocking and
interdependent. The parties need to be conscious of each other's
immediate needs and to be willing to help one another out so that full
implementation of the Agreement in all its aspects can eventually be
secured.
Equally, the pace of our
progress cannot be dictated by the forces of reaction on both sides.
We need courageous leadership to ensure that respective political
constituencies on both sides are led forward, not dragged backwards.
We need to move on from the stop-start approach that impedes our
progress and that threatens to undermine all we have achieved. We must
avail of every opportunity to promote the benefits the Agreement
offers us all. Economic opportunity and social inclusion measures are,
after all, as important on the Shankill as they are on the Falls.
The people need to reassert
their sense of ownership of the Agreement and to make their voices
heard. Being part of a political leadership team can be a lonely and
somewhat isolating experience. Civic society needs to be vocal and
active in its support for the Agreement to which the people of
Ireland, North and South, gave their overwhelming endorsement. They
need to stand four-square behind those who are struggling to see it
implemented in full so that their public representatives get on with
their real day to day business. That will create the necessary trust
and confidence and it will also resolve the more difficult issues in
an active and politically dynamic context.
The Agreement provided us
all with the opportunity for closure, to put an end to division,
conflict and zero-sum gain. It offers us the chance to close the book
on the tragedies of our past and to create a new and better future
together. There are those, republican dissidents included, who
continue to advocate the violent methods of the past. They are doomed
to fail. We will continue to be tireless in our efforts to bring those
who resort to violence to justice, but equally we will defeat them by
demonstrating that the Agreement has the potential to create a truly
new beginning and that politics works for everyone's benefit.
They are out of step with
the people of Ireland, North and South, who have chosen another,
better way. The people recognise that there is no credible or workable
alternative to the Agreement. It is our future and there can be no
turning back. We will continue to work with all of those who want the
Agreement implemented in full. We will leave no stone unturned in our
efforts and we will succeed.
Mr. Manning:
I welcome the Minister and I compliment him on a speech that was
positive and realistic. It was a comprehensive and insightful survey
of where we are today. I compliment him on the great sense of energy
and integrity he has brought to everything he has done, not only in
relation to Northern Ireland but throughout his career.
It is clear from the
Minister's speech that this is a taking stock debate - we are
considering what has happened since we last discussed Northern Ireland
in the House. The Minister was correct to put where we are into
context. It is easy to get bogged down in the day to day detail and to
forget how far we have come and how much has been achieved in the past
couple of years. It is easy to forget the sense of helplessness which
enveloped almost everybody through much of the 1970s and 1980s when
there was one attempt after another and it appeared impossible that
real dialogue would get under way. In that sense, the context must
always be stressed when people become pessimistic about Northern
Ireland.
A phrase we increasingly
hear in the economic arena these days is that we are suffering from
the problems of success. To a certain extent, all the problems
enumerated by the Minister are the result of the success of the past
couple of years. Each problem can be tackled and resolved on its own.
There might be trouble if they all arose at the same time, but each
one can be tackled in turn. Given what has been achieved to date, each
one is capable of being solved.
Those of us who visit the
North on a regular basis notice the sense of normality over most of
Northern Ireland now. The sooner Northern Ireland politics assumes the
same sense of normality and is concerned about the every day mundane
issues of political life, the closer we will be to seeing the Northern
Ireland problem as something that is of interest to historians but not
in day to day life. It is very refreshing and encouraging, from a
perspective of 80 years of stable democracy in this part of the
country where we take a great deal for granted, to see how well the
Ministers and many of the members of the new Assembly have taken to
parliamentary politics.
With regard to the
Ministers, Sir Reg Empey led a trade delegation to the US with
all-party backing from the Assembly. We can rightly be impressed by
the professionalism and the way he puts across the case for greater
investment in Northern Ireland. In my dealings with Dr. Sean Farren on
third level education I see someone almost born for the job. He loves
what he is doing and he is very good at it. He could grace any
ministry in any country. Martin McGuinness has impressed people who
have dealt with him on questions of education. He has shown a good
grasp of his brief and a great directness in stating his case. All of
these things are extremely encouraging and show that these people are
taking to parliamentary politics. This also applies to Assembly
members.
I hope the problems on the
North-South Ministerial Council can be resolved and it will be back in
action soon. The decision of Mr. David Trimble may have given him a
certain amount of short-term relief in a very difficult political
situation but to continue with this serves no purpose. It has become a
divisive issue. It is creating problems which are out of proportion to
what is involved. I hope some way can be found to take this pointless
and divisive issue off the agenda as soon as possible.
I was pleased the Minister
mentioned in his speech that the time may now be right to look at the
establishment of a North-South parliamentary body. I noticed that he
said this was not a matter for Governments. He is right. This is a
matter for parliaments. On an All-Party basis in both Houses here and
in consultation with the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly we
should start to look seriously at the establishment of a North-South
body.
We have seen from the
success of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body that politicians
across different divides have a great deal in common. We all deal with
the same sort of problems and the same sort of people, constituents
and the general public. We have a common language. We also have a
great deal to learn from each other. We, in particular, with our long
tradition of parliamentary democracy, would have a great deal to
contribute in helping to solidify and confirm the members of the
Assembly in their commitment to making their Assembly work. We could
learn from them. They have begun a parliamentary life unencumbered by
tradition. They can do things in a more businesslike and direct way
without the need to reinvent things to have the appropriate
circumstances. There is a great deal to be learned. We could have a
very positive body. It would be a very positive move if steps could be
taken. The Minister made the point that this was not a matter for
Government. Perhaps it is a matter for the Houses of Parliament.
We could easily be
discouraged if we took the problems in Northern Ireland one by one on
a day to day basis. It would be easy to be discouraged by the
instability which is evident at times in the leadership of the
Unionist Party and the constant sniping and attempts to undermine the
leader of that party. We see the unchanging nihilistic approach of the
DUP, an utterly destructive mindset which, if given its way, would
trap all of us in generations of blackness and paralysis. That has not
changed and it is a great pity. We always have to be alive to the
certainty that every bit of mischief and destruction that can be done
by these people will be done. We must be able to withstand all of it.
The Minister also mentioned
in very strong terms the nihilistic and very destructive approach of
the so called Real IRA. These people still believe they can achieve
their ends through violence and force the imposition of their will on
people who have rejected them in every way possible. All of us share
the Minister's determination that this group be given no opportunity
to undermine the Agreements or bring about misunderstanding either
between Governments or between democratic parties on any part of this
island.
We see the disappointment
felt by many Unionists, and not just Unionists, by the slowness of the
decommissioning process and the failure of the IRA to live up to the
spirit as well as the letter of the Agreement. We understand the
problems and difficulties. If we are talking about confidence building
there is a great deal that could be done and I hope it will.
I was very impressed by the
way the Minister approached the Patten report and the reform of the
police service in Northern Ireland. He is correct that what has been
offered through the Patten Commission is a vision of how Northern
Ireland could be policed in a different cross-community way. All
sections of the community could have confidence in it and it would
help bury many of the ghosts of the past.
The Minister was right to
stress that a great deal of movement has taken place in the past
couple of weeks on the Patten report. A lot of progress must be made.
Nonetheless, it is moving in the right direction. The issue is being
diffused. I hope we can see reforms implemented which would make it
possible for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland to view
the police force in the same way as we view the Garda Síochána or as
people in other countries view their national police force. They view
it as a police force that belongs to all of the people, that is not
partisan and whose purpose is to serve and uphold the law.
We see all of these things.
Each of them has the capacity to damage the current situation. But
over the past while there have been huge pluses in Northern Ireland. I
will mention three of them because we tend to take them for granted.
The transformation of Sinn Féin has been extraordinary. It is now a
professional, organised, very able and ambitious political party. I
have no doubt that it is utterly committed to the principles of
democracy and parliamentary democracy. I am sure it wants to work to
achieve its legitimate ends. Any political party has the right to
achieve its lawful ends through ordinary electoral and parliamentary
politics. We, as politicians, welcome that. The more the institutions
are seen to work the more Sinn Féin will find itself to be a
legitimate political party which can achieve its aims in the same way
as the rest of us.
It is very important at this
stage to pay tribute to the very many people, in the US especially,
such as Bill Flynn who did a great deal to encourage Sinn Féin in
from the cold and educate them in the ways of parliamentary politics.
He was able to give them access when others were not and he knocked
some of the corners off the party. I believe the evolution of Sinn
Féin is permanent and it is something all of us should genuinely
welcome.
It is very encouraging that
David Trimble has, in spite of many difficulties, stuck with the
Agreement. He has shown considerable courage in facing down the
wreckers in his own party. It must be very daunting to find time and
again that small people in your own party, the destructive forces, are
out to trip and hinder you at every possible turn. His courage in
sticking with the Agreement is something that we here in the calmer
waters of our politics should never underestimate.
As the Minister mentioned,
we should be very glad that the public is still very positively with
the Agreement. Ordinary people like what they see and they want to
hold onto it. They like the possibility of building a society fit for
the 21st century rather than harking back to the ghosts of old. The
support of the people is still the strongest basis for having
confidence that Northern Ireland will evolve in the way we hope.
The Minister was right to
say that civil society needs to be more vocal. The business, academic
and trade unions leaders, the newspaper owners and anyone who forms
opinion in Northern Ireland all need to be more vocal in their support
for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. They should
support it during the hard tough quiet days as well as during the days
of great excitement.
One of the failures among
many in Northern Ireland has been the failure of the educated middle
classes to support the political process and those who go into
politics, which is a very unglamorous, badly paid and often dangerous
profession in Northern Ireland. They deserve far more support than
they have got from the business and middle class communities, who are
in many ways the main beneficiaries of peace and stability. The
Minister was right to stress the need for strong backing from civic
society.
The fourth great positive is
the fact that the Governments of Britain and the Republic are working
together. Of course, there are differences and things get a bit frayed
from time to time, with public rows here and there. However, that is
part of normal life. The reality is that the Governments and civil
servants are working together. Each has a healthy respect for the
other and neither takes the other for granted nor at face value. There
is a cautious amount of trust. However, there is a working
relationship which allows problems be resolved in an orderly way.
There are procedures, processes and personal relationships there. A
level of trust has been built up. That is part of the glue which will
ensure the Agreement will be held together.
Northern Ireland will never
be a very happy place. It is the nature of northern people everywhere
to be chippy, fractious and combative. Nobody expects the Good Friday
Agreement to deliver happiness. However, at least, Northern Ireland
now has stability and the mechanisms through which it can resolve its
problems. Perhaps it is time for it to start to fend more for itself
and to depend less on the outside world to nurse it and resolve its
problems. It now has the institutions through which it can resolve
most of its problems. It will be a very happy day when the only
relationship we have with Northern Ireland is on questions of tourism,
sport, education and so on, working through institutions we both
support and want to make work, rather than the fire brigade attention
which so often passes for policy at present.
The Minister was right to
say how much good could be done if certain outstanding cases, such as
the Finucane case, could be resolved. They have the capacity to poison
relationships over a long period. Hopefully, the Bloody Sunday inquiry
will finally get to the truth of that horrific day and terrible
episode. I hope all the truth will be told and that people will be
able to live normal lives knowing, not that that wrong has been
righted - it never can be - but that, at least, the truth is known.
However, I wonder if we are
too prone to looking back. Sometimes, a little national amnesia is a
very good thing. After our Civil War ended, people did not talk about
the events. Children who grew up in the 1930s and 1940s were not told
by their parents of the episodes of the Civil War. There was a sense
that certain things were better left lie without stirring them up and
keeping them going. Likewise, in France, after the Second World War, a
whole generation grew up not knowing about some of the terrible things
that happened in France. Sometimes a little forgetfulness is a good
thing. One has to get on with life and move on.
While I agree with the
Minister that the outstanding cases need to be resolved, it would be
no harm if we could get to the stage where we could leave Northern
Ireland to the historians, social scientists, other academics and the
movie makers and let ordinary people move into the future. I
compliment the Minister on doing his job very well.
Mr. Cassidy:
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Cowen, to the House to update us on
Northern Ireland, which is probably the most important issue we could
discuss in Parliament. I congratulate him on his total commitment to
sustaining the peace that has been achieved and trying to enhance and
progress it.
The situation in the North
of this island, saturated as it is with the passions, distrust and
hurt which come with conflict, is an matter where Government policy
should, above all, be dominated by the desire to establish firmly the
values of partnership, mutual respect and equality in the day to day
lives of the population of our island. It is only when these values
are let flourish that peace can at last thrive. Where peace is allowed
develop and grow, the potential of ordinary men and women will no
longer be clouded by distrust and uncertainty. This potential will
grow and shape a prosperous and just society for all.
The Good Friday Agreement
provides the framework to establish these values. The Executive,
through its leaders, seemed the most visible example of how the two
traditions in Northern Ireland could work together in partnership,
equality and mutual respect.
In the Assembly,
representatives of the two traditions have debated many issues with
much vigour and enthusiasm. We have witnessed these opposing
traditions attempting to resolve their differences of opinion through
a parliamentary process, where face to face contact and frank exchange
of opinion have replaced the pre-Agreement position when no party
listened to the other.
When we consider this great
change in the context of the island as a whole, the frequent meetings
of Ministers from both jurisdictions in the North-South Ministerial
Council bring home to us all the progress which has been made. When we
compare this normality to the reaction when the then Taoiseach, Seán
Lemass, made the first tentative cross-Border contact with the then
Northern Prime Minister, Terence O'Neill, or when a North-South
council was mooted in the Sunningdale Agreement, we can truly
appreciate the extent of this change in its historical context.
We cannot allow the Good
Friday Agreement and the progress and change associated with it to
slip away. It is the bedrock for the future. We cannot return to a
situation where all the work to date is assigned to history and not
built upon. We cannot allow a state of affairs to arise where future
generations on this island are deprived of that spirit of peace and
reconciliation which we, only lately, have experienced.
Formidable work has been
carried out by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy
Andrews, the current Minister, Deputy Cowen, past Taoisigh, Ministers
of State and everyone who has worked so hard to bring us to where we
are today. Their approach has never been to apportion blame or to
indulge in recrimination, but rather to progress solidly and
diplomatically towards the goal of lasting peace. They have realised
that recriminations have no place in the serious pursuit of
reconciliation. From my personal knowledge of the present Minister and
from his political record to date, I am very confident he will spare
no effort in seeking to move matters forward. His sentiments in the
aftermath of various outrages and crimes that have taken place in the
North of Ireland are there as testimony for all to see.
In regard to the suggestion
in the contributions of the Minister and Senator Manning in regard to
all parties in the North and South getting together, I would see
Seanad Éireann playing a major part in that regard under new Standing
Orders or the Seanad review, whereby MEPs from the North and South
could have the right of audience in Seanad Éireann to discuss the
various European reports which are so relevant to the island of
Ireland. There would be all party support for this proposal in the
Seanad. I look forward the day it becomes a real possibility.
We do not witness too often
the great talents of Seamus Mallon, who was a distinguished Member of
this House. He and I took our seats on the first day I became a Member
on 7 May 1982. He was one of the most outstanding speakers in the
House.
We are very well informed
and briefed in the House. The Minister referred to the contribution of
Senator Maurice Hayes. He is a treasured and valuable Member, as is
Senator Haughey. They are in daily contact with what is happening in
the North of Ireland and know at first hand what is happening there. I
am grateful to the Minister for attending the House and allowing us to
have this debate and I look forward to many further visits by him.
Dr. Henry:
I would not like it thought that the Independent Senators were not
interested in this extremely important debate. I was very impressed
with the Minister's speech. Since taking up his appointment he has
made great efforts to continue the peace process in Northern Ireland.
That is to be much welcomed.
I attended a meeting
recently at which Denis Haughey MLA spoke. When talking about the past
he reminded us of the horrific events which took place in Northern
Ireland. He spoke of a constituent of his, a man named Patsy Gillespie
who made sandwiches and sold them to whoever came to him. He was
kidnapped by the IRA, strapped to his car with a bomb under him and
told that if he did not drive to an army base his family would be
killed. When he got to the base and rolled down the window of his car
he was vaporised by the remote control button being pressed to
detonate the bomb. Only a few years ago such episodes were taking
place in this country and bringing shame on all of us.
It is very important that
this process continues. Of course there will occasionally be backward
steps, but in general the process has moved forward. I was delighted
to meet Deputy Albert Reynolds in the House today because it gave me
the opportunity to congratulate him again on the establishment of the
Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. That was one of the most important
initiatives taken in the last 20 years in trying to bring peace to
Northern Ireland. It broke down barriers between people who rarely
met. How could each side have been expected to know what the other
side was like? Nothing is more frightening than rumour and making
attempts to assess the position of those of whom one has very little
knowledge.
I was privileged to be a
member of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. Former Senator, Mrs.
Justice Catherine McGuinness, did a tremendous job in chairing it.
Splendid progress was made at that time and we must be very grateful
to Deputy Reynolds for what he did.
It is very important that we
continue with our endeavours to break down barriers. I have frequently
bored the House about the need for co-operation between both parts of
the island. I recently read the national cancer report and noted the
close co-operation with Northern Ireland. Our genes and, regrettably
in many instances, environmental conditions are the same. Co-operation
at these levels is to the benefit of us all.
Senator Leonard spoke this
morning about the need to develop acute hospital services in Monaghan
general hospital. People there might do better to look north of the
Border with a view to accessing facilities, rather than attempting to
develop acute hospital services in small towns which do not have the
population to sustain good modern medical practice. For example, great
co-operation has taken place between medical practices in County
Donegal and the hospital at Altnagelvin in Derry. The logic of the
situation is to look to the best treatment available nearest to
patients.
These kinds of practical
initiatives are the most important way to go forward. In my profession
there was never a North-South divide. The Royal College of Surgeons
and the Royal College of Physicians are all-Ireland. The co-operation
at the recent meeting in Cavan of the Northern branch of the British
Medical Association and the Irish Medical Organisation was an
unprecedented step. All those present asked how soon they could meet
again to discuss further topics of mutual importance.
Social contact is also very
important. The more we try to travel North to meet people the better.
Sometimes this can get one into deep waters. I was grateful to Senator
Ó Murchú for his help with the problem I encountered this week when
I was asked if I could find an Irish pipe band to play at a festival
in east Belfast. I explained to the Senator that the Irish pipe band
scene is not one of my fortes, but we must make whatever effort is
required.
I am delighted Senator
Maurice Hayes was mentioned so warmly by the Minister. He has done
tremendous work. He had a party of visitors from east Belfast last
week and I was delighted to meet them and some other Senators may have
met them. They told me they had visited Stormont and were a little
anxious about visiting Dublin. However, they were very pleased to
discover that we all spoke English. They said some people in Stormont
spoke Irish and they were not sure what they were saying. I said it
was a matter of politeness in this House to speak English, especially
when there were visitors in the Visitors Gallery who may not be as
familiar with Irish as the rest of us. We got good marks for our
behaviour.
We should do our utmost to
reciprocate visits from people like Sir Reg Empey, Lord Denis Rogan
and Lord John Blaird who have made the effort to visit here by going
to Northern Ireland again. Those who want to support the Agreement
badly need our support and the more often we visit looking suitably
normal the better. At the meeting where I met Denis Haughey MLA I was
reminded of the time all the Ministers travelled to Armagh to attend
the meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council. They arrived in
approximately 20 Mercedes cars, which caused a lot of trouble in the
North. I said it had also caused a fair amount of trouble in the
South, where people asked why they could not have travelled by bus.
The reciprocation of any
practical facilities which are of value to the populations of both
parts of the island is the way to proceed. As a member of the
British-Irish Interparliamentary Body I have tried to encourage
Unionists to attend meetings of the body. It is extraordinary that at
the last meeting there were observers from the Scottish Parliament,
the Welsh Assembly, from Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Observers from
Jersey sent apologies because they could not attend, yet we were not
in a position to welcome Unionist Members of the Legislative Assembly
in Belfast. We need to work on this.
There is still difficulty in
receiving RTE in the Down and Antrim area. I have raised this matter
since I became a Member of this House. It does not come under the
aegis of the Minster's Department and apparently we cannot broadcast
across boundaries without permission. However, it would be a great
help if RTE was received in this area. We can see all about them, so
to speak, and it would be no harm if they saw all about us. The Down
and Antrim area is perhaps the most important in Northern Ireland in
terms of having our programmes broadcast. It may even lead to
improvements on programmes such as "Bull Island".
4 o'clock
Mr. Lydon:
When I last spoke on a debate on Northern Ireland on 9 March 2000 I
said we were further back than when we started in that we had given
away Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, none of the institutions
referred to in the Good Friday were operating and that, once again,
there was direct rule from Westminster. Fortunately, things have
changed since then. Like the Minister, I recognise the statement made
by the IRA in May. However, progress is so slow that it often seems we
take two steps forward only to take one step back. If a perceived
concession is made on the Nationalist side, the Unionists try to block
it in whatever way possible.
We have, in effect, said
goodbye to the Patten report. Dr. Clifford Shearing, one of the
independent members of the Patten commission, stated that the new
police Bill dismantled the foundation on which the commission was
founded and went on to say that core elements of its report had been
undermined. The Patten report envisaged that the new policing body
would have genuine powers to require the chief constable to report on
any issues pertaining to the performance of its functions or those of
the police service. The Bill which has just been passed in Westminster
shows that this will not happen. The chief constable will now be
allowed to question almost any attempt by the board to obtain a report
or to get further information on a report it has received. It has been
said that the Patten report has been gutted, not merely cherry picked.
One of the key issues in the
Good Friday Agreement related to the establishment of a neutral police
force. Nobody from any part of the Nationalist divide can ever give
true allegiance to the partisan police force which has existed for so
long and which still exists. I recall Burntollet, I recall when the
RUC went into the Bogside and broke windows and I recall having a gun
shoved in my face as I travelled through the Six Counties on my way
from Donegal to a football match in Monaghan. The situation has not
altered very much since then. We still have the same police force
which fatally beat Sammy Devaney in his own home in the 1960s and the
same force which recently failed to protect Catholics from sectarian
violence in Larne.
The Patten report proposed a
50:50 recruitment ratio of Catholics and Protestants in order that it
might be possible in ten or 15 years' time that 30% of the police
force would be Catholic. Mr. Trimble stated that 50:50 recruitment was
an insult to human rights and should not be allowed. I cannot see what
he is afraid of. Mr. Trimble should be reminded that there are 159 RUC
installations in the Six Counties, backed up by 78 British Army
installations. When one combines the membership of the RUC, the
British Army and the Royal Irish Regiment, they number approximately
27,000 members who can protect Mr. Trimble. Mr. Trimble should also be
reminded that 280,000 legally held arms remain in Unionist possession.
If there is to be any progress in the Six Counties, it must have a
neutral police force which comprises members from both sides of the
political divide - Nationalists, loyalists, Catholics and Protestants
- so that if we ever see another civil rights campaign, Nationalists
will at least be allowed to march.
I am aware that the RUC has
suffered, with many of its members having been killed or injured in
the line of duty and their families devastated. I have heard
complaints from some quarters to the effect that the RUC will not be
answerable for events in the past. We should let the past go and
address the imbalance in the force instead. Many of the men released
from prison are not required to look back and the RUC should not be
required to look back either.
This is a time of new
beginnings. Unfortunately, the British Government has missed a great
opportunity to assist, via the development of a new police force, in
this new beginning. I did not expect much from Jeffrey Donaldson or
Ian Paisley but Mr. Trimble, at least, should have had to wit to side
with Patten. I certainly expected more from Mr. Mandelson, although it
appears I was foolish to do so.
What can we do? We must
stand up and be counted. Though a small nation, we have always been
able to stand on our own two feet without fear. We must continue to
show the resilience we showed in the past when de Valera ceased paying
annuities to Britain. If we can stand up to a large nation and show
our resolve, we will be respected.
The terms of the Good Friday
Agreement are clear and, if they are adhered to by all parties,
progress will be made in regard to the establishment of a lasting
peace. If the terms of the Good Friday Agreement are implemented in
full, the Six Counties will eventually become a place in which people
will be able to live and work in a peaceful manner, irrespective of
their particular allegiances or political persuasions. This will
benefit all of Ireland and will ultimately benefit England, Scotland
and Wales too.
The Minister stated that the
Good Friday Agreement cannot be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. We
cannot pick and choose from it. We must continually remind ourselves
and others, particularly Messrs. Mandelson and Trimble, that all the
institutions are interdependent. Whether Mr. Trimble likes it or not,
there is an all-Ireland dimension to the Agreement to which he and his
party have signed up. That dimension must be recognised, respected and
implemented. The intrinsic political and economic values of
North-South co-operation are obvious but such co-operation also has
the potential to help us to address the challenges which face us. The
all-Ireland dimension is significant across a range of Government
activity, allowing for the pooling of information and resources,
potential synergies, economies of scale and key policy approaches.
Issues which impact on our economic competitiveness such as human
resources, infrastructural development and e-commerce are common to
both parts of the island and a joint approach will allow them to have
far greater impact in both jurisdictions.
It is up to the Irish and
British Governments to tackle this issue, on which the Irish
Government has always taken a firm line. It has clearly enunciated
time and again that the provisions of the Patten report must be put in
place. The British Government, however, has not displayed a similar
zeal in pursuing these objectives.
The Patten report is only
one issue which requires action. Others include demilitarisation and
the banning of Sinn Féin Ministers from attending North-South
ministerial council meetings. However, we should not become too
disheartened. The Minister stated in his speech that just as one
thinks one is reaching the top, a new and steeper slope appears. That
is true of all negotiations, but particularly of negotiations in
Northern Ireland. Having come this far, we can go further. The
progress which has been made has been nothing short of revolutionary.
What is more, it has been achieved through the ending of violence and
through partnership rather than domination.
The Minister also stated
that we have learnt that it requires co-operation to move forward. We
can only achieve progress by co-operating with people of different
persuasions and political beliefs. The Good Friday Agreement gives
space for everybody's aspirations. If we implement the Agreement and
abide by it, Unionists and Nationalists will have a place in the new
society and the new Ireland. The Agreement was voted in by the
majority of the people in this country - by country, I refer to the
geographical entity - and only by adhering to it can we maintain the
peace which has been achieved.
The other path has ceased
forever although there is still a group called the Real IRA which
causes mayhem. One need only think back to a very recent explosion to
understand what will happen if we give way to these people. Everybody
else is committed to the process in one way or another. People will
not get everything they want at once but we must keep up the effort.
The Minister is recognised
as having one of the best minds in the Cabinet and his dedication to
this process is singular. If anyone can bring this process forward in
a spirit of co-operation, he can and I wish him well in his task.
Labhrás Ó Murchú:
Fáiltím roimh an Aire anseo agus tréaslaím leis as an obair atá
déanta aige. Níl aon amhras ann ach go bhfuil an-chabhair tugtha ag
an Aire do phróiseas na síochána agus tá súil agam go n-éireoidh
go maith leis amach anseo mar tá an-chuid deacrachtaí fós ann. Ach
níor chreid éinne go mbeadh a mhalairt de scéal ann mar táimid ag
plé anseo le stair agus leis na céadta bliain agus ní mór a bheith
foighneach agus cúramach.
I compliment the Minister
for his role in the peace process. He has demonstrated that he is
exceptionally astute and at the same time co-operative. He is also
very determined while being conciliatory. In many ways he is one of a
new breed of statesmen who is able to rise above narrow definitions
and provide us all with new goals, and for that I compliment him very
sincerely.
No subject has occupied more
of our time or generated more debate than Northern Ireland. There have
been many debates on it in this House. We have normally looked for a
debate when it seemed the peace process was in some danger. At the
same time there has been progress from the last debate, which would
have been seen as a crisis intervention, and we can see the organic
development of the peace process.
Some years ago before the
fall of the Berlin Wall I had occasion to travel from West Germany to
East Germany, when I passed through what was a cage. I realised then
what a physical barrier was between people. I was in contact with
other organisations in Germany at that time and had the opportunity to
observe the traumatic consequences which resulted from that division.
On one occasion I brought a group from Germany to Northern Ireland.
They were very surprised to see no physical barriers as we passed from
the Republic to the North of Ireland. However, we know there are
barriers which are not of a physical nature. There are walls of
suspicion, hatred, misunderstanding and supremacy. These walls are
every bit as difficult, perhaps more so, to demolish than any physical
wall.
At the height of the peace
process I had an occasion to invite a former loyalist paramilitary to
speak at a function in Dublin. He was accompanied by his wife and I
had the opportunity of discussing things person to person over a meal.
I tried to understand their background and whence they came.
Hopefully, he endeavoured to do the same with me. I learned quite an
amount from him, for example, that royalty was not necessarily his
heritage and that he had no particular reason to celebrate the world
wars. Loyalists living in ghettos have not really benefited from the
sloganeering of some of the Unionist leaders through the years. In
many ways they have been as victimised as many of the Nationalists
during that period. What most surprised me was the barrier which
existed in terms of knowledge. For example, his wife had never heard
of County Clare, which was very difficult to believe.
We must understand that we
have much bridge building and interacting to do. Nationalists and
republicans have been particularly generous in this regard. The
leadership provided by the Irish Government has been very important,
having always worked on the basis of consistency. The biggest danger
is not having consistency in negotiation, because if the goalposts are
being changed constantly it is very difficult to realise the aims. The
Irish Government has been consistent throughout, up to and beyond the
Good Friday Agreement.
We are particularly lucky to
have the Good Friday Agreement in place as it is a charter with
international standing and in many ways eliminates the possibility of
misunderstanding or misinterpretation. It must be the basis of all our
discussion. All parties have signed up to the Agreement and have
benefited from it.
I was particularly worried
to hear the member of the Patten commission using the term
"gutted" in referring to the British Government's reaction
to the Patten report. The member wrote at length in The Guardian.
My understanding is that the gentleman is very honourable, very level
headed and not given to any form of extremism, but is endeavouring to
be helpful. Nevertheless he was clearly stating that as a member of
the commission and having worked on the report he felt that not only
were constraints being put on the report but an effort was being made
to gut it. I am glad that the Irish Government and the Minister have
not backed away from that challenge as it is so important that a
future North of Ireland, a future Ireland and a future relationship
between the North and South is based on justice. The edifice we are
talking about is peace with a foundation of justice. Each time we chip
away at that foundation we chip away at the possibility of peace. We
have peace and that is important and the foundation is now be
strengthened.
I have grave reservations
concerning the Secretary of State, Mr. Mandelson, in this process. I
have read what he has had to say and have observed what he has done
and the way in which he is able to sideline and avoid the core
questions being asked, something he can do exceptionally well and with
eloquence. He must answer those core questions. We all understand that
Unionists may have their difficulties as they come from a background
where they were never questioned or challenged in the past. They were
able to live in an artificially created state. There is no doubt it
would not have been accepted in any other part of the developed world.
The other night I listened
to a report on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, to a tape salvaged from San
Francisco and to a former member of the British Army who has since
died, giving evidence of what he experienced and of the people shot
around him on Bloody Sunday. He shed bitter tears that his former
comrades were capable of acting in such a terrorising fashion with
absolutely no discipline whatsoever. The big question is whether they
were acting on higher authority, as I believe they were. If they were
it shows two sets of laws and military codes existed. We see a similar
position with the murders of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson and Robert
Hamill, with no effort whatsoever being made at redress, even though
they are cases which point glaringly to collusion on the part of the
security forces. I cannot understand how a person who would claim to
be a member of the mother of Parliaments can stand over such
collusion.
These are the challenges
facing us and we should not allow them to discourage us. In the North
of Ireland of 25 or 30 years ago we see echoes of what is happening in
Palestine. We can realise what might have happened, indeed what nearly
happened in Ireland. It is good we had people who were determined to
continue making an effort, even though it was very difficult.
I talk with no degree of
bitterness. My own background is English, my mother, God be good to
her, was English and I have nothing but the height of regard for
British people. However, wherever Britain has gone in the world it has
a black record. It must now come clean where Ireland is concerned. The
Republic has borne the brunt of the Northern Ireland problems - the
Republic has always been in the front line. We can see what our Irish
emigrants in Britain have had to put up with as a result of the
Northern problem. It is not right for people who have the power and
mandate to do what is right to back away from that in any way.
We saw what happened the
Stalker inquiry. All the inquiries which did not come up with the
correct results were sidelined and the people selected by the
Government to bring about those reports were demonised for having
endeavoured to tell the truth. That is the background against which we
are working.
Having said that, the prize
is great. Twenty five or 30 years ago we talked about the prize of
peace and justice. It is now within our grasp. We have actually
experienced some of that prize and nobody wants to go back. I have had
interaction with the people of the North for many years in different
ways. I have found all sides to be honourable people. I act as
chairman of the Irish Family History Foundation. Sir Robert Kidd was
its vice-chairman and I could not praise him highly enough. When one
gets to know people down through the years one realises there is a
certain basis of ethics which we would all like to adopt. There will
always be an element that will try to undermine it. Basically there
has always been this code of ethics to which we could all work.
At the end of the day it is
important to keep an aspiration of a united Ireland. By keeping that
aspiration we are talking about a natural development. I can hear it
more and more in debate, not only among Nationalists but among people
of other persuasions as well. We are particularly lucky to have the
present Minister giving us the leadership he has given. I have no
hesitation in saying that were it not for the fact that we had
Taoisigh, such as Deputy Albert Reynolds and Deputy Bertie Ahern, in
place there is absolutely no way we would be where we are today. They
took the risks. A particular Sunday newspaper, week in and week out,
had four and five columnists attacking John Hume, Gerry Adams and
Albert Reynolds at that time. When eventually the breakthrough was
made against all the odds it was as if they had never written those
demonising articles. We should not be swayed by that type of
superficial and ineffective type of publicity. We should stand by what
we believe in - humanity, the goodness of the vast majority of the
people, justice and peace.
Whatever ripples there are
at the moment can be overcome but not by the likes of Mr. Trimble, for
whom I have much admiration in ways, taking it upon himself, perhaps
to save his own bacon, to take from the Good Friday Agreement and
unilaterally deciding that properly elected Ministers will be excluded
and prevented from doing their duties. That is not a starter. Until
that new maturity prevails - a maturity that, perhaps, was not
necessary for Northern politicians in power previously, but it was
always necessary for politicians in the Republic - and the
responsibility that goes with it, we will always have an uphill battle
but we should not lose hope.
I congratulate and thank the
Minister for all his good work.
Mr. Glennon:
I join my colleagues in welcoming the Minister, Deputy Cowen, to the
House and congratulate him on a job well done. He continues a good
line of Fianna Fáil Ministers for Foreign Affairs who have
contributed hugely to the massive advances made in the area of
Northern Ireland affairs in the recent past and I wish him well.
As a youngster growing up in
Skerries, we lived in a rather cosmopolitan village. In the 1960s the
economy of the town was built entirely around two months of the
summer, July and August. This was in the days when package holidays to
the Continent had not been heard of and the traditional seaside
holiday resort was at its height in Britain and Ireland. Skerries had
the good fortune to be a place of desirable resort for the middle
classes of the north side of Dublin, while Bray fulfilled a similar
role on the south side.
In Skerries we also had the
interesting influence of a large number of Northern Ireland people who
came for their holidays in July; the Dublin people came in August. I
have an early recollection of asking my father why the Northern people
came in July and the Dublin people came in August. I was told simply
that the Northern people had to get out in July. I became very
friendly with some people from Portadown who rented a house next door
to me for five or six years - it seemed as if it was the entire period
of my childhood. This was the first real indication I had of the
difficulties in the North. Drumcree then did not have anything like
the significance it has now. Not a 12 July goes by when I have not
thought of that family and wonder where they are today.
For too long the
difficulties in the North were tolerated with courage and stoicism. It
is good for everybody, and particularly the Unionist community in
Northern Ireland in the long run, that matters have come to the fore.
It is regrettable in the extreme that they have been brought to the
fore in the manner in which it has happened over the past 30 years.
Over the years I have had
much contact through my sporting involvement with people of all
persuasions in the North, particularly of the Unionist persuasion. I
have looked on it as one of the more enriching experiences of one's
life. It is said that travel broadens the horizons. Certainly
travelling regularly to the North to play rugby broadened my horizons
considerably and brought me into contact with a whole range of people
whom I probably could not otherwise have expected to come in contact
with on a regular basis.
I have often said while we
seem to expect the people of Northern Ireland to travel to the South
as a matter of normality and almost necessity, traffic in the other
direction is much too infrequent and not nearly enough citizens from
the Republic travel to the Six Counties either for business, pleasure,
holiday or any other reason. Anything we can do in this House to
encourage that kind of traffic should be done. The political in-phrase
is dialogue, but dialogue is not just a political term and politics is
not just confined to Government Ministers and politicians. Politics,
the democratic process, is very much reliant upon the active
participation of the ordinary citizenry who can do much to progress
relationships with the people of Northern Ireland simply by travelling
to the North and meeting them socially or commercially. It is not done
nearly often enough.
There are some difficulties
in the political process in the North. I congratulate the Minister on
the hard work which I know is being done behind the scenes to bring
about the resumption of the full working of the North-South
Ministerial Council. It is unacceptable that any one party leader
should take unilateral action which undermines the integrity of the
Good Friday Agreement. While Mr. Trimble's difficulties with the
Ulster Unionist Party are a fact of life, he should not address these
problems by causing difficulties for the workings of the North-South
Ministerial Council. The only way forward is the full implementation
of the Good Friday Agreement. It is only in this way that the IRA will
be able to re-engage with General de Chastelain.
The tragedy is that the
institutions of the Agreement, the Assembly, the Executive and the
North-South Ministerial Council were by unanimous consent working
extremely well. Even their harshest critics would admit they were
working to a level of efficiency way beyond the expectation of most at
the time of the Good Friday Agreement. Mr. Trimble should remove his
sanction which would allow Sinn Féin to use its influence with the
IRA to re-engage with General de Chastelain.
Another issue to which I
would like to refer is the police Bill which passed through
Westminster in the last couple of days. Policing is obviously a very
complex matter and goes to the heart of the Good Friday Agreement.
When quoting the basis on which his commission was set up, Patten
asked in answer to criticisms of the report, what did the Unionists
think they were signing up to. However, while Mr. Trimble and the
Unionist Party can be criticised for their reaction to Patten and to
the subsequent police Bill debates, the British Government should take
most of the blame for the present difficulties. I do not think anyone
could improve on the words of Professor Clifford Shearing, an
independent member of the Patten Commission, who described the police
Bill as gutting the Patten proposals. If a member of the commission
from neither side of the community in Northern Ireland considers the
police Bill has gutted the Patten proposals, what would Nationalists
consider has been done?
One of the many central
issues in the police Bill debate is the question of flags and symbols.
By fudging these two central issues of flags at RUC stations and
symbols on the uniform, Mr. Mandelson has tried to ride two horses at
once and has ended up satisfying neither side. He said in the House of
Commons on 21 November that he did not expect the Patten Commission's
view that symbols for the new service should necessarily be free of
all association with the symbols of the British and Irish States, yet
he offered, or appeared to offer, comfort to the SDLP when he stated
that its explicit consent would be required for the symbols and flags
to be used by the new service. How he proposes to give an effective
veto to the SDLP while at the same time setting up new symbols and
flags for the new police service has not been explained. This issue
can only be solved by strict adherence to Patten. It is vital that
this is done without wavering.
It would be wrong to say
that progress on Patten has not been made and I do not want to give
the impression to the contrary. Much progress has been made but these
issues remain to be resolved. The bottom line in relation to Patten is
very simply - will this new legislation allow young Nationalists and
republicans walk into a police station and join up? For me that will
be the litmus test and we are a long way from achieving that.
I want to raise the issue of
criminal justice reform, particularly in relation to judicial
appointments. While the Criminal Justice Commission considered that
merit, including the ability to do the job, must continue to be the
most important factor in making appointments, there must be a
programme of action to secure the development of a Judiciary that is
reflective of Northern Ireland society in particular by their
religious ethnic background and gender. It goes on to suggest various
persons who should set up a judicial appointments commission. However,
there are major difficulties in relation to the commission which would
take a much longer debate than we have time for here. Does the
Minister consider that the present judicial bench as comprised in the
higher, middle and lower tiers adequately reflects the background and
society in Northern Ireland at present? I do not wish to embarrass any
judicial personage but does any member of the Judiciary consider
himself or herself to be a Nationalist, never mind republican? Given
that the SDLP and Sinn Féin represent in excess of 40% of the
population of Northern Ireland, I believe they are not represented in
like numbers on the bench. We are a long way from that.
It would be remiss of me to
conclude my contribution to this debate on Northern Ireland without
taking cognisance of the major difficulties of the Nationalist
community in relation to obvious miscarriages of justice. The Stevens
inquiry into Bloody Sunday is to be welcomed and I wish them well in
their deliberations. However, there are other issues with which I
would like to deal in some detail. Pat Finucane was murdered by
loyalist paramilitaries in Belfast on 12 February 1989. Since then,
serious allegations have been made concerning collusion between the
security forces and loyalist paramilitaries in this case. In March
1999, a police investigation was set up under John Stevens. In June
1999, William Stobie was arrested and charged with murder. This charge
was recently changed to aiding and abetting others in murdering Mr.
Finucane. The Stevens inquiry is still ongoing.
Following a meeting with
members of the Finucane family on 24 February last, the Taoiseach
expressed the Government's view that an independent judicial public
inquiry should be set up to examine all the circumstances surrounding
this murder. The Finucane family subsequently met with Prime Minister
Blair. The British Government has said that it has not ruled out the
possibility of a public inquiry but, to date, it has resisted calls
for one on the grounds that an inquiry might interfere with the
Stevens investigation. I renew the call for an independent inquiry
into the murder of Pat Finucane.
Without going into the
detail of the other two cases, I echo that call in the case of
Rosemary Nelson and Robert Hamill. These issues are of huge importance
to the Nationalist community in the North, particularly in relation to
the confidence building measures that are required to facilitate the
implementation of Patten. I renew my call for public inquiries in
these three cases.
I congratulate the Minister
and his predecessors on the tremendous work that is in train in
Northern Ireland. I wish him the very best in his future endeavours.
Mr. Costello: I
welcome the Minister of State to the House and I am sorry the Minister
must leave.
I agree with the last
request for an inquiry into the deaths of Pat Finucane, Rosemary
Nelson and Robert Hamill. These deaths occurred in extremely
suspicious circumstances and I believe the issue should be cleared up
by way of a public inquiry.
We all support the Good
Friday Agreement. The role the Minister for Foreign Affairs is playing
in Northern Ireland represents not just the Government's view but the
views of the Opposition. There is currently unanimity in relation to
the approach to be taken in Northern Ireland and there is no question
of anyone on this side of the House carping or complaining about what
the Minister is doing. I believe he has a steady hand at the helm in
the way in which he is implementing the wishes of the people of this
island and the Good Friday Agreement in so far as we have a role to
play.
There are major problems
with every agreement. What has been underlined in this Agreement is
the principle of consent. For the first time both traditions accept an
assembly on this island, we have consented to the removal of Articles
2 and 3, Unionists have consented to the ending of majority rule, an
Assembly is in place and bodies have been established under its aegis. |
