Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies have been received from Senator Emer Currie. Today we continue our meetings on our Architects of the Good Friday Agreement project. We have met with a range of people involved in the peace process negotiations, both politicians and officials. On behalf of the committee I would like to welcome Ms Liz O'Donnell, former Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and the present chairperson of the Road Safety Authority. You are very welcome. Ms O'Donnell was deeply involved in the peace negotiations leading to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, and her participation today is an important opportunity for the committee to capture lessons learned from the peace process.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege, and the practices of the Houses regarding references you may make to other persons. The evidences of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. However, witnesses and participants who are to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Witnesses are also asked to note that only evidence connected with the subject matter should be given, and they should respect directions given by the Chair and the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should neither criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to that person or entity's good name.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I now call on Ms Liz O'Donnell to make her opening statement.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Good afternoon, Senators and Deputies. I am delighted to be here, Chairman, and I am grateful to have an opportunity after all these years to put on the record my personal reflections as a participant representing the Government at the talks leading to the Good Friday Agreement almost 25 years ago.

The background to my being on the Irish team is that in June 1997, I was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for overseas development assistance and human rights. My position also involved a role in Anglo-Irish relations. At that time I was a Deputy representing Dublin South for the Progressive Democrats and I had done so since 1992. That was my first ministerial appointment and my party was in a partnership Government with Fianna Fáil. David Andrews was the senior Minister in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I was a Minister of State.

It was felt that because it was a coalition Government that our party should have an active role in the peace process and any negotiations in that regard. For the record, the Progressive Democrats - since the party is now gone - was formed in 1985 by Des O’Malley and Mary Harney. The party’s credo was one of radical tax reform and prudent management of the public finances. It also had a moderate approach to the Northern Ireland issue. Mary Harney had been expelled from Fianna Fáil for voting for the Anglo-Irish Agreement negotiated by Garret FitzGerald in November 1985.

Des O'Malley, our leader, was more concerned with true republican values than with nationalistic myths. In his first address as leader Des O’Malley said:

I believe there is a great consensus in Ireland which favours a peaceful approach to the problem in Northern Ireland; which favours fundamental tax reform; which favours a clear distinction between Church and State. Irish politics must be transformed. Experience tells me that no such transformation will come from within the existing parties. It must come from outside. There must be a new beginning.

Given Des O'Malley has now passed, I felt it important to put that initial credo on the record of the House. That moderate approach on the Northern Ireland issue informed my participation in the talks. Yes, I was there as part of the Government's negotiating team, but I was also representing my party, the Progressive Democrats.

When I entered the process in July 1997, the Government inherited a moribund situation. Despite the careful stewardship of the outgoing rainbow Government headed by John Bruton, an IRA bomb at Canary Wharf and the end of the ceasefire had seen to that. Negotiations had ceased with depression on all sides. However, all that changed when the IRA reinstated its ceasefire on 20 July 1997. The peace process was back on the rails. Talks were to kick off in Belfast in September. I remember Mary Harney calling me around that time in my Iveagh House office and announcing in her usual frank manner, "By the way, you are handling the North". As you can imagine, as a relatively new Deputy with an inauspicious political pedigree, I instinctively felt ill-equipped and overwhelmed but I quickly adapted to the challenge presented.

I spent the summer period in Donegal briefing myself on the existing documents relating to the peace process and ingesting its glossary of terms. The joint framework document, the heads of agreement, the rules of procedure, and the position papers already tabled needed to be absorbed and understood. Language was so important. In a political context so devoid of trust and laden with paranoia, loose words could literally cost lives. I was adamant I was not going to be the one to drop the ball at any stage.

The peace process was a Government-driven political project. It is important to acknowledge that it was blessed with all-party support in the House. It sought to find a comprehensive settlement to the Northern Irish question, one that would identify and deal with the causes of the conflict on the island. Very little happened by chance; it was a highly micro-managed exercise in conflict resolution. Mo Mowlam, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, often bemoaned the fact that it was not more of a “people’s project”. However, it was an inclusive project - eight parties, big and small, specially elected in 1996 to participate on an equal basis. I believe the inclusion of the smaller parties was hugely important to the outcome. I refer particularly to the participation on an equal basis of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, NIWC, headed up by Monica McWilliams, Bronagh Hinds and their colleagues. They brought something new to the process. They were cross-community, and were not from a particular tribe. They came from civil society. Some were academics, social workers, lawyers and community activists. They advocated a different agenda of equality, reconciliation and human rights but because they did not come from the toxic name-calling which had passed for politics in Northern Ireland, they offered something fresh. They helped, on many occasions, to overcome procedural logjams. They were also helpful conduits for Governments in judging sentiment in the community, and in the loyalist paramilitary groups in particular.

Similarly, the two small loyalist parties were essential to the process of reaching agreement and ending the conflict. I deeply regret that the smaller loyalist parties did not prosper electorally post-Agreement. There was a proposal to make space for the loyalist parties and the NIWC in post-Agreement elections, but this was rejected by the major parties. That was a source of regret to the Government.

As soon as Sinn Féin entered the talks, we lost the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, which was always a very serious concern. It meant that David Trimble and his colleagues were isolated and subjected to vicious abuse from the DUP from outside the talks. As a result, David Trimble became extremely cautious about making any concession as he would be vilified by the DUP, and indeed he suffered in every subsequent election. Both Governments knew well how difficult a situation David Trimble was in.

The Irish Government knew that if it lost David Trimble, there was no process to speak of. We spent a lot of time, energy and ingenuity in efforts to "save David" from himself and from discontent and disunity within his own party, as well as the anger of the rejectionist DUP outside the talks.

The two Governments were close and mostly ad idem- in other words, they were of one mind.

That intensive co-operation between the offices of both Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern, was of huge significance. They had recently been elected with strong mandates and a new resolve to make the process work and end the conflict. Both Governments had the peace process as their priority. It was the number one priority for them. The best civil servants and diplomats on both sides were despatched to this singular task.

It was a high-risk project for both Governments. Fundamental principles were at stake. For the sake of peace and an ultimate settlement of the vexed quarrel between the UK and Ireland, and between the parties in Northern Ireland, should sovereign governments negotiate with armed paramilitary groups and their representatives? The state of mind of the republican movement, in particular, was crucial. We had it from trusted intermediaries that the IRA was up for a settlement if we could reach a comprehensive political settlement. The phrase "constructive ambiguity" has become synonymous with the Irish peace process. Ambiguity was necessary. We could not be blown off course by the most recent setback or atrocity. At various times, many of us in the constitutional parties had to suspend our critical faculties, about the bona fides of armed groups and their representatives, to keep the show on the road. We had to keep our gaze on the ultimate prize of peace despite ceasefire breaches and other ambiguities and suspicions.

Eight years after the Good Friday Agreement, I was asked by the British Council to reflect on the agreement in an essay in its publication, Britain and Ireland: Lives Entwined. To be honest, I have drawn upon those published memories to inform my contribution today. Twenty-five years on, however, my memories are still vivid of that day - 10 April 1998 - when we finally reached agreement. That day marked the end of a tedious process of meetings, drafting and drama over nine months. There was awful tension and a sense of standoff. Those of us who were close to it all - in the rooms - were not overly optimistic that we would reach agreement on that day. So many threads were left loose. Our masterful chairman, Senator Mitchell, had set a deadline and he meant it. He was leaving the building and going back to his wife and newborn son in America. Outside, the world media were camped and hopes were high. People tell me they were glued to the television as though it were a hostage taking. I for one was in the hopeful camp but there had been so many false dawns and the parties, although exhausted from intensive talks for weeks, knew that so much was not tied down.

That morning, as David Andrews and I made our way up from the Stormont House accommodation provided for us during the talks, we heard Tony Blair’s memorable soundbite, "I feel the hand of history upon our shoulder", on the radio. We joked darkly that it could equally be the boot of history, such was our uncertainty about what was going to happen. The Taoiseach, burdened with the task of finalising these talks on the same weekend as burying his beloved mother, was white-faced. Early in the morning, it was clear that elements of a deal were in place after weeks of intensive negotiations across the three strands but, in the time necessary to tidy up texts and prepare final versions, we heard rumours of dissent and discontent in the unionist camp. There was talk of a walk-out by unionists. Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern were back in the building. Bill Clinton was on the phone. Seven o'clock in the morning became 10 o'clock, then noon, then 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The morning’s euphoria gave way to exhaustion and, for some, head-hanging despair. I remember the then Secretary of State, the late Mo Mowlam, who was very unwell at the time, roaming the corridors bleary-eyed and barefoot consulting the small parties and trying to keep everybody motivated. We were all very fatigued and I feared we would lose control of the final text in the frenzy of last-minute amendments to documents with the British Government, etc. We almost lost David Trimble, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, UUP, on the issue of North-South bodies, which were overly ambitious in number and were filleted at the last minute.

Finally, word came that Senator Mitchell had called a final plenary session. Jeffrey Donaldson had left the building, among others, including Arlene Foster, but Trimble had convinced most of his party to go ahead. Tony Blair had sent him a side-letter holding out the promise of decisive action by the British Government if there was not early progress on decommissioning.

The decommissioning of illegal weapons held by loyalists and republicans had dogged progress in the talks from the beginning and the issue was there at the end, unresolved and parked with the establishment of the decommissioning commission headed up General John de Chastelain. Unionists and, to be fair, the rest of the parties perceived the disposal of weapons as an indispensable part of the talks and settlement. Sinn Féin, however, saw it as ultimately the outcome of a settlement to its satisfaction. Therein lay the conundrum. Ultimately, the delay in the decommissioning of IRA weapons post-agreement gradually eroded the trust of the Ulster Unionist Party. Weapons were finally disposed of almost eight years later, too late for David Trimble’s party, which was destroyed electorally by the DUP in subsequent elections.

On that historic day, I remember us all rushing to the plenary session. Politicians and officials crowded into the humdrum, plenary meeting room in Castle Buildings. Even the hard-pressed catering and kitchen staff came to have a look at what was going on. People I had never seen before rambled in. It was learned later that ex-prisoners and paramilitaries of different hues turned up to witness the finale. Senator Mitchell was eloquent as always. Apart from that, there were no speeches. Each representative had to say "Yes" or "No" to the agreement. Only Deputy Gerry Adams had to reserve his position pending internal party discussions. I remember looking at the late Martin McGuinness; he was smiling broadly and very happy with the outcome.

The only document formally signed that day was that between the two Governments – the official British-Irish Agreement. People passed around papers for autographs as keepsakes. The late Martin McGuinness rushed over to me and gave me his Bloody Sunday pin, which was precious to him, from his lapel. I said a hurried goodbye and thanks to Senator Mitchell, hugged the late Seamus Mallon - it is remarkable, 25 years later, that so many of these key players have passed - and then it was over. There were tears of fatigue and hugs of relief all around. We spilled out to brief the media waiting outside in the mud and in portacabins. It was lashing rain with freezing wind. I remember seeing John Hume, who was, more than anyone else, the intellectual architect of all of this, standing in the rain, looking up to the skies while giving his press conference. There were poisonous exchanges between Ian Paisley of the DUP and the late David Ervine of the Progressive Unionist Party, PUP, the loyalist party. There were rumblings and intelligence that Paisley was organising public protests and our security arrangements had to change which meant we all had to fly back immediately to Dublin.

On arrival in Dublin Airport, some celebratory alcohol was found but, to be honest, people were so jaded we could hardly take it in. In my case, I went home to an empty house. As it was Easter, my family had gone to Donegal where I was meant to go via the North with the RUC and then be taken to my Donegal home by An Garda Síochána. I turned on the kettle and opened the fridge and there was no milk. I sat in my coat in the cold and empty house and turned on the TV. The whole media frenzy was still going on outside Stormont. It was quite unreal, as one can imagine. A friend rang my mobile, never thinking she would get through to me, and there I was alone in the cold house. The following day, after a good sleep, I joined my family in Donegal.

The media were euphoric. I for one did not share the euphoria. Those of us on all sides who were participants knew it was only the beginning of a long process of fundamental change in Northern Ireland - a remaking of how the place was to be governed. So much was left undone, including policing, the justice system, referendums on both sides of the Border, the disarming of armed groups, demilitarisation by the British Army, the continuing release of prisoners and equality legislation.

The negotiations had been carried out across the three strands. These were strand 1, relations within Northern Ireland; strand 2, North-South relations and institutions; and strand 3, east-west UK and Irish Governments. My principal role was in relation to strand 2, arrangements for North-South institutions in the event of changes to Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution. This strand was predictably the most contentious for unionists. Any talk of North-South bodies was anathema to them and they saw its very concept as veering towards a united Ireland. It was only when the whole agreement came together in the chairman’s draft document, shortly before 10 April, that the scale of change envisaged was evident. Those of us close to it knew the agreement was going to be extremely difficult to deliver. It was only the beginning, and so it proved to be.

What are my thoughts 25 years later? They are complex. I certainly think it was the highlight of my work in politics. I feel hugely privileged to have been on the Government team, which comprised officials and diplomats of the highest calibre, most of whom went on to serve as ambassadors over the past 25 years.

I believe many of them have given evidence to this committee, such as David Donoghue, David Cooney, Ray Bassett, Rory Montgomery and so on. They were excellent diplomats and civil servants. My own private secretary, Gabriel Burke, who died last year, worked with me throughout the whole process.

In terms of implementation, the Good Friday Agreement has seen its share of ups and downs, mostly downs, considering how fitfully the institutions have functioned as planned. However, as an instrument of conflict resolution it has been an overall success. The agreement has brought about many positive transformations. Undoubtedly lives have been saved by ending the conflict. A generation has grown up in a precious peace. A recent survey demonstrated, however, that many young people born 20 years ago know very little about the Troubles and related politics in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt but that the Northern Ireland peace process is held out as a model for conflict resolution in other troubled parts of the world precisely because it has produced an enduring peace. Long may it last. Each conflict is unique in its complexity. It is true that conflicts which involve allegiance, like ours, are particularly difficult to resolve and take a long time, as ours did, going back to John Hume's early treks to the United States lobbying successive US Administrations to intervene with the British to try to resolve the conflict. The role of the United States cannot be overlooked. It was essential and remains so that support continues to this day with President Biden.

The politics of post-agreement Northern Ireland has been problematic to say the least. The delay in decommissioning of IRA weapons drained confidence in the unionist community and deeply frustrated politicians and the public on both sides and both islands. If 10 April 1998 was the best of days, the worst one for me was the day of the Omagh bombing. Just four months after the agreement the deadliest bomb of the troubles exploded in Omagh town centre. I had the grim task of representing the Government at a memorial service for its many victims. I was personally devastated because I feared that all the promise of the agreement had been set at naught. It transpired it was the act of dissident republicans but it was nonetheless a dreadful and shocking setback. I often wonder, if Omagh had happened before the agreement, whether we would have had an agreement at all?

After too many years, the IRA finally decommissioned its weapons and declared the war was over. Loyalists did likewise. The democratisation which replaced the conflict has gone from fledgling to faltering, lurching from crisis to crisis. People and parties have been at different stages of forgiveness and reconciliation. Although the agreement had a strong mandate North and South because of the referendums, the DUP remained opposed to the agreement until essentially the St. Andrews Agreement in 2006 and it was electorally in a position to take the top spot. Years of rejectionist politics deployed by the DUP served to dissipate the aspiration and dynamic and the hope for a shared and amicable system of government. The two Governments have toiled long and hard to make things work. This work continues to this day as the Governments try to unlock the logjam caused by Brexit and its accompanying protocol to avoid a border on the island.

Because I was there and had possession of all of the documents and position papers, I can vouch for the fact that of all the scenarios we considered, never once did anyone anticipate that the UK might leave the European Union. On the contrary, the agreement anticipates in many cases the benefits of free movement of peoples on both sides of the Irish Sea as co-members of the EU and envisaged a role for the North-South institutions for implementing EU legislation and directives. It never occurred to anyone that this might happen. When the British people voted to leave the EU on that day in 2016, it immediately presented a huge threat to the Good Friday Agreement. We had changed our Constitution on the basis that the Border would be porous, essentially open and perforated by North-South executive bodies. Quite apart from the technical details, which the two Governments and the EU are trying to sort out as we speak, Brexit poisoned the well and polarised politics between the two largest parties of government in Northern Ireland and between the UK and Ireland. This in turn has caused the institutions not to sit since the last elections in May of last year. Thankfully, the new British Government under Rishi Sunak had made some progress in talks with the EU and the Irish Government to resolve the impasse, which brings us up to date. I am happy to take questions if members have some.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms O'Donnell for a lively descriptive account. It is as though we were actually in those rooms with her, whatever different papers we might have had or were thinking of saying. That is an important and incisive analysis of the situation now. I commend her on that.

The format here is relaxed. We rotate between the political parties and give 15 minutes to each, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP, Alliance, the Green Party, Sinn Féin, Labour, Independents and Aontú. It is conversational, not adversarial. She will be glad to hear that, although well able to handle adversarial questions too.

Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms O'Donnell. It is great to see her and get the insight she has. It is quite an insight, all 12 pages of it. It is a precise recollection of her memories of that time. Senator Currie and I were adamant in doing this piece of work. As Ms O’Donnell has outlined, given the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the Good Friday Agreement and the situation today, if we are to move forward in an purposeful manner, we must have a knowledge of what happened in the past and learn from the mistakes. People like her coming in and giving these insights is critical for us to know what happened and the difficulties and complexities. Northern Ireland is complex. The political parties are extremely complex. No doubt a person going in there without that knowledge could do more harm than good. I thank her for the insight.

I will tease through some questions. The 15 minutes goes quickly. I will put some questions and then hand over to my colleague. Ms O'Donnell mentioned Dessie O’Malley and Mary Harney and while I never served with Mr. O'Malley, I certainly was there with Ms Harney. She was one of the greatest politicians who ever walked through the doors of Leinster House. She had a great political head, one of the greatest political heads I thought, as a Minister for Health. She was a great Minister, so Ms O’Donnell certainly had good advice on her side.

Ms O’Donnell referenced the sending by Tony Blair of a letter to David Trimble in regard to holding out the promise of decisive action by the British Government and early progress on decommissioning. Will she expand on that further? What was the purpose of the letter, given that decommissioning became a major problem for David Trimble and given the risks he took in making the whole deal happen? He really put his head over the parapet. What was the make-up of that letter? Did it serve any purpose later on?

Ms O’Donnell referenced the agreement gradually eroded the trust of the UUP and eroded its electoral support over the years post agreement. We all have battles in here about how to move forward and all the rest of it. It is important that we realise the depth of the concerns of the unionists. Some come in here and express that unionism is ready to work with us and getting a united Ireland is fairly easily reached. It is actually quite complex, so it is important that people like Ms O’Donnell come in and paint the picture of how difficult it was back then to gain trust with unionism. That is something we need to learn because that mistrust is still there today. Not everyone would agree but the unionists with whom I speak express that. We need to learn from that to move forward.

Ms O’Donnell was mostly involved in strand two, namely, the North-South institutions, the difficult part.

What is her opinion of how strand two evolved and the lack of progress with the institutions? Can any lessons be learned today? Were Ms O'Donnell beginning today, would she do anything differently? Even with the whole agreement, would she do anything differently? Is there a different approach she would take?

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

The letter was kind of a last-minute thing. I think David Trimble was panicking and his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party were talking of walking out, so he needed a last-minute confidence-building measure on the decommissioning issue; understandably so because it was not tied down and was vague and ambiguous. It was a commitment to decommission but it was not tied down timewise. As there was no time limit on it, he was being asked to make a leap of faith that the bona fides of the armed groups were genuine, that the IRA arsenal in particular definitely would be dealt with and that the commitment was not just a long promise. The Prime Minister therefore stepped in at the last moment with the letter. It was not part of the agreement - it was a side letter - but David Trimble needed that confidence before he signed up, bearing in mind that people in the unionist camp were walking out.

We need to remember how much pressure the Ulster Unionist Party was under at that time. Its was alone. There was a sort of consensus between the SDLP, the Irish Government and Sinn Féin. We knew where we were going. We knew the outline, the framework, of a possible settlement. There was trust between us and we had the support of the Oireachtas. We were in a very strong position. David Trimble was on his own and was being attacked from the outside. The fact that that huge cohort of unionist opinion was not even in the talks made his position even more precarious and so it proved to be. Over every election subsequently, the Ulster Unionist Party went down to one MP from nine. David Trimble needed a lot of support and we gave it to him. Both Governments gave him a lot of support by recognising his difficulty. It is similar with the DUP now. There were no DUP members in the talks, so it took them quite a while to come to the St. Andrews Agreement when they entered the process and agreed to devolution and to taking power with Martin McGuinness at the time. We overcame a great many difficulties at that time. It is hard to think we cannot overcome the difficulties we face now with the DUP but their members do need sufficient support and confidence-building from the two Governments to encourage them in respect of the protocol to take the leap of faith David Trimble took.

Unfortunately, the protocol has become tied up with the issue of an allegiance. It has become an allegiance-based argument, rather than an argument about practical implementation of the protocol. The perception among the DUP and the wider unionist community is that in some way, the protocol is interfering with their sovereignty as part of the UK. It is not and that is what the work has to be. The courts have ruled that the protocol is not interfering with their sovereignty and their guaranteed position in the UK. I feel it is just a matter of whether we can regain and recapture the sense of collective responsibility to make things work. That is just what we have to do. It was not easy for Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness to do what they did back then, to make the leap and to say this was as good as they were going to get, that this was an agreement and that there was parity of gain and parity of pain. Getting back to that collective feeling of purposeful work is what is needed in the present impasse but I know work is going on behind the scenes to try to do that and to build up trust.

If I have one regret, it is that I think we could have done with an implementation clause, which may have helped us. We did not have that in the agreement. Then there are some of the things we thought would be useful to help minority parties, that is, the capacity of a big party to block things. That has proved to be disastrous because it leads to ransom politics and people saying that if they do not get their way, they will block it. Some of those things have turned out to be not what we had in mind.

As for the North-South bodies, the present situation is of huge regret to me. It is a matter of working north-south and the peoples of the island working together. As the great John Hume used to say, it is the division of the people, not of the territory, that is causing the problem. If only we could just learn to work together. In that context, I welcome the shared island initiative the Taoiseach has proposed. It does not get enough airplay here but I have looked at what it is and it is a fantastic opportunity to do those things we intended the North-South bodies to do all those years ago. It is a matter of co-operating for our mutual benefit in areas such as health, climate change, biodiversity, the canals and all the things on which we can work happily together without neuralgic fears of political unity. It is the advocacy for political unity that is frightening the horses. We should work in the way the Taoiseach has suggested on the shared island initiative, which is a heavily funded initiative and which is really good. It is supporting cross-Border research, education, healthcare, biodiversity and agriculture. That is what we had imagined the North-South Ministerial Council could oversee. Because the institutions in the North have not been sitting sufficiently, the North-South dimension has not worked either. I think it would be of great regret to Seamus Mallon and John Hume in particular that the institutions in the North are not sitting effectively. Their greatest wish, far more than political unity or changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, and far more important to them, was that the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic would work together on shared initiatives and that that would ease the tensions and build confidence between the two communities. The great promise of the Good Friday Agreement has not been achieved because reconciliation has not been achieved, because people have not been working together and because the institutions are not sitting now and have been sitting only fitfully for a couple of years over the 25 years. It means that people are not meeting, getting to know one another and losing the hesitancy between them as human beings. I really hope that the institutions get up and running. Short of that, the shared island initiative is fantastic and should be welcomed by all the community in Northern Ireland. It is very well funded, with €1 billion up to 2030. What is not to like about that, about the communities working together on shared initiatives of mutual benefit, funded by the Irish Government?

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that last point, I think there was a comment from the British Government this week that it would be in a position to fund some of those cross-Border initiatives, provided that the Executive in the North is up and running. It would have to come from the political parties, but the British Government is not opposed to that, which is a very important point.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

That is very good to hear.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good to have Ms O'Donnell back in the Oireachtas. I welcome her contribution here today and compliment her on her work in the Department of Foreign Affairs with her specific role in those talks at that time. As we all know, the relationship between the Irish and British Governments over the past few years has, unfortunately, not been as good and as firm as it needs to be to ensure that Anglo-Irish relations are put on the best possible footing. It is to be hoped that that relationship will improve.

Ms O'Donnell mentioned the intensive co-operation between Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair at that time. We had John Major before the committee a few weeks ago and he referred to the strong working relationship and trust between him and Albert Reynolds that led to the Downing Street Declaration of December 1993.

The strong working relationship between the Governments elected in the two jurisdictions in 1997 was important as well. Ms O'Donnell mentioned the North-South bodies and that the programme, plans and proposals for those were filleted. If I recall correctly, John Bruton, when making a contribution here, expressed his disappointment there were not more all-Ireland bodies at that particular time. I assume it was in the areas of health and education, where there would have been ready examples of how we could have had co-operation on an all-Ireland basis without impinging on anybody's political viewpoint.

Ms O'Donnell mentioned so much being left undone and cited policing as one such area. I am thankful there has been a sea change in policing in Northern Ireland. I do not hear people complaining about the PSNI. The only thing that is disappointing to all of us is there are not enough nationalist members of the service. That is a recruitment issue and not imposed by anybody. The quota is there and it is about it being achieved. It would obviously be great if there were more people from nationalist communities involved. I forgot the exact chronology of Chris Patten's contribution, which was critical. I assume it was in the years immediately after the Good Friday Agreement. That work was especially important. Even though it was undone in April 1998, I am thankful to say that good work was continued.

In her submission Ms O'Donnell stated:

In terms of implementation the Good Friday Agreement has seen its share of ups and downs ... However, as an instrument of conflict resolution it has been an overall success. ...[and] has brought about many positive transformations. Undoubtedly lives have been saved by ending the conflict. A generation has grown up in a precious peace.

Those are important sentences. We are here week after week being critical as we analyse what has not been implemented and not been achieved, as well as the protocol difficulties and the fact the institutions, the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South and all-Ireland bodies are not working and functioning as they should be. Ms O'Donnell mentioned the huge gaps between the time the Assembly and Executive were in situand when they were not functioning. Coming up to the 25th anniversary, we hope those institutions will be back up and running. There is an onus on all of us, and especially on people like Ms O'Donnell who contributed so much to achieving the agreement as well as those of us in public life today, to outline that we are in a different landscape, politically, on this island, and between Ireland and Britain, than the one we were in up until April 1998. A number of us met a delegation from the Bundestag yesterday evening and we mentioned that fact to them. Regardless of our being critical that we do not have the institutions up and running and what has not been achieved, we must put the message out for people, especially the younger generation, about the importance of the agreement and what has been achieved as well.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms O'Donnell for coming in. What I find interesting about her outline is it shows the pressured situation she was in as part of the negotiation team. One of the things I have enjoyed about this is being able to get the different perspectives and views from people like her who were there. It seems like it was such a pressure cooker.

Moving to the points she had about David Trimble, she refers in her submission to efforts to "save David from himself" because of the pressure he was under. Will she expand on that a little more and give us an overview of the atmosphere he found himself having to face, including the DUP shouting in from outside the gates, essentially?

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Certainly. David Trimble was a difficult person. He was a very complex person and quite shy and, as a result, aggressive. He could be very aggressive when people met him in person. However, we knew he was under huge pressure and he was willing to embrace negotiations in the first place. As members know, the DUP was not willing to embrace negotiations or come into talks at all. He was a very brave person in the end because, as I said, there was a nationalist consensus in that Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and the entire Oireachtas was behind the SDLP.

There was such a groundswell of support for going into the negotiations with a positive attitude that David Trimble felt he had to do that, but he felt he was negotiating down. I suppose that is true of any person leading a party that had been in the ascendant and was still in a majority position. Thus, the UUP felt it was negotiating down and every concession it made, and even agreeing to a substantive agenda, was a nightmare for David Trimble because if you agree to a discussion on North-South bodies some of his people would walk out, or threaten to, and he would be hammered outside by the DUP in media interviews. As he was on his own and his party was not united he was under ferocious pressure, which you could literally see in his face every day. He was under terrible pressure, but in the end he did it. He took the leap and trusted in the bona fides of the people who agreed to the Good Friday Agreement on that day. He trusted there would be decommissioning of weapons and that he was not being sold a pup by the two Governments. Ultimately, he risked his own political career, to be frank, and his party.

History will be kinder to David Trimble and his party than politics has been because in the end the extremists in the DUP, who were rejectionists for many years, destroying the UUP politically at one stage, took the golden prize of having the top job and being in government. It is the way politics works. The SDLP similarly took a hiding in elections from Sinn Féin. In some ways, the people who made the sacrifices lost out politically, which was a shame, but history will be fair to everybody in the end.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms O'Donnell mentioned the huge strain on David Trimble. Another individual under great strain was Mo Mowlam, who had been diagnosed with brain cancer beforehand. I do not know whether it was public knowledge at that stage or not. It was the tabloid media in the UK that ended up revealing it, but I am not certain whether it was public knowledge during the negotiations or not. Will Ms O'Donnell give us an outline of working alongside Mo Mowlam?

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

I am glad the Senator mentioned Mo Mowlam because she has been overlooked in historical terms. Mo Mowlam was the first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who actually saw the injustice we were trying to deal with in terms of how the North was, and had been, run. Even though she was representing her Government brilliantly she was a naturally reforming, open politician. She was very inclusive. She took great pleasure in including the small parties and talking to them, especially the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. She had a natural sense of reform. She and Tony Blair were kind of natural reforming politicians. She in particular was hugely popular in Northern Ireland. She was very good at a time when confidence-building was required, in the beginning, and especially with the republican movement. She was popular and open to discussions with Sinn Féin delegates. She was willing to listen, which was so important. For so long the discourse between the British Government and Sinn Féin had been disastrous and there was no listening to the other perspective at all. She was very good and a very important part of the peace process. I am glad there is a celebration of her work in Northern Ireland around the Good Friday Agreement, because she has been overlooked.

She was quite unwell, which made her, I suppose, vulnerable. The drugs she was on made her emotional. I think the Northern Ireland Office thought she was too lax and informal. She was informal. She was a very naturally reforming Labour Party woman politician. She was a great woman, actually. I got on very well with her, the Irish Government got on very well with her and she was very supportive of the women's coalition as well, which you would expect.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms O'Donnell mentioned in her summary that Brexit poisoned the well. In one sense it certainly did, but it has also changed the agenda in the context of what different people are saying. Obviously, the big pressure or debate from a nationalist point of view is when and if a border poll will take place. The difficulty about that is to prepare for that, and if there was such a poll that it would be successful. It will only be successful if the unionists and those people who will come after David Trimble in the DUP and elsewhere, agree to it. That is the big challenge for us. If I picked up correctly on Ms O'Donnell's point, I agree that we now need to give unionist people reassurance for the future and to build on that by meeting and talking to them. That is a huge issue we as a committee are trying to deal with. It is the big thing that is not happening.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Yes. It has not happened and has not happened over the years.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How can we drive that? I do not know if Ms O'Donnell has any view on that

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

I have a very serious view of it. Once the DUP came into the peace process and the talks I do not believe that the Irish Government did enough work with the unionist community. Maybe under the radar or at diplomatic level, and at civil society level it was done, but the Irish Government could have done much more to actually enhance reconciliation and confidence building with the unionist community. There is, of course, provision for a border poll. I feel, however, that people should not be premature in pushing that agenda. Things have been so slow in the institutions with reconciliation and given the political distrust in Northern Ireland, talk of a border poll is premature and sometimes provocative. We can envisage a border poll. There will be a border poll and it is in agreement but I would hope that before there is a border poll there would be a great deal more reconciliation and understanding between the parties in Northern Ireland and between North and South, and particularly with the unionist community. The unionist community would be a minority on the island if there was political union. We do not want the same thing happening again of people feeling mitigated by the fact that they are a minority just because it was a majority vote. One cannot coerce people in Northern Ireland who have British allegiance, which is their entitlement. It is an equal aspiration as is the aspiration for unity. One cannot coerce them into a situation they are not willing to accept. We could be back with a very angry loyalist situation, which nobody would want. We must all be patient with the process. I am aware that it has been 25 years but in reality progress was so slow in getting the parties together, in having the institutions, and in implementing the agreement. Time has passed quite slowly. We have not really achieved the great promise of the Good Friday Agreement. Now is not the time for hasty moves. We should all just be calm and thinking of each other and minding our peace.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A point was made here recently by one of the people involved in the agreement who was a civil servant - now our ambassador to Canada - that we ought to look at places like Canada to consider issues around how that confederation works. Are there lessons to be learned there as to how one could have a new relationship on the island that would try to satisfy people on both sides, more than the present one does? That is perhaps a topic for this committee to follow up.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Yes.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are solutions that have been successful in other parts of the world that we need to look at. As Ms O'Donnell said, the Good Friday Agreement stumbled and is more in the breach than the observance.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Partition was 100 years ago, so it will take quite a bit of time to unravel all that has happened during the time the island was divided, not least for the people. All of the research going on with The Irish Timesshows it is very clear that through partition people have been divided socially, politically and economically. I agree with Deputy Smith and I never stop saying to myself that these are political problems. It is not a security situation. We have peace, thank God.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms O'Donnell. We will go now to Sinn Féin.

Pauline Tully (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms O'Donnell for her presentation. What Ms O'Donnell has managed to do is almost let us feel what it was like at that time, including the pressure in the days leading up to 10 April 1998. It reminded me of having a phone call with our former Deputy, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, who was there at that time. I spoke with him on the Holy Thursday evening. He was very despondent. Even the day before the agreement he thought it was not going to go anywhere, but thankfully it did. As Ms O'Donnell has said, it was only a starting point but it was a good starting point and it has led to peace for all of those years. I do not know where those 25 years have gone. The time has gone so fast.

I wish to get Ms O'Donnell's opinion on a matter. The Dublin Government is the co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement with the British Government. Does Ms O'Donnell believe they have done enough to protect citizens rights in the North? Could citizens' assemblies or other vehicles have been used to discuss people's views on issues like that to ensure the protection of citizens' rights?

An issue of concern to many of us here is the British Government's legacy legislation, which was introduced recently. It is opposed by every party on the island of Ireland. Serious concerns have been raised by Amnesty International, representatives of which appeared before this committee recently. Amnesty International is calling on the Government to take a case against the British Government because the proposed legislation is in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. At the time, members of families appeared here with Amnesty International and told us stories of how they had lost family members to security forces in the North. They have never got answers to that. They told of how the pain is still there even though some of these happened in the 1970s. It was very evident that the pain is still there. They never got proper answers and they feel now that they never will, if this legacy legislation goes through. What is Ms O'Donnell's opinion on that?

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

I support the opposition to this legacy legislation. The number of people who died on both sides and all sides are being denied justice and this is not right. It was never what we had in mind. Nobody proposed amnesties. There was provision for early prisoner releases but we did not, at any stage, propose amnesties. I recall thinking at the time of the prisoner releases that there would be much more opposition to prisoner release, but we knew that we could not have an agreement if we did not have an agreement that allowed prisoners to be released who were serving time for being involved in the conflict. They were represented in the talks by the loyalist parties and by Sinn Féin. They made it very cogent and real that part of the negotiations was that prisoners should be released. I thought there would be more opposition to that but in fact, in the end, it was seen as fair that people should have early release for the sake of the agreement.

The release of prisoners was a huge thing in my head as a lawyer given that it was going to unravel justice that had been given by the courts. These were the things we had to absorb. We had to say it was worth it for the sake of peace that we would have an early release programme of prisoners. Sometimes I think that the things that where huge in people's minds at the time ended up being accepted quite easily in the end. The legacy legislation, however, is opposed by all of the parties. It is opposed by the Irish Government as well. I would support that position.

With regard to the Omagh bombing, I was glad to see that the British Government announced a full judicial inquiry into that. That fell outside the legislation of course. I remember that time in Omagh. I had passed through Omagh the previous day on my way back from Donegal. I was coming down to a christening in Dublin.

It was roasting hot and very good weather in August. There was very little security in Omagh that day because, with demilitarisation, everything had been relaxed. It was four months after the agreement. There were children wandering around, eating ice creams and sitting on walls. It was such a shock to everybody when that happened. It broke my heart at the time. We felt that we had lulled people into a sense of security in these towns, because the demilitarisation had started and there was not the security there had been in Omagh for years. This bomb happened, which was heartbreaking. I am glad there will be a full investigation into how that could have been handled better. Sadly, victims have had very little justice over the years arising from the Omagh bombing.

That is my view on the legacy legislation. I oppose it and I think the British Government is just trying to protect its own security forces.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Oh, no.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Not at the time.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

It is legitimate to advocate. It is a question of the equal aspirations that are recognised by the Irish Government, that is, the equal aspirations of staying with the United Kingdom and of political unity between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Those are political aspirations. The big gain is that we agree that those are equally decent and legitimate aspirations which are to be achieved through politics. The border poll is premature now. I could see a border poll in ten years, with much preparation work done before that, but I certainly do not think we are in a state of mind nationally, or especially in Northern Ireland, with regard to unionism, to be talking about a border poll in early course. It would be helpful if people said it will not take place for ten years or 15 years. If Sinn Féin would say that it will be ten years and let us work towards that, that would be fine.

To hold up the prospect of a border poll as if it were imminent is frightening for the unionist community. I can understand that. The ground work has not been laid. The psychological space is not there for unionism to contemplate that yet because people are not working together in Northern Ireland in the institutions we have established. The key is to get back working together, getting to know each other and having a collective will to make Northern Ireland work. That is what is needed and it can only be done with the institutions.

Deputy Tully mentioned civil society. There is a need for civil society to be more engaged. I am sure civil society is completely annoyed and disturbed that its institutions and politicians are not working. The ideal is for the parties in Northern Ireland to come together, form the Executive and start legislating for their people. Failing that, a civic forum would be good.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

It is happening in houses and homes.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

I do not really mind where it happens. It is just that it should not be presented as imminent. I am talking about political unity, that is, a border poll with a view to political unity. I think people in Northern Ireland are not ready for that. Many people in the South are not ready for it either, if one looks at recent research. It is very important that the ground work is done. That is where the shared island initiative is good, because it is actually doing and funding stuff that is useful, co-operative and of mutual benefit and should not be frightening. It should not be frightening to anybody. I always remember the unionist party, in the North-South discussions, did not have a particular horror of it, so long as it was not politically motivated. The North-South institutions did not mind that, so long as it was mutually beneficial, non-antagonistic, and not too aggressively political. They did not mind as long as there was co-operation based on mutual benefit.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there was a border poll, to lose it would be an absolute disaster-----

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Exactly.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----because it would be so divisive. That is why-----

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

That is why we have to know what the question is. It cannot just be a simple question.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It cannot.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

People have to know.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Full research has to be done.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

It cannot be like Brexit. That was a disaster and I think even the British Government secretly believes and understands that it was a mistake.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is the deputy leader of the Alliance Party, Dr. Stephen Farry MP.

Dr. Stephen Farry:

I thank the Chairman. It is good to see Ms O'Donnell again.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

It is good to see Dr. Farry again too.

Dr. Stephen Farry:

We met briefly on the fringes of the talks in 1998. I was a junior staff member at that time. I want to ask Ms O'Donnell about her reflections on two different aspects of what has happened over the intervening 25 years. First, I ask her to share her views on the potential need for reform of the institutions. We have seen the growth of the centre ground in Northern Ireland, primarily with my own party but also the Green Party, People Before Profit and previously the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition. Is the system, with its unionist-nationalist designation, too inflexible to take account of those demographic and electoral changes? I ask this question in the context of the vetoes which were used in the past few years to block the Assembly and Executive from functioning.

In her opening remarks, Ms O’Donnell referred to the important angles around reconciliation being built into the agreement. While we have undoubtedly seen much progress in that regard, does she feel that this has gone far enough? Should we be slightly disappointed that we have not gone further in some aspects of reconciliation in the intervening quarter of a century?

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

I thank Dr. Farry. It is good to hear from him again.

The reform of the institutions in Northern Ireland is very much up to the parties there. If they can work together to get back talking and meeting, perhaps they can discuss things that would help them to work in a more effective way. I certainly believe that the blocking mechanism was meant in good faith so that minority parties would not be railroaded but it has turned into a situation where people can just say they will not go along with something because they are not getting what they want. That is a type of ransom and walk-out politics which is not helpful to anybody. Parties disagree frequently on things in Leinster House but they do not walk out of Dáil Éireann because they do not agree with something that is on the political agenda. It is very important that the institutions work as they were originally meant to do.

I reread my original private copy of the agreement, which I still have. The declaration of support in the opening preamble of the agreement states:

We, the participants in the multi-party negotiations, believe that the agreement we have negotiated offers a truly historic opportunity for a new beginning.

It mentions the "deep legacy" of "the tragedies of the past". That is very strong language of collective support for the agreement. I am aware that the DUP was not there but we need to get the parties of Northern Ireland to very much commit to work together again. It occurs to me that many people have not read the agreement. I believe that members of the British Government have not done so at various stages, such was their lack of knowledge and understanding of what had been agreed.

If I was to make one suggestion for the 25th anniversary of the agreement, it would be that it be republished and delivered to every house. It is not set in stone but it captures something pretty special and historic, in that it was an agreement among all of the parties and the two governments to work together for a better future and to end the conflict. It is a charter for the way forward and for how things can change. For example, the particular arrangements for power-sharing in Northern Ireland were tailor-made for a post-conflict situation as a form of forced coalition for the situation we were dealing with. It may well be that as time moves on, there can be a normal opposition-and-government situation in Northern Ireland, but we are not there yet. It is up to the parties in Northern Ireland to figure that out and work together towards a better arrangement.

I note the growth of the Alliance Party, which is very interesting. Dr. Farry will recall that during the negotiations, the Alliance Party was frequently underestimated and perhaps disregarded by the bigger parties. There was a tradition of the bigger parties being the big beasts which controlled the agenda. I am delighted to see that the Alliance Party has grown the middle ground of people who are neither green nor orange but are somewhere in the middle. That is only to the advantage of Northern Ireland. In particular, I wish to congratulate Naomi Long on her ongoing success in growing the party. I am delighted to see that. John Alderdice was also a very important part of the negotiations. He had a very steady and moderate approach to everything and was very helpful to the two governments.

Dr. Stephen Farry:

That is great. I thank the Chair very much.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Farry. In the absence of Michelle Gildernew MP of Sinn Féin, and given that no Independents are present, I call Senator McGreehan of Fianna Fáil.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms O’Donnell is very welcome. It is great to have her here today with us.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

I thank the Senator.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the first instance, I thank Ms O’Donnell for her work. We are all sitting in a better country, in a better Ireland and with a better future because of the agreement and the peace process. When Ms O’Donnell made her opening statement, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up because I could feel myself being moved by it. I was only young then but I could feel myself back in the moment and I could understand the dynamics. We all have a picture in our heads of the huddle around the camera and of what came before that. The vision I have goes back 25 years. We have been reminded of the exhaustion, the exhilaration, the desperation and everything. It was great to listen to Ms O’Donnell and to read her contribution.

I have a number of questions. Ms O’Donnell mentioned that the unionists seemed to be, and were in fact, negotiating down. Does she believe that is part of the problem where we are now? Do they still have that mentality that this is about giving up, even though everyone has pain? There is much more to gain from getting on with it and, more appropriately, accepting that things change and always have to change.

I will move now to my second point. I have a few, so I ask Ms O’Donnell to bear with me. Research over the years shows that when women who are committed to peace are involved in peace processes and in conflict resolution, those processes last longer, are more successful and are stronger. Does Ms O’Donnell believe there is a place now for a similar approach, just in a different time, and for a similar body of women or women’s coalition, or has the process moved on to a different point in time? An agreement would never have been made with all women or with all men - there are unique differences between us - but I have no doubt about the contribution of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, which Ms O’Donnell mentioned. I ask her for her opinion on that.

The politics of 2023 is very vicious. There is vicious debate online and in the media. Sometimes sound action is lost in the soundbite. We need to start pulling back from the move towards the two-minute clip in the media or on the Twitter account. That applies not just to this discussion but also to our aspirations for reunification, our desire to remain in the EU or whatever it is. We need to move back from that. We must have the maturity and confidence to be able to move towards sound action and to forget about the soundbite.

I would like to pick up on what Ms O’Donnell said in response to Dr. Farry's questions about the reform of the institutions. Sometimes I believe we are very privileged down here in Dublin to have a functioning democracy.

We have an Opposition and a Government. If the Government or Opposition does not show up, the institutions work. We have a mature Government and State. Ms O'Donnell mentioned that the parties in the North would need to agree for there to be change. There is always a fall-back in Westminster and Dublin and then it is for people to come in and fix things, but Dublin and Westminster cannot fix them. They cannot fix what needs to be homegrown and on their doorstep. What are Ms O'Donnell's thoughts on that? There is no real answer because it is not for us to "other" other parties and tell them to sort themselves out. Even though we might want a functioning democracy in the North, we are not getting it.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

On David Trimble and his perception that he was negotiating down, the big mistake and regret that I have about Mr. Trimble was how he dealt with the post-agreement situation. It was actually quite a victory for unionism because the North was still a member of the United Kingdom. He could have sold that better. He was under such siege by the DUP that he could not see that he had achieved a great deal by getting the agreement that Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom - the consent principle - until such time as the people of Northern Ireland voted otherwise. He got the violence to end as well. He had achieved a great deal, but because he was under such pressure from his political opponents in the DUP, he could not articulate that. He did not have the freedom to articulate that victory.

Similarly with the DUP today, the party needs a bit of support. I am glad the Irish Government recently agreed with the DUP that the protocol had been a bit hard-edged and that it understood its predicament about not including its concerns. That is the sort of language we must hear. We have to start listening to each other rather than imposing the protocol on a unionist community that did not agree with it. We did not get anywhere 25 years ago by imposing things on people. I am glad the softening of language has started to happen.

On women in peacemaking, it was just a fluke that I was there. I was in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Mary Harney appointed me as the representative in the negotiations.

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was some fluke.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Mo Mowlam was there. In that sense, as a peace process we were lucky that the two Governments had a woman on the team. It may not have happened otherwise. It was not ordained. Then the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition was involved. All the parties got involved. Bairbre de Brún was there for Sinn Féin, as was Bríd Rodgers. We had plenty of women in the room and I do think it made a difference, even in terms of behaviour. George Mitchell put manners on anybody who was rude to female speakers. The Ulster Unionist Party did not particularly like the Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam. The unionists thought she was very informal and lax. They also thought she was too close to Sinn Féin and the Irish Government. All of that dynamic was necessary. People got to know each other and that is what made a difference.

Women bring a different dimension. They do not get stuck in fixed positions, which is the problem with Northern Ireland. Before the agreement, people were stuck in fixed positions and they were brilliant at articulating their fixed position, but that did not get us anywhere. George Mitchell helped us to move into a space that was not fixed, which encouraged us to open up. He was as tough on the Governments as he was on the participants. He said they could not stick to a position, that they had to move a little bit. He had fantastic mediation skills from mediating disputes in the Senate in the United States as leader. He helped us. He was a masterful chair. We will never stop thanking him for his participation and for chairing the talks, and his role thereafter. He gave four years of his life then and he is still involved and still worries about Northern Ireland, and comes back to visit us.

On the politics of Twitter, I am glad I am not in politics now when I think of what people have to put up with. When I was in politics, from 1992 to 2007, the whole social media thing had not really taken off. I got angry letters in the post but I did not get the vitriol that some Deputies, both male and female, have to endure. I dislike all that stuff. Politics is for considered reflection. It is not for soundbites and quick responses. It is different to be a politician in this world of Twitter and social media.

What was the last question?

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was the institutions in the North.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Yes. There is always a review clause in the agreements. It was reviewed for the St. Andrews Agreement and there is no reason something like that could not be done to review the political institutions if they are not working. Why not? Nothing is set in stone. It is about having a working Assembly and Executive where people can co-operate and work together for the greater good.

The Irish and British Government are custodians. We are the grown-ups in the room, but at a certain point you have to say, "These are your institutions and this is your Government; if you want devolution, you have to run your own affairs."

Erin McGreehan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be the fear. I thank Ms O'Donnell very much.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we are more or less finished. When Senator Blaney was out of the room Ms O'Donnell articulated a proposal to send the Good Friday Agreement to every house in the country.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

I have my original copy. It is yellowing.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is something the committee should follow up.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Yes. A lot of young people do not know about it. A lot of grown-ups do not know either. It is a very well-written document, and it would be good for every house to get one to mark the 25th anniversary.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will follow that up. We have come to the end of the public session. I thank Ms O'Donnell very much for enlightening us with her experience.

Ms Liz O'Donnell:

Thank you, Chair. I thank everybody for their courtesy.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were very happy to have her here. We will go into private session now. Is that agreed? Agreed.