Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I acknowledge the work and effort of the two Governments, especially that of the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, who have invested a great deal of time in the peace process over the past decade. There have been so many false dawns in recent years that it was very welcome to see the St. Andrews talks conclude on a positive note last week. We all want to see the process work, the institutions return and Northern Ireland become a fully peaceful, democratic and lawful society. With that in mind the leader of Fine Gael and I issued a joint statement last week wishing the Taoiseach and the Government well in their endeavours in Scotland.

However, we must be careful not to get carried away with the outcome of the negotiations nor the text of the St. Andrews agreement. The lack of detail and the vague and merely suggestive timetable outlined in the annex could, but hopefully will not, lead to breakdown in the near future. Yesterday we saw differences emerge between the parties over what is said to be on policing in the pledge of office. This led to the DUP leader not attending a meeting with Sinn Féin and the postponement of the programme for government committee. With the DUP claiming an understanding was agreed in St. Andrews and Sinn Féin claiming there was nothing of the sort, this could well be a sign of trouble ahead. For the moment we will have to trust the Taoiseach's assertion that there was no side deal and that the parties will deal with this issue in Stormont.

The reality is that the talks at St. Andrews were presented by both Governments to the parties and the rest of us, in public and private briefings, as the last opportunity in the immediate future to secure any agreement that could lead to political progress and the restoration of the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Perhaps for that reason and perhaps necessarily, a heightened level of expectation was created by both Governments in advance of the opening of negotiations. The outcome also seems to have a certain amount of hype attached.

Last Friday I described the outcome of the talks as being, in reality, somewhat disappointing and, notwithstanding the surrounding spin, that assessment is still accurate. This is particularly so in regard to the planned sequencing of events. It may have been that the deadlines set by the two Governments were simply too ambitious. There are multiple issues about timing and sequencing that remain unresolved. The Governments' supposedly unalterable deadline of 24 November will not be met but there will be interim shadow arrangements to bridge the gap and, it is hoped, lead on to March of next year.

Much can still go wrong. However, the fact that, so far, it seems no party is in a wrecking mood gives justifiable grounds for continuing cautious optimism. If the outcome of the talks had been that all parties now accepted the police and courts and had clear agreement on transition to power sharing, then it would have represented an important step forward. However, it has become harder and harder to make out what was agreed at St. Andrews and by whom. This is because the St. Andrews agreement is not yet an agreement at all. Rather it is in an announcement by the two Governments of an indicative timetable for a process they hope will lead to agreement.

It seems that if the process is to succeed, the parties must return with their indications of support by 10 November. The issue is one of sequencing. Sinn Féin must, at some stage, indicate support for policing and take its seats on the policing board. The DUP must, at some stage, indicate a willingness to accommodate Sinn Féin in devolved power sharing structures. Which stage comes first? Both sides agree that ultimately a Northern Ireland Executive will have devolved responsibility for policing and criminal justice. Sinn Féin would prefer to postpone its step until that devolution takes place, which cannot be before 2008. The DUP says it will not permit Sinn Féin to be in the Executive unless and until its support for policing is confirmed. How does one bridge the gap in timing?

Initially the DUP seemed happy with the St. Andrews agreement because, according to it, the Governments' plan requires all parties to indicate approval for the agreement by 10 November, including Paragraphs 5 and 6 of said agreement. It is worth putting them on the record. Paragraph 5 reads:

We have consistently said that support for policing and the rule of law should be extended to every part of the community. We believe that all the parties share this objective. Notwithstanding the right of every political party to hold the police to account, we believe that there are fundamental principles of support for the police and the courts which underpin any democratic society.

Paragraph 6 states:

We believe that the essential elements of support for law and order include endorsing fully the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system, actively encouraging everyone in the community to co-operate fully with the PSNI in tackling crime in all areas and actively supporting all the policing and criminal justice institutions, including the Policing Board.

The DUP seems to believe that, regardless of when the Ard-Fheis takes place or the Ard Comhairle meets, within less than a month Sinn Féin must sign up to these two paragraphs. It also believes that, in addition, the nominees for First and Deputy First Minister next November will be required to make a declaration on entering into office that will include, among other commitments, support for the police service. However, we are told that Sinn Féin has quite a different understanding of its commitments on policing and the timetable for delivery.

In the past, and again last week, Mr. Mark Durkan, Sir Reg Empey and many politicians in the South, including myself, have expressed concern about side deals reached between the two Governments, the DUP and Sinn Féin. We warned against having any further such deals at St. Andrews but yesterday Dr. Paisley said: "We are in this fight to keep the British Government to the promises they made. None of these promises are verbal. They are promises which were written down. They know if they don't keep them, these writings will be taken out and pushed down their throats publicly." Will the Taoiseach tell us to what written proposals the DUP leader is referring? Is it possible there are yet more side deals, unilateral agreements and unpublished understandings between the two Governments and individual parties in Northern Ireland?

It is worth remembering that questions about the nature and extent of such side deal commitments have contributed to the derailment of earlier agreements. The inherent instability of the Good Friday Agreement itself flowed from a letter from the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair to Mr. David Trimble, written and handed over on the margins of the Stormont talks. The letter promised that if there was no IRA decommissioning within six months of the Assembly going live, the rules would be changed to exclude Sinn Féin from ministerial office. The promise set out in that letter proved to be completely ineffective. Now we hear about a new oath or pledge of office, which Dr. Ian Paisley and Mr. Martin McGuinness will apparently have to swear on accepting nomination to their posts, explicitly endorsing the PSNI, the Northern Ireland courts and the rule of law. Yet, when one checks the published papers, one discovers there is no reference, good, bad or indifferent, in any of the St. Andrews documents, to proposed changes, general or specific, to what any such oath, pledge or endorsement may contain. There is, admittedly, reference to a possibility that the British Government will legislate for any future agreement at which the DUP and Sinn Féin arrive in a Stormont committee. Therefore, there is of course no reference as to when it should be taken. Not surprisingly, the two parties now have radically different interpretations about what this unwritten requirement might entail.

Dr. Paisley believes the new oath must be sworn before he and Martin McGuinness become shadow First and Deputy First Minister in November. The British Government has indicated it applies only next February. The difference is significant, and if one listens to the DUP, it could become a deal breaker.

In summary, what we have published by the two Governments is a detailed timetable pointing to a resumption of power sharing government by 26 March next year. We have no corresponding clarity or detail on the internal Sinn Féin processes needed to resolve the outstanding question of policing.

As I read it at present, however, Sinn Féin will not endorse policing until the institutions are restored and there is a firm timetable for devolving criminal justice to the North. Even then, we do not know when they will take their seats on the boards. The DUP, on the other hand, will not restore the institutions until Sinn Féin endorses policing.

According to Nigel Dodds, under the St. Andrews arrangements, before Sinn Féin can take office, it must first demonstrate support for the PSNI. Mr. Dodds stated:

The DUP ensured that a triple-lock on devolution of policing and justice remains in place, including a unionist veto in the Assembly. This absolutely crucial victory means that Sinn Féin has to start signing up almost immediately to support for the rule of law, the institutions of policing, justice and the courts. This signing up must happen both in word and by actions over a clear testing period. All this with no concession on the part of the DUP to any timetable for devolution of policing or justice powers. Our position has consistently been that devolution of policing can only happen when there is confidence for such a move in the community.

On the other hand, the Sinn Féin position is — there is no agreement that Mr. McGuinness would endorse the PSNI in order to secure prior nomination as Deputy First Minister, it has not agreed any pledge or oath to be sworn by Martin McGuinness ahead of a special Ard-Fheis, it is not yet in a position to put a proposal to a meeting of the Ard-Chomhairle let alone an Ard-Fheis, it will not hold its Ard-Fheis before the deadline of 24 November and it may not agree to actually take up policing board seats until responsibility for policing is devolved to a Ministry of the Northern Ireland Executive.

From the South's point of view, it seems the Taoiseach believes a referendum may be required. There are two important points here. The first issue about a referendum is that, while one may be necessary in the South, the two Northern parties, Sinn Féin and the DUP, may well prefer an election. The agreement itself fudges the question and refers simply to "endorsement by the electorate of the St. Andrews agreement". Whether endorsement is by an election or a referendum is not a minor or technical question. It will change the whole dynamic of the next six months.

As I have previously stated, the asserted need for some form of "electoral endorsement" should not be used simply to further strengthen the political extremes at the expense of the more moderate parties who have done so much to bring about an end to violence, and to bring Northern Ireland to the position where it is today.

The second issue, more directly relevant down here, is that we do not know what aspect of this proposed new agreement the Taoiseach considers may require constitutional cover. The risk is that advice leading to a conclusion that a referendum is needed might be, or be seen to be, partisan or opportunistic, and that a general election might be added to the same general timescale as the referendum for purely party political purposes. The question is whether the changes now being made to the Good Friday Agreement are such as to require an amendment to the Constitution. Surely this would be decided by reference to what impact the proposed new arrangements would have on the Constitution. If the changes are to internal Northern Ireland Strand One rules and procedures, how do they impact on our Constitution? I fail to see how what we know of the present proposals — while they undoubtedly amount to an amendment of arrangements made under the original Good Friday Agreement — raise constitutional issues, since they do not further encroach into areas protected by overarching constitutional requirements. The Taoiseach ought to explain his thinking further on this important aspect.

In this contribution I have tried to set out in a frank and honest manner the problems facing the two Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland if we want to see the optimism created by the outcome of the St. Andrews talks translated into concrete political progress. Political progress since the heady days of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 has been tortuously slow. Too often it has been a case of two steps forward and one step back and on a few occasions, even one step forward and two steps back.

It is important that the momentum has been forward. Sometimes in the midst of what often appears like interminable wrangling between the parties involved, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the situation has changed beyond recognition over the past ten years. Almost 3,500 people died between 1969 and the mid-1990s. Politically motivated violence has now become virtually a thing of the past, and I hope it will soon become permanently a thing of the past.

IRA decommissioning has been achieved despite the boasts of the hard-liners not too long ago that "not a bullet, not an ounce" would be handed over. Violence by loyalist paramilitary organisations has declined hugely and I hope they too will soon be knocking on General de Chastelain's door.

See this speech in context