Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. It is a bit overdue but nonetheless welcome.

This afternoon I sat here for most of the contributions of the main party leaders, and the contrast between the statements given by the leaders of Government and those of the main Opposition parties could not have been greater. I think when the leaders of Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin read or listen to the contributions from earlier today they will agree that their tone and contributions lacked any degree of vision that their respective parties might have on the issue at hand. I was particularly disappointed in the contribution of the leader of Fianna Fáil who, despite his experience in the affairs of Northern Ireland, reduced his contribution to making political shots and jibes in the hope that it might bring some electoral advantage to his party, particularly on those flanks that might be threatened by Sinn Féin south of the Border. Language and its various meanings and emphases has always been a very important part of building peace on the island, but some of the comments of the Fianna Fáil leader today were an attempt to introduce divisive tribalism into a debate, which would result in a lack of unity of purpose from this side of the Border. Attempts to cash in politically on what has been called the national question are nothing new, as we can recall from the way a predecessor of his tried to bring down the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985; however, political immaturity in this area in 2014 is something that should not be condoned and instead should be seen for what it is. The Sinn Féin leader spent the first ten of his 15 minutes talking about the past - and a very one-sided version of that past - without any reference to the here and now or to the future.

I am a younger person who has been fascinated by this for a long time, as my first exposure to Northern Ireland politics was in the early 1980s, when Northern Protestant workers stayed with us at home during the construction of Aughinish Alumina. It is from that point that I developed an interest, and I resent any claim that this is the sole preserve of one political party or an individual. I agree with the sentiments of Deputy O'Sullivan and many others that all political parties south of the Border have played a very mature role in this. My party, like many others, has played a firm and concrete role in the delivery of the current position through Sunningdale, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the framework document and more recently the developments in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. Although these contributions are of themselves no more or less important than the contributions of any other constitutional nationalist party to the national question, it seems, upon reflecting on the remarks of the two Opposition leaders this morning, that the conciliatory nature which for so long was a hallmark of this State's approach to the national issue could be starting to fray, and that is something of which we must be vigilant as a Dáil and that we must work to prevent.

This debate is an opportunity for us to give contributions on the challenges that we as a Dáil believe confront the North, and they are many. However, we know that there are many challenges and we must also acknowledge the positives. As I said earlier, the news bulletins of the childhood years of a person in his or her 30s were dominated by the latest killing of a Catholic or a Protestant and the constant sectarian bloodbath which left open sores and deep divisions that we must confront as a society. We must be prepared to confront the horrors of the past in a way that respects the memories of those who had their lives cut short while respecting the wishes of families. For those families who desperately seek to find out how a loved one died, who ordered the killing and why it was ordered, we must be prepared to stand with them and seek the truth. Similarly, those who have no graveside to visit, no headstone and no remains, only the knowledge that the person might be buried in a lonely bog or on a deserted beach, deserve something better as well. They deserve to have their loved one at rest in a peaceful location close to family, and every effort needs to be made to ensure that any information which can lead to the recovery of their remains is given. On that note, I would appeal to anyone in this House or outside it who may have influence on anyone who knows where these remains are to bring it forward so that the families in question can begin the normal process of grieving and of letting go.

Through my membership of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, BIPA, I have probably had a greater level of insight into the difficulties that exist in building the peace, but I am under no illusion that the issues we discuss are the only ones or the most important. I am delighted to be a member of the BIPA sovereign affairs committee, and we are currently carrying out work on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. We have through the course of our work met several groups, and one of issues I have come to understand is that there is no shortage of people willing to speak in Northern Ireland; the issue is that the talking needs to be done in a more structured way that not only gives a platform to the elected representatives but also to the genuine community leaders, who, without fear of paramilitaries or other threats, can articulate the views, fears and, most importantly, the hopes of their communities. That is why I agree with the views of the Tánaiste from today that we need to see the establishment of a civic forum, which I believe could be a real power for good as it would ensure that proper discourse on bread-and-butter issues for communities are openly and frankly aired.

In our discussions, I got the sense that the recent flag demonstration was a symptom of a greater problem in some communities which feel threatened and disconnected, and this needs to be watched. Educational underachievement, unemployment and lack of access to housing, together with other issues, can gnaw away at the heart of a community whose political leaders have peddled the notion that the community is under siege and almost threatened with extinction. That is something which naturally could resonate with people who need something to blame for their condition, and the temptation of some political leaders to lay the blame for social and economic problems at the gate of another because of their religious belief is something that we all have a duty to work to confront. However, the culture of blame will not fix the problem; as we have seen, it will merely make it worse, because the result of the highly charged blame game with the resultant street protests and violence leads to other difficulties, including challenges for the retail and hospitality trades. This makes places look even less attractive for visitors and investors, and as a result further threatens livelihoods and people's futures. The way out of that for the community concerned has nothing to do with a flag but everything to do with a political process that is made to work for a community and deliver for it. These challenges of exclusion and social deprivation are not unique to Northern Ireland but they are complicated exponentially when we add sectarian divisions, historical hatred and lack of political leadership to the mix. The key is for the co-guarantors of the agreement, namely the British and Irish Governments, to continue to press the Executive to ensure that proper programmes of delivery of education, training, employment, housing and inter-community relationships are provided in these areas. These are the areas with the greatest potential to cause the scenes that will flash across the world and do untold damage to the economy of the North, and that is why it is vital that the issue be addressed.

To that end, we must all, through any engagement we have, no matter how low the level, encourage the parties to ensure the outstanding issues of the agreement are discussed further. I do not accept the prophecy of those who want to destroy this agreement that these issues cannot be resolved. For the most part, these are the same people who said there would never be an agreement. They campaigned against it and lost, finding themselves out in the cold when it came to the express wish of all the Irish people at the ballot box.

People have a right to protest and to assemble to voice their concerns, but when protests turn ugly and intimidatory and are designed to strike fear into others who might not share the same views in the same area, the authorities have an obligation to intervene. To that end, I applaud the work of the PSNI and its Chief Constable, Mr. Matt Baggott, who I understand is due to retire. We wish him well. The continuing work on acceptance and the normalisation of policing is work that we must continue to support. The effectiveness of the policing board and the devolved justice functions from Westminster will be the critical tests for the success of peace-building in Northern Ireland, and continuing co-operation between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána is a vital part of that.

I understand that the aspects of the agreement that remain to be resolved, together with the headings of the Haass talks, are the most contentious, but they were always going to be the most difficult ones to be addressed. We should not shy away from them because the opportunities for this whole island will be immense when they are behind us. The economic potential of the island as a whole, particularly in agriculture, tourism and technology and the food sector, will be important in delivering opportunities to the communities I referred to.

I welcome the Taoiseach's remark on Horizon 2020 and his view that this could be the blueprint for further co-operation on European programmes involving the island of Ireland. However, following on from the Taoiseach's speech, these co-operative measures can only be developed further within Europe if the United Kingdom continues to be a member of the Union. It is blatantly obvious that a withdrawal of Northern Ireland from the European Union would be disastrous for its economy and people. It would also pose considerable challenges to the economy and people in the South. However, rather than bemoan the fact that the United Kingdom might leave the Union, it would be neglectful and remiss of us to fail to ask why the British are even

contemplating a withdrawal at this time. It would be foolish of the Union to ignore the reasons a growing number of British people feel disconnected from the Union. We on this island, north and south of the Border, need to have an honest conversation on our European experiences. The sooner this takes place on this island and in the other member states, the better for the Union itself.

Strand 3 of the Good Friday Agreement is one in which further real opportunities can exist for both islands. We have already witnessed the ability of a healthier political relationship between the islands to create an environment for increased trade and jobs, but greater levels of collaboration in energy, education, health, agriculture, communications, culture and transport, the sharing of experiences, the creation of joint ventures and the adoption of single positions could all lead to greater opportunities for people north and south of the Border, and that is why I envisage critical roles for the British-Irish Council and British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. I wish the Taoiseach and Tánaiste well in their role. It behoves all political parties to unite with the common purpose of building peace for all people on the island.

See this speech in context