Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

To start with, I welcome the Taoiseach's willingness to go to Ballymurphy, his support for the families there and the notion of putting together an Oireachtas motion. That is good but I have to say that these issues are more serious than to have the Taoiseach or, indeed, Teachta Martin swapping anecdotes, no matter how serious and genuine they may be, about what is happening in the North and the suffering of victims' families. Of course, the suffering of all of the victims is the same. The family of an IRA volunteer, of a British soldier, of an RUC officer, of a UDR officer and, most particularly, of civilian feel the same way and I say that as a member of a family which has buried two family members. One was a victim of loyalist butchers - a young man coming from a traditional music session was left in a quarry after being stabbed to death - and the other was my brother-in-law who was shot to death by the British Army. I have been shot myself, although I do not see myself as a victim.

I think the Government needs to go a little bit further than what the Taoiseach's responses have been. It is a tendency in here all the time to talk about the need for all the parties in the North - it is a refrain from Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach's Government - to engage.

Both the Taoiseach and Teachta Martin know the leadership role played by Martin McGuinness in the North. We know that the problem is that the Unionists, for reasons I have articulated in the past which I understand although I do not accept, are the ones who do not want to engage fully. The Taoiseach also knows that Sinn Féin has signed up for the compromise proposals of Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan. He should also know that the British Government has not signed up to them. If he wants to know why Peter Robinson or Mike Nesbitt have not, it is because David Cameron has not. We know from our experience in the process that Unionist leaders, notwithstanding the support for all of these moves by Unionist grassroots, will only move when a British Government lets them know that there is really little other option and that has not been the case.

My arrest has brought some of these issues into sharp focus but I have come to the House and asked for a rational and reasoned debate on the past. I have asked for us to set aside our partisan views and willingness to score points on a party-political basis. The Taoiseach referred to Ballymurphy. I am from Ballymurphy. It is where I live. My home is not in the Ballymurphy estate but it is in the townland of Ballymurphy. I am there nearly every weekend. Most of my family still live there. The people who were killed are my neighbours. These are real issues for someone like me. The thing about Ballymurphy is that the people there look to the Government to do something about it because they know that the British Government will not do anything about it. The British Secretary of State made it very clear that there was a one-sided approach to deaths in which the state was involved. She made those remarks recently. The question to the Taoiseach is whether the Government got notice of the remarks she made and what he did when he was told she would make such a statement. The Secretary of State also dismissed, as the Taoiseach noted, any notion of an inquiry as sought by the people of Ballymurphy or any notion of an inquiry into the La Mon House Hotel firebombing by the IRA. Did the Government get notice of it and what did it do on foot of that? If the Government did not get notice, why was that the case? Why was the Government not told? These are hugely important and significant statements.

The Secretary of State also said just last month that no one could plausibly argue that the institutions must be set in stone for all time. She said that her government would welcome moves that facilitate a more normal system at Stormont that allows for formal opposition; in other words – majority rule. Did the Taoiseach get notice of those remarks? If not, why not, and what was the response of the Tánaiste?

The Guardianbroke a story about the Prime Minister, David Cameron, hosting the DUP leadership at an engagement in the garden of No. 10 Downing Street. The Guardiandescribed it as Mr. Cameron playing the "Orange" card, the suggestion being that he is trying to make sure that there is some courtship of the DUP should he require it following the next election. That happened with John Major which famously led to the entire collapse of the process. He wished to ensure there would be Unionist votes for his government. The British representative in the Northern part of our country said that the institutions are not set in stone, that there is too much of a focus on killings by the state, and she dismissed a cause to which the Taoiseach has given his support. What did the Taoiseach do about any of that?

The Good Friday Agreement is the people’s agreement. Perhaps the Government does not have any investment in it but I guess the Taoiseach voted for it and Fine Gael and Labour came out in support of it. Under the terms of the Agreement the Government is the joint guarantor along with the British Government. I have worked with more taoisigh on this matter than anyone else in this Dáil. With one or two exceptions I have found that taoisigh are very deferential to the British. They behave as junior partners. I accept that one has to raise an issue at a meeting but where is the proactive strategy? What is in place in terms of the recognition now that the process might be in some difficulty? All of these things are very predictable. What is needed is a political and diplomatic defence of the peace process led by the Government. The big shift in Sinn Féin, which many historians missed, was when we recognised the responsibility of the Government to be in the lead against and with the British Government in terms of trying to carve out a peace process.

The Taoiseach noted the 40th anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. The British Government persistently and consistently rejected any motion, appeal or responsibility it has to provide information on those matters.

I return to the issue of victims. I will conclude on this matter. Irish Republicans have acknowledged many times the hurt caused during the war. I would welcome if Teachta Martin said “This is Sinn Féin” but he uses sleveen, sleekit, weasel words such as “It appears to be Sinn Féin”, “As far as I can see”, “It appears to me”, and “As far as I have been able to ascertain”. Let me be very clear about this; all the victims deserve justice – every single one, particularly the victims of the Irish Republican Army. I say that as a republican because I cannot rail against injustices inflicted by the British or others if I do not take the same consistent position in terms of those who were bereaved by people whose legitimacy I recognised. Both the Taoiseach and the leader of Fianna Fáil recognised the legitimacy of the IRA cause, but in another decade. Somewhere along the line they became revisionist on the issue. I wish to be very clear that, first, it is the right thing to do morally; second, it is the right thing to do for the peace process and; third, I understand because I am from that community. That is where I come from.

Having said all of that, we need to straighten out these issues. The peace process cannot be allowed to meander. The road has too many pitfalls. There are too many powerful elements on the fringes of nationalism, within unionism and the British system who want to derail the process and build obstacles to it. For all the issues pressing down on the Government and all the pressing economic issues that impinge upon people’s lives every single day, the people of this island, the diaspora and the international community believe in the peace process so we need to be proactive and pre-emptive. The peace process is in trouble. Graphically describing the distress of victims will not assist although I do not for a moment impinge upon the Taoiseach’s right to do that. What is the Taoiseach’s plan and strategy for holding the British Government to account? I have given him three examples of the British Government stepping right outside the terms of the Good Friday Agreement of which the Taoiseach is a co-guarantor. I asked the Taoiseach if he had prior notice of the remarks and if not, why not, and what was his response to them.

See this speech in context