Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The great achievements of the peace process were a triumph for democrats on this island who were willing to invest enormous time and patience into bringing a murderous minority to abandon violence. The overwhelming majority of people believed and still believe that we have a duty to work for a shared future for everybody who lives on this island. The breakthroughs of achieving ceasefires, a new constitutional blueprint, active cross-border engagement, decommissioning and devolved authority did not happen by accident and they did not happen because any individual or party imposed its will – they happened because of the will of people which demanded a better future.

By every means available to measure public sentiment, the last few years have seen a growing disillusionment, unfortunately, and a sense of drift which has, at times, threatened to engulf the peace process. People have lost the sense of a process which was about building a better future for them, as they looked at institutions which spent their time on partisan gridlock and increasingly sectarian posturing. On the streets, a process which promised reconciliation was seen to feed isolation and identity politics. A combination of party self-interest and governmental neglect led to a crisis which was entirely avoidable. Thankfully the governments decided to reverse their policy of disengagement and we finally got serious round-table negotiations. What has emerged does not provide answers to most of the problems which were being discussed but it does represent a step forward and hopefully a beginning to tackling damaging behaviour of recent years.

Fianna Fáil welcomes the Stormont House agreement as a positive one. For the first time in several years there has been some level of agreement between the largest parties in Northern Ireland to acknowledge and begin addressing deep and growing problems. The Irish and British Governments have also acknowledged the error of disengagement and returned to an understanding of their roles as active facilitators of the process.

The Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly have been given a new opportunity to work in a spirit of cross-community co-operation. The largest parties have promised to end the exclusion of smaller parties and the public from key discussions. There has been a new commitment to address issues of identity and history in an inclusive and tolerant way.

The agreement is, however, somewhat flawed since its main positive feature is the commitment to agree things in the future rather than actually finding agreement now. As yesterday's budget revealed, the financial impact of the deal is minor and primarily enables a smokescreen to cover the implementation of policies which the parties said they would never implement. In spite of this, the agreement should, on balance, be welcomed. It is in stark contrast to the cycle of complacency and growing division which has defined recent years.

The reality is that this happened because of two rather damaging developments, both of which marked significant moves away from the dynamics behind all progress to date. The first issue was that the Governments agreed on a policy which assumed that all the hard work was done. Their explicit policy was that the time had come to force the parties to take responsibility and that the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Féin would understand the need to deliver. This policy was a complete failure. As sectarian conflict rose, as the executive grew ever more dysfunctional and as fewer policies were agreed the Governments kept maintaining that everything would be fine. Worst of all, they enabled a second damaging move away from past practice, that is, the growing exclusion by the DUP and Sinn Féin of others. At every stage they have shown an iron commitment to securing advantage for their parties. This is what Deputy Adams calls the electoralism strategy. Rather than embracing the idea of trying to deliver an inclusive government they have focused on the fight to become the dominant representatives of their parts of the community. Both parties have shown a highly selective commitment to the institutions of the Government to which they belong. Whether it was threatening to withdraw from policing when a member of Sinn Féin was arrested or by refusing to condemn sectarian lawlessness, the parties have sought to have it all ways at once.

When Fianna Fáil started pointing to an impending crisis three years ago the DUP and Sinn Féin did find a unity in attacking us and claiming that things had never been better. Within the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly they have actively marginalised all other voices. Ministers from other parties have been denied basic information about matters before the executive to which they belong. Both large parties supported the continued breaking of legal agreements to establish a civic forum because - they actually admitted this - they preferred people and groups to come to them directly. This strategy worked for them electorally but it has been incredibly damaging for pubic faith in the institutions of the peace process. In 1998 they won 35% of the vote combined. Now, both main parties have 55% and see themselves as the leaders of their communities. Unfortunately, this has primarily come from pushing people away from politics. Election turnout is at the lowest ever level. The electorate is growing but 160,000 fewer people are voting. The Community Relations Council has shown that the majority no longer believe that the devolved institutions are delivering.

The combination of governmental disengagement and party game-playing gave us this crisis. Only by ending these permanently will we return to the type of progress for peace and reconciliation which had been seen previously. While Fianna Fáil welcomes the agreement we do not welcome the financial arrangements which have enabled it. They suggest that the Cameron-led Government continues to have no real understanding of the precious and fragile nature of the peace in Northern Ireland.

I put it to the Tánaiste that economic development in Northern Ireland is not an internal matter for Northern Ireland. It is part and parcel of the all-island economy and it is a matter for both Governments and for all on the island of Ireland.

London's policy has been one of seeking to end the idea of Northern Ireland as a special case for investment. This is an appalling attitude and I regret that our Government decided it was unable to make the case, at least publicly, that it was wrong to endanger progress for the sake of amounts which are minuscule in United Kingdom terms. The people of Northern Ireland have enough challenges on their plate without the addition of dramatic job cuts and service cuts. I mean this sincerely and this has been an issue for me for a considerable length of time. Let us consider the health index, social indices and school completion indices. There are significant and large marginalised communities in Northern Ireland on both sides of the political and committee divide. We need a Marshall-type plan to deal once and for all with these problems in a programmatic way but that is not happening. Rather than cuts, discreet ring-fenced funding should be put aside under a clear programme along the lines of the RAPID or CLÁR programmes we implemented to deal with similar challenges. I know that in his time in the Áras Martin McAleese worked hard on this informally. There was some resistance within the executive because people wanted a slice of the action and so on. We need a comprehensive approach to underpin the agreement and to ensure a real dividend on the social side. That should have been at the centre of discussions and negotiations on the financial dimension of the agreement. On top of a minor amount of money, the executive is being allowed to divert investment spending and borrow to cover short-term budget holes. These decisions do not show a significant commitment to the long-term future of Northern Ireland.

The claim by Deputy McDonald yesterday that Sinn Féin held out and got what it wanted on welfare reform is manifestly untrue. Welfare cuts will proceed as will education cuts, though both at a slightly lower level than first proposed. Most seriously, 20,000 jobs are to be cut but we have no idea where these cuts will come from or what services they will hit. The rhetoric of the DUP and Sinn Féin yesterday about minimal impact fooled no one.

That the issues of flags and parades are bigger today than in the past shows a great lack of leadership by many at different levels. They have provided the outlet for many of the worst sectarian flashpoints and there is no doubt that the enemies of progress have exploited various situations. I have great reservations about what the agreement says about parades and I have said as much before in the House during Leaders' Questions as far back as May 2013.

Unionists have pushed for many years for the disbandment of the Parades Commission and the development of a new architecture. To coincide with this the British Government has undermined the stature of the commission over time. The Unionists were keen to move the parades issue into the political sphere, a risky and premature strategy and not a good move if we stand back and examine it objectively. It has the potential to cause even further political instability in future. I believe we need a strong mechanism that is objective and independent. The Parades Commission had these characteristics at the outset as well as the ability to make rules that had to be abided by. I hope I am wrong but I do not believe there will be much progress on parades if it is left solely to the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly has yet to illustrate how it is capable of facing down intense communal pressures. Unfortunately, there is no evidence of this happening in the short or medium term. The core issue is not how decisions on parades are taken; it is a question of showing respect for a process which can sometimes recommend something that one does not agree with. In concrete terms, the statement in the agreement concerning parades does little beyond reaffirming current principles.

A bill of rights is a basic document for a society trying to overcome conflict. It sets out common basic rights which can serve as a foundation for a shared politics. It should not be a political football and it is long past time for it to be delivered. The failure of the parties to honour this commitment is a serious weakness of the agreement, as is the approach to other clear legal commitments under past agreements. The Civic Forum for Northern Ireland is part of an agreement ratified by the people of this island in free referendums. It is not an option, it is an obligation. When the DUP and Sinn Féin closed it down they said it was too big, cost too much and that they would propose something better. The convening of a small group, hand-picked by those parties, continues to ignore the obligation to have a genuinely independent forum. History shows that it is marginal groups with limited electoral appeal which can lead to the worst violence and division. The forum is a way of reaching out to all communities.

Is droch an scéal é nach bhfuil Acht teanga fós againn agus tá an dealramh ar an scéal nach mbeidh ceann againn le fada an lá. Is deacair é seo a thuiscint. Bhí ról faoi leith ag údarás na bProstastúnaigh i dtosach na haoise seo caite maidir le chaomhnú agus le hathbheochan na Gaeilge. Is deacair é a thuiscint nach bhfuil an thoil ann chun Acht teanga a chur i bhfeidhm.

The passage of a language Act is also, in our view, not an option and the lack of progress is unacceptable. The Irish language is a language preserved and promoted by people of all traditions, most notably the Church of Ireland tradition. At the beginning of the last century, some very notable leaders of that community did some great work on the Irish language but today the language has less legal recognition than its sister languages in Wales and Scotland.

The commission on flags, identity, culture and tradition is another outcome which is about establishing a willingness to engage rather than achieving anything specific. However, even a willingness to engage represents important progress. In practice, the centrality of the parties in the commission will mean it will need substantial governmental engagement to succeed. It is a bad sign that it requires an agreement such as this to force the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to share basic information with members of the Executive who are not members of the DUP or Sinn Féin.

The agreement’s proposals relating to the past are also welcome. They are modest but they do represent potentially significant progress. As others have said, too often in recent years the real war of the past has been replaced by a war of narratives. Each side has worked hard to impose its version of history rather than working on finding common ground and a respect for difference. In a manner which has many fewer repercussions, we have seen this here in recent years with the Sinn Féin project to falsify Irish republican history by claiming ownership of a movement which has nothing to do with the Provisional IRA movement created in the 1970s. Equally we see it in the fact that certain parties are only ever interested in investigating the crimes of others.

To date, the Irish Government is the only party to the process which has been fully open and honest about its actions and failings during the decades of the Provisional IRA's campaign. The proposal for the independent commission on information retrieval may address one aspect of the issue. I think it is wrong that the DUP and Sinn Féin effectively have been given a privileged right over all other Northern parties to a role in nominating members to the commission and I trust our Government will insist that the members have the confidence of those who represent parties who never condoned, encouraged or participated in the crimes involved.

The failure of the British Government to commit to a proper investigation and transparency relating to the Finucane murder and the Dublin/Monaghan bombings is a huge and unacceptable omission. Regarding North/South engagement, the commitment to finally move ahead with the obligation to review and develop cross-Border institutions is a step forward and I would welcome a special debate on this matter in the near future.

On behalf of Fianna Fáil I would like to commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Flanagan for his personal commitment. In his few months in office he has chosen to directly re-engage in Northern issues and this has been very helpful. I believe some of the Government’s statements about this jurisdiction's right in Northern discussions have been wrong but the Minister’s actions have been very positive. I also commend the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, on his engagement and activity.

If this agreement marks a moment where the parties genuinely commit themselves to working across communal divisions in the common interest then it will be a very positive footnote in the process of building peace and reconciliation. However, if all it does is represent a further kicking down the road of deep problems and if the parties and Governments return to their recent habits of complacency and disengagement, it will be seen as a dangerous missed opportunity. For everyone’s sake I hope the procedures and discussions which the Stormont House agreement has created can turn a crisis into a new moment of hope.

See this speech in context