Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Before I turn to the topic of tonight's debate, I commend the committee on the eighth amendment, which has voted to repeal Article 40.3.3o of the Constitution. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the committee, Senator Noone, and all who participated in the discussions and gave evidence. I commend in particular the Sinn Féin team, namely, Deputies O'Reilly and Jonathan O'Brien and Senator Gavan, for the manner in which they represented the party. This is a very historic day, especially for Irish women.

I welcome tonight's debate. It is important that there are regular opportunities in the Dáil and Seanad to discuss matters in the North. The objective of these debates should be to inform, not to misinform, mislead or waste the time of the Dáil, as the leader of Fianna Fáil has just done. The objective should be to ensure that Members of the Oireachtas are abreast of current developments and possible opportunities. There is a requirement for constructive dialogue and a positive engagement to encourage progress. We do not need a return to the politics of the past, which saw nationalists in the North abandoned by successive Irish Governments. It is also important to remember that for many decades, nationalists in the North were the victims of institutionalised discrimination in housing, jobs, elections, the law and the institutions of the state.

Partition saw the British retain the North within their jurisdiction at a time when it was the most advanced industrial part of the island. They were able to hold onto the North and influence the entire country when they coerced the pro-Treaty forces into accepting partition and the sectarian statelet which put a unionist elite in control. Anything that was nationalist or Irish was banned or derided and after decades of institutionalised violence and conflict, the peace process and the work of many good people, including former taoisigh, created a new political dispensation through the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements. Equality, parity of esteem and the human rights ethos of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights are now central to building a new society. Sadly, there are still those among the leadership of political unionism who have yet to come to terms with these new realities. They continue to fight the old battles, defend the old sectarian attitudes and reject equality for all citizens. That is the current stance of the DUP which refuses to embrace the need for a rights-based society. They believe their position has been enhanced by the deal the party recently concluded with the Tories. As any student of Anglo-Irish politics will tell them, it will end in tears, as have all unionism's dalliances with the British. Edward Carson, the leader of unionism at the time of partition, reflected later on what had occurred and said "What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power".

While some progress has been made in Sinn Féin's talks with the DUP, there is no real evidence at this time of a willingness by its leadership to embrace the political institutions in the way required if they are to serve every single citizen. The Minister knows that. He was there and he knows what the problem is.

Diplomacy might prevent him from saying that and I certainly will not say anything that will upset the apple cart, but the Minister knows where the problem lies.

Michelle O'Neill has been working hard to have the political institutions restored on the basis of genuine power sharing. There is a special responsibility on political leadership. Deputy McDonald was at an engagement last Monday morning, and at another bigger engagement the week before that, with people from civic society who are not republicans. We believe we must bridge the divide between the people the various parties represent and establish a new dispensation which delivers for all. If the DUP wishes to be part of this and wishes to return to the Executive and the Assembly, it knows precisely what it must do. I have spent hours upon hours in recent months talking to the DUP leadership, along with others from the Sinn Féin leadership. It means agreeing a process for the implementation of past agreements. It means building respect, tolerance and equality. It also means the two Governments stepping up to the mark as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement.

Following last week's publication of the phase one communication on Brexit, there has been much discussion about the differing interpretations of it by the British Government. Nobody in the House should be surprised by that. For example, there is a commitment to a bill of rights in the Good Friday Agreement, but 20 years later there is no bill of rights. The British Government refuses to countenance it. There is a commitment to establishing a civic forum, but there is no civic forum. In the St. Andrews Agreement, there is a commitment to an Irish language Act, but there is no such Act. In the Stormont House and Fresh Start Agreements between all the parties and the two governments, measures were agreed to deal with legacy issues. The British Government is blocking those. Teachta Martin knows the British Government is trying to insert what it calls a special security or national interest clause, and that has blocked the process ever since.

The Taoiseach and the Minister know, because I spoke to them about it, that in recent weeks the British tried to insert a statute of limitations covering all Troubles-related incidents for British crown forces in a new section - perhaps Teachta Martin does not know this - of the Stormont House Agreement. Our party was not told about this. To the best of my knowledge the Irish Government only knew about it when we brought it to its attention. This was an act of bad faith and it is unacceptable. I, Michelle O'Neill and Deputy McDonald told the British Prime Minister as much to her face. The British want everybody else to deal with the past, but they will not. The attitude we hear from Deputy Micheál Martin, which is untruthful and dishonest, does not put the focus where it belongs.

See this speech in context