Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

—recognises the primacy of the Good Friday Agreement and the importance of both Governments continuing to protect and develop its achievements;

—welcomes the progress made to date towards the full implementation of a broad range of commitments made in the Good Friday Agreement;

—welcomes the continuation of cross-party support in the House for the peace process;

—reaffirms its view that this Agreement must form the basis of a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland;

—welcomes the progress represented by the proposals of the British and Irish Governments, published in December 2004, towards achieving a complete resolution of the key issues identified by the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair at Lancaster House in June 2004;

—regrets that there was no agreement at that time in relation to two key issues, namely, an end to all forms of paramilitary and criminal activity and decommissioning;

—notes that all parties to the Agreement undertook to pursue their political objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and that the Agreement envisaged full decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years;

—notes the damage which has been done to the peace process by ongoing criminality, including the recent robbery of the Northern Bank in Belfast and the assessment of the Irish and British authorities that the Provisional IRA was responsible for these crimes;

—notes that a report by the International Monitoring Commission regarding ongoing paramilitary and criminal activity will shortly be published;

—emphasises that there can be no room in a genuine peace process after ten years of engagement for threats of whatever kind;

—rejects recent comments by Sinn Féin spokespersons as to what constitutes criminality;

—underlines the need for a responsible and calm debate of the current difficulties in the peace process;

—notes the clearly expressed views of the Irish people that all paramilitary activity and criminality be permanently brought to an end;

—believes that with a resolution of current difficulties the restoration of the devolved institutions and the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is achievable;

—welcomes the continuing and valued support of the President of the United States;

—notes the determination of the two Governments to maintain dialogue with all the Northern Ireland political parties;

—welcomes the Taoiseach's recent statement that his offer regarding the early release of the murderers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe has been withdrawn; and

—expresses its full support for the ongoing efforts of the two Governments to bring to completion full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

I wish to share time with Deputies Coveney, Crawford and Timmins.

When the original Fine Gael motion for tonight's debate was tabled on Friday last, I made it clear that our objective was to achieve a consensus among the democratic parties in this House on what is required to see the will of the Irish people delivered through the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The significance of the popular mandate given to the Agreement should not be forgotten or underestimated.

In May 1998, voting on an all-island, all-Ireland basis, the people overwhelmingly endorsed this Agreement with all the new rights and new responsibilities this entailed. They did so on the clear understanding that each party to the Agreement was committing itself to using exclusively peaceful and democratic means to achieve its objective. They also voted on the clear understanding that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons would be completed within two years.

On Friday last, I forwarded a copy of the original Fine Gael motion to each leader of the political parties represented in this House. This morning I received a number of suggestions and additions to the motion from the Government. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Fine Gael decided to accept virtually all these suggestions and incorporated them into the Fine Gael motion. Following intensive dialogue with the Government, I am pleased to announce that we have reached agreement on the one outstanding issue: the release of the murderers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. I welcome the Taoiseach's latest statement in the House this afternoon in which he confirmed that this matter is off the table and that he does not envisage it being put back on the table.

Of all the acts of appeasement perpetrated by this Government, surely the most reprehensible — to borrow a favourite phrase from the Minister for Foreign Affairs — was the Taoiseach's secret deal with the IRA to release the common criminals who murdered Jerry McCabe when he was on duty for his country in Adare in 1996. The capitulation of the sovereign Government in the face of IRA intimidation represents the worst in a long list of concessions which have corrupted the peace process. A blind eye has been turned to the ongoing criminal activity of the IRA for too long, so long that they thought they could do as they pleased without anyone shouting stop. Tonight, the Fine Gael party is shouting stop and I hope the other parties in the House will join us in doing so.

In recent weeks I have had occasion to remind the Government that the Fine Gael position in respect of the peace process, unlike some others, has been consistent throughout. In government and in opposition, in public and in private, we have never played politics with the process. Since 1969, the Fine Gael approach to Northern Ireland has been based on three core principles, first, that there is no justification for the use of violence to achieve political objectives, second, we wish to see the coming together of all the people in Northern Ireland in agreed institutions and, third, there can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people living there.

In government, these were the principles that guided Liam Cosgrave in 1973 to achieve the Sunningdale arrangements. These are the same principles that underpinned the Anglo-Irish Agreement signed by Garret FitzGerald in 1985 and the joint framework document launched by John Bruton and John Major in 1995. In opposition, these are the principles which enabled Fine Gael to support the Downing Street declaration in 1994 and the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. These principles have served Ireland well and they will continue to provide the basis for Fine Gael's approach.

The Good Friday Agreement was the culmination of years of work by many people for many parties and I acknowledge the role played by John Hume and Gerry Adams in the early 1990s which helped to create the conditions for all-party negotiations. Central to this dialogue was one crucial point which the republican movement now chooses to forget. The republican movement had, since the foundation of the State, challenged the validity of the institutions of Government on this island. It challenged the Oireachtas, including Dáil Éireann. It challenged the authority of the Garda, the Irish Army, the courts and the Government itself. It challenged the principle of consent. The basis for these challenges, according to the republican movement, was that the people of Ireland, North and South, had not had an all-Ireland, democratic electoral opportunity since 1918. This was the last time when all Ireland went to the polls on the same day.

For the past 30 years, the republican movement had claimed that the 1918 election legitimised its campaigns of violence, its killing of more than 2,000 people, its maiming of more than 20,000 people and its bombings in Ireland, Britain and the European mainland. It had claimed the same 1918 elections as its basis for rejecting Sunningdale and rejecting the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.

It was against this background that the decision was taken to hold both referenda on the Good Friday Agreement on the same day. These referenda would remove any doubt that might have existed in the minds of the republican movement as to the nature of the Irish democratic mandate. The people of the island of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to accept the arrangements of the Good Friday Agreement and the consequent changes in Bunreacht na hÉireann.

I remind the republican movement, Sinn Féin and the IRA, that in so voting, the people of Ireland voted to reject violence, voted for the principle of consent and voted to mandate their political representatives to implement the Agreement in full. I respect the Sinn Féin electoral mandate but I remind it that I, too, have a mandate on behalf of the Fine Gael party. Sinn Féin has become accustomed to its mandate being disproportionately heard because it comes to us through a megaphone at the end of a gun. That must stop. No democratic party has a mandate for killing, robbery, racketeering, maiming or stalking. My mandate is to stand up for the truth, to defend and strengthen the institutions of this State and to allow democratic politics to build a country of peace and pride. I will not endorse an arrangement in which Sinn Féin is sent to the sin bin for a few months and then return to business as usual.

This debate gives this House an opportunity to send a clear message to the IRA and to its political representatives here in the House that this type of behaviour will no longer be tolerated. The republican movement must end all its illegal activities and complete the process of decommissioning. The urgency of completing this transformation has been highlighted by recent events and statements which have provided an alarming insight into the republican mindset and its conception of what is meant by its commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Its warped and twisted interpretation of criminality can classify crimes by whether its members were involved rather than by the acts themselves. It is very fond of demanding that due process be followed, for example, in relation to the recent Northern Bank raid. However, what due process was granted to Jean McConville when she was executed by the IRA or to Jerry McCabe when he was gunned down while on his country's service?

I know of no other democratic party in any democratic system which would refuse to describe these crimes as anything else. The ongoing republican illegal fundraising operations must also be brought to an end. Having escaped virtually scot free from its involvement in the Gallaher's and Makro robberies, perhaps the IRA thought it would try a bigger haul in December, the raid on the Northern Bank. Maybe it did not expect such a large haul but any other criminality it engages in is equally wrong.

Fine Gael's attitude to criminal activities engaged in by paramilitary groups has always been crystal clear. As far back as April 2003, when speaking in this House, I made it clear that all republican criminality must be brought to an end and that there should be no ambiguity about it. This is a matter about which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been bleating for the past two months. However, he has failed to explain the reason he has done nothing to tackle criminality for the previous two and a half years when he had the powers and resources to do so. Despite his protestations to the contrary, the Minister had a central part in the October 2003 deal which, but for the intervention of David Trimble, would have seen the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe set free, even though the Government sought no statement from the IRA to end criminality at that time.

What I find disturbing is the republican movement's version of democratic politics which appears to be one in which it holds sovereign Governments to ransom and resorts to threats and intimidation when it does not get everything it wants. It has yet to learn the true nature of its much vaunted electoral mandate. The Sinn Féin electoral mandate is for democratic politics, which requires negotiation and compromise, not threats and intimidation.

The Fine Gael message to Sinn Féin and the IRA is clear. We want the republican movement to join the democratic process, leave behind its criminality and criminal past, end punishment beatings and racketeering and back up its words of embracing democratic politics with actions to demonstrate them, rather than committing breaches of trust to undermine them. Only then will people have full confidence that all parties are pursuing their political objectives by the same means. Only then can we have confidence that our electoral process is not being corrupted by the proceeds of criminal activity.

My party does not want to see Sinn Féin excluded from the democratic process but unless it completes this journey, it will have deluded itself. We must now look to the future and efforts to revive negotiations between the parties. Recall of the Forum on Peace and Reconciliation would be beneficial in allowing parties to come together to explore how best talks could resume. Last Sunday, Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, said, "I am for straight talk." That opportunity now presents itself and actions in the cause of true democracy will always be more meaningful than lies, hypocrisy and ambiguity.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak this evening in support of the motion tabled by the Fine Gael Party and supported by the Government parties with agreed amendments. I wish to reinforce the message given by party leader, which in its essence is crystal clear: "The time for reluctant acceptance or tolerance of the existence of armed, illegal paramilitary groups as key players or influencers in the peace process must end." The House must be unambiguous and firm in its demands of all paramilitaries including violent republicans and political representatives who have a special relationship and influence over the IRA, as Martin McGuinness admitted on "Questions and Answers" last night.

This motion is being debated in the context of IRA statements issued last week by faceless people with no legitimate mandate, in which it lectured the two Governments and the Irish people in a self-righteous manner and threatened to withdraw all co-operation regarding the peace process. It states its patience has been "tried to the limit" and warns us not to "underestimate the seriousness of the situation". Does it not cross the minds of members of the IRA that the patience of both Governments has been tried and tested many times, not least most recently by the biggest bank raid in the history of Ireland, where all the evidence points to IRA involvement? The robbery occurred at a time when people North and South believed we were in touching distance of a lasting agreement and full decommissioning before Christmas. Is it any wonder people feel betrayed by an organisation that gives all the signs of moving towards full decommissioning, while at the same time planning a bank robbery on such a scale? This is without mentioning the continued use of punishment beatings throughout the political process while we tried to find an acceptable way forward based on the Good Friday Agreement, which is nearly seven years' old.

John A. Murphy summed up the view of many over the weekend, when he wrote in the Sunday Independent:

It cannot be said too clearly or too often: the IRA is not a legitimate player in the process, as it is frequently treated. It is an illegal criminal organisation which purports to usurp the lawful government and army of the Republic. It is a violation of the law and the Constitution. The fundamental problem is not its criminality nor even decommissioning, but its very existence.

There is no need or role for the IRA in modern Ireland, North or South. The sooner it gets off the pitch, as the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, put it, the better to allow legitimate, democratically elected parties which have been given a mandate by the people to get on with putting together a lasting peace process with devolved power and an end to paramilitarism and all its ugly consequences. We all have a responsibility to make things happen in this regard.

While I do not pretend to have the same understanding as some Deputies of the mind-set of those who continue the so-called armed struggle or those who threaten to return to it, I know the vast majority of people on this island support the Good Friday Agreement as the only basis for a lasting settlement and want an end, once and for all, to paramilitarism in all its forms. Republicans and Nationalists of all shades have political parties well able to represent them and fight any battles that need to be fought through politics and debate. The use and threat of violence must end in reality and as a political bargaining chip in negotiations in which more and more concessions are sought.

Sinn Féin has a unique responsibility in this regard. As it consistently reminds us, it has a mandate but in recent times this mandate has been based on a repeated commitment to the Good Friday Agreement and the use of exclusively peaceful and democratic means to achieve its political objectives. How are Deputies to view Sinn Féin? It is a political party, yet it seems impossible to get a credible answer from it as to the real relationship between its leadership and the leadership of the IRA. One week, we see Sinn Féin representatives negotiating to release IRA prisoners who shot a garda, while the next we hear them it refuse to comment on or attempt to clarify IRA statements, saying they are entirely separate organisations. People will no longer be taken for fools in this regard. All elected Members of the House who recognise the State and the Constitution must end links with any form of violence and accept and recognise that crimes committed by paramilitary organisations or anyone else are criminal and cannot be justified by any cause or struggle or for fundraising purposes, nor tolerated for the sake of the peace process.

I welcome the Taoiseach's recent statements, particularly today's statement on the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe, an issue on which I heard strong public views during the recent European election campaign. I wish the Government well, particularly the Taoiseach and the Ministers for Finance and Justice, Equality and Law Reform opposite, who are the key people involved in trying to bring about a lasting agreement with which everyone on this island can live.

I repeat my call on the republican movement to clearly demonstrate its commitment to full decommissioning and to ending all criminal and paramilitary activity.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this vital issue. As someone living close to the Border and with many contacts in Northern Ireland, I possibly understand more about the benefits of peace and what a long-term solution can do to create industry, commerce and good relations on this island. I refer to a comment by my colleague, Deputy Coveney, about a mind-set. I find it hard to understand how anyone can go to church, Mass or whatever, and be involved in murdering or maiming somebody in the name of religion. A visit to Poland to see what had happened there — man's inhumanity to man — changed my understanding of that. I saw the railroads and the stations that had been built, although thank God we did not go that far here. However, there is, in many ways, a mind-set problem we must get over.

I welcome the fact our party leader, Deputy Kenny, was able to find a mechanism with the Government to enable a united approach to this serious issue. Yesterday, I met some of my colleagues from Monaghan, a Border county, after a council meeting at which a resolution had been put forward questioning criminality, paramilitarism and all that stands for. The resolution basically condemned such activities and sought to ensure the Good Friday Agreement was implemented in full. It was proposed by a Fianna Fáil member and seconded by a Fine Gael member. For the first time in the history of the State, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Sinn Féin made a unanimous decision. Perhaps we can question what some people believe about criminality but at least the council did not split on it. I remember when I became a member of the council in 1991, all too often if someone proposed a vote of sympathy or condemnation of murder or otherwise, they were accused of being anti-peace and anti-political. There is no doubt that wee have come a long way in the past ten years.

Illegal oil is an ongoing issue in the Border area. I rang a Garda barracks along the Border this evening to ask if there had been any finds of oil wash. Oil wash is lethal sulphuric acid, which is dumped in drums, some of which are only plastic, along side roads or main roads. This week some were found in Mullyash, north of Castleblayney, and some close to the main Dundalk road. In Mullyash, the drums were found quite close to a community centre. One can only imagine what would happen if one of those drums burst, which has happened. Monaghan County Council workers along with the fire brigade had to remove those drums. Given its composition, this oil wash must be exported to Germany. In 2004, Monaghan County Council spent approximately €500,000 dealing with this type of waste. It is bad for the economy and is an issue that must be addressed.

Before Christmas we all thought agreement was close, especially when we saw the like of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party coming so close to it. It is something about which we never dreamt. It is so sad that the issue of decommissioning once again raised its head. The Agreement can save lives and bring peace and prosperity. As Minister for Tourism and Trade many years ago, my party leader was involved in bringing people on both sides of the Border together to deal with tourism. We have come a long way since then and there is now one body. That is what can be gained but it can only be gained if crime, punishment beatings and decommissioning are dealt with. I urge all who believe in the democratic system, or who claim to believe in it, to deal with these issues once and for all.

When the Good Friday Agreement was published, I remember I had a specific interest in two issues, although there was much more to it and I do not suggest resolution of these issues would solve all the problems. One issue was decommissioning which I felt might not happen but that at least an effort should be made to deal with it. The second issue was the release of all prisoners. As far as I recall, both those issues were to be resolved within two years. To my astonishment, the prisoners issue was dealt with almost instantly and people who had been involved in all sorts of heinous crime, including murder, walked free, yet the decommissioning issue continues many years later. It is time for people to decide whether they want to use democratic means or the ballot box and the gun. I strongly urge those who have control over such people to make sure we achieve that peace for which so many people here voted and in which they believe.

I recognise the efforts of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Whether Government or Opposition, everybody has played his or her part in trying to bring about peace. I was very angry about the lack of apologies following some of the prisoner releases. Other issues annoyed many of us over the years. The Garda Jerry McCabe one has been highlighted as one totally unacceptable to some of us. However, people generally bent over backwards. I bit my tongue on many occasions and said nothing when the media and others contacted me to make a comment about what was happening because I believed there was a bigger goal to be won and that we should make every effort to win it.

I do not know about any other Member of this House but the IRA's statement of last week signed by a certain gentleman sent shivers down my spine even though it was only two lines. It certainly caused much consternation North and South of the Border. Most of the murders over the past 30 or so years took place in the immediate Border area. While atrocities took place in Dublin and elsewhere, most of the deaths, maiming and displacement of families occurred in the Border areas. There is still a clear memory of Omagh. People know who carried out the Omagh bombing and I urge them to come forward or to use some mechanism to ensure those responsible are put behind bars so as to remove the anxieties of those who deserve some answers.

I do not wish to isolate the IRA in this. I say clearly that all paramilitary groups must stop their actions. It must be across the board. To claim there is a difference between a killing committed by the IRA and one carried out by the UVF is to fool oneself.

I am proud to be a member of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and am glad that body is meeting once again in the province of Ulster. Unfortunately, however, it is meeting in County Donegal and not in any of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. We should be able to meet and engage with all parties anywhere on this island. The British-Irish Interparliamentary Body has done much to bring people together and to encourage dialogue, and the meeting from 6 to 8 March will be useful. I again urge those in the Unionist parties to take up their positions in that group, where they will have an opportunity to partake in discussion and dialogue.

I support my leader's call for the National Forum on Peace and Reconciliation to meet in Dublin Castle so that everybody can debate the future of the peace process. We cannot allow it to fester. We would all like to say that nothing more should happen. However, if nothing happens, the consequences will be dire. We have a different relationship with Sinn Féin than that which existed ten years ago. I ask my colleagues in that party to use the power they claimed to have at the signing of the Good Friday Agreement to convince the IRA of what it needs to do. If the IRA does what it promised by decommissioning and giving up criminality, we will be able to persuade others to do that which Sinn Féin has requested of them.

This is a crisis for Sinn Féin-IRA. It is serious for the entire country and time is not on our side. There must be action now.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the main reasons for the overwhelming "Yes" vote in the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement was that people were led to believe that paramilitaries would decommission within two years and, ultimately, effectively wind up. This belief assisted us in putting up with the sight of people convicted of the most horrific crimes being freed from prison to the cheers of their associates while the true victims of their appalling deeds watched helplessly on their television screens, knowing that their mother, father, son, daughter, sister or brother would never return.

Seven years later, I and many others feel cheated that total decommissioning has not happened and the paramilitaries continue in existence. Indeed, the IRA issues statements which can only be viewed as a veiled threat to the Irish people. The Fine Gael motion calls on the republican movement to clearly demonstrate its commitment to full decommissioning and ending all its criminal and paramilitary activity. When I hear of the continuing criminality of the IRA, it reminds me of Alexander Pope's lines:

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;

Man never is, but always to be blessed.

Sinn Féin has led all to believe it can bring about the end of the IRA. Regretfully, one now gets the feeling that in Sinn Féin's eyes the IRA is always to be but is never quite finished.

The Sinn Féin-IRA strategy of the bomb and the bullet allied to the political dimension, in a tactical use of the so-called armed struggle, gave it a position on the stage that did not reflect its mandate. The document entitled Tuas, circulated in the summer of 1994, outlined how the republican movement would move forward. Some viewed this document as the "totally unarmed strategy", while others know it as the "tactical use of the armed struggle". This difference is the cause of our difficulty today and has led to this Fine Gael motion. Sinn Féin's new-found catch cry of its mandate must cause great pain for the SDLP which performed a self-sacrifice of sorts to help create peace as it struggled to offset the effects of Sinn Féin's new strategy. A similar tactic has been used to demonise the Progressive Democrats in an attempt to woo some of the Taoiseach's supporters.

There is a fear that the attitude of Sinn Féin to the peace process is beginning to resemble that of a schoolyard bully who keeps wanting more, while all around acquiesce "for the sake of peace". There comes a time, however, when we must step back and consider whether we can sacrifice democracy. Attempts were made to criticise Fine Gael for raising the issue of the early release of the murderers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. However, the outpouring of public anger at this proposal has shown the Government there is only so much people will take. There are some promises that must not be broken and the State must have a bottom line. We cannot capitulate to blackmail and intimidation.

Recent court reports referred to some Members of this House being under surveillance. I do not doubt that many Members have been so, as have many members of the security force and many workers whose place of employment was or is to be the target of a criminal act. Most of the public cannot comprehend the sophistication of this intimidation. Members of the security forces must know that this country stands by them. Secret deals cannot be made that undermine the Garda Síochána, the Army and the courts.

When democratic Governments sit down with representatives of terrorist organisations, the final deal must be one that is acceptable to democrats. The anticipation of a good deal for democrats has created much goodwill for the Taoiseach in his efforts and those in all parties who want to reach a successful conclusion. However, the mandate refers to the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The IRA stated that it has contributed repeatedly to the peace process. We only want it to contribute once by confirming that it is going out of business. All paramilitary organisations must exit the stage.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

—recognises the primacy of the Good Friday Agreement and the importance of both Governments continuing to protect and develop its achievements;

—welcomes the progress made to date towards the full implementation of a broad range of commitments made in the Good Friday Agreement;

—welcomes the continuation of cross-party support in the House for the peace process;

—reaffirms its view that this Agreement must form the basis of a lasting settlement in Northern Ireland;

—welcomes the progress represented by the proposals of the British and Irish Governments, published in December 2004, towards achieving a complete resolution of the key issues identified by the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Blair at Lancaster House in June 2004;

—regrets that there was no agreement at that time in relation to two key issues, namely, an end to all forms of paramilitary and criminal activity and decommissioning;

—notes that all parties to the Agreement undertook to pursue their political objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and that the Agreement envisaged full decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years;

—notes the damage which has been done to the peace process by ongoing criminality, including the recent robbery of the Northern Bank in Belfast and the assessment of the Irish and British authorities that the Provisional IRA was responsible for these crimes;

—notes that a report by the International Monitoring Commission regarding ongoing paramilitary and criminal activity will shortly be published;

—emphasises that there can be no room in a genuine peace process after ten years of engagement for threats of whatever kind;

—rejects recent comments by Sinn Féin spokespersons as to what constitutes criminality;

—underlines the need for a responsible and calm debate of the current difficulties in the peace process;

—notes the clearly expressed views of the Irish people that all paramilitary activity and criminality be permanently brought to an end;

—believes that with a resolution of current difficulties the restoration of the devolved institutions and the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is achievable;

—welcomes the continuing and valued support of the President of the United States;

—notes the determination of the two Governments to maintain dialogue with all the Northern Ireland political parties;

—welcomes the Taoiseach's recent statement that the question regarding the early release of the murdererss of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was no longer on the table; and

—expresses its full support for the ongoing efforts of the two Governments to bring to completion full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

I welcome this opportunity to address the House. It has never been more important that our voice should be heard in support of the peace process and the necessity to bring this process to a successful conclusion. This is a time of some considerable tension in the peace process, thus demanding that we address the issues confronting us in a considered and calm manner.

At the time the Good Friday Agreement was signed, Senator George Mitchell predicted it would be more difficult to implement the Agreement than it was to negotiate it. He was certainly right. I have spent the past seven years seeking to secure its full implementation. While there have been times of difficulty and frustration, I do not regret one moment of the effort over that time. I am enormously proud of what has been achieved and pay tribute to all concerned, in both Governments and among all parties, who have helped to transform the political landscape in Northern Ireland.

Anybody who contends that this Government would put at risk all that has been achieved over the past decade for the sake of partisan politics is gravely mistaken. Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement have been at the top of our agenda and will remain there for as long as is necessary to finish the job. Sterile point-scoring and escalating recrimination will not assist any of us to finish the job. The key question, after seven years of start-stop progress, is what are the crucial issues that must be resolved to secure the full promise and potential of the Agreement.

In the declaration of support which prefaced the Good Friday Agreement, each participant reaffirmed a "total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise." We always knew that making this commitment a reality on the ground would take time. In a society emerging out of conflict, there would inevitably be a period of transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Nevertheless, as the Agreement was gradually implemented and inclusive politics began to work, the transition was progressively advanced, including through two acts of IRA arms decommissioning.

However, that period of incremental progress, where inclusive politics was advanced in step with progress in arms decommissioning, came to an end in October 2002 following the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. The devolved institutions collapsed because the trust and confidence necessary to sustain them was no longer there. The analysis of both Governments at that time was that trust and confidence could only be rebuilt by a comprehensive approach that addressed all of the outstanding aspects of the Agreement. Incrementalism, therefore, gave way to "acts of completion" which would be required from all sides, including the two Governments.

Since then, there have been three major initiatives aimed at securing a comprehensive outcome, which both definitively resolved the questions of paramilitary capability and activity, and provided a secure basis for the inclusive operation of the political institutions. The results of these negotiations were the joint declaration of May 2003; the abortive sequence of October 2003 involving the two Governments, Sinn Féin and the UUP; and most recently, the two Governments' proposals of December 2004 for a comprehensive agreement. Each of these engagements provided the necessary enabling context in which, by making it clear that politics was indeed working and that all of the issues were being comprehensively addressed, closure could be brought to IRA paramilitarism. The joint declaration was a comprehensive audit of the Agreement and provided a renewed agenda for its implementation. Similarly, the comprehensive agreement of last December addressed the four crux issues that were at the heart of the process, namely, decommissioning, ending paramilitary activity, completing the policing project and ensuring stable institutions.

In each of these three engagements, progress was made, the agenda of implementing the Agreement was advanced and the gaps between the various parties were narrowed. Regrettably, however, there was never sufficient movement on the crux issues of paramilitarism and arms decommissioning to provide the trust and confidence necessary to sustain inclusive government. The political reality was that the movement available from the IRA was insufficient to secure the agreement of the prospective Unionist partner.

The most recent negotiation failed to break the impasse because agreement could not be reached on the transparency elements of the process of arms decommissioning and because the IRA was unwilling to commit itself to clearly and definitively ending criminal activity. Nevertheless, the fact that both the DUP and Sinn Féin signed up to the political aspects of the comprehensive agreement, including its policing provisions, was encouraging. The containment of recrimination in the aftermath of failure to reach agreement in early December also held out some hope that progress could still be made after the Christmas period.

In the event, the Northern Bank raid and its attribution to the IRA precluded that possibility. I have made it clear that the professional assessment of the Garda is that it shares the view that the robbery was carried out by the Provisional IRA and that an operation of this scale could not have been undertaken without the knowledge of the leadership of the Provisional movement.

The robbery was a profoundly unwelcome and regrettable act of criminality. It has been an enormous setback to the peace process. It completely eroded the trust and confidence necessary to sustain any engagement aimed at achieving inclusive government. It brought into very sharp relief the issues that must be addressed and resolved if that trust was to be restored: namely, ending IRA paramilitarism, including all forms of criminal activity. That was the emphatic message that the Government conveyed to the Sinn Féin leadership when we met on 24 January. The same clear message was imparted by the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, on 28 January and it was the message that both Governments conveyed publicly after we met in Downing Street on 1 February.

I fully accept that the peace process is a collective responsibility that carries obligations for us all, particularly for the two Governments. It is a measure of the Government's deep commitment to the process that we were prepared to consider the early release of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. This would have been in the context of a comprehensive agreement involving all the outstanding issues including an end to all IRA paramilitary activity and the full decommissioning of its weapons. This step was considered with the greatest of reluctance and only because it had become necessary if we were to conclude a comprehensive agreement. It was a risk that the Government was prepared to take in the particular circumstances of closure. However, I have now made it clear, including earlier today, that the question of the early release of the killers of Detective Garda McCabe is no longer on the table.

After more than two years of exhaustive negotiations across the full spectrum of issues, it is now impossible to deny that continuing IRA paramilitary and criminal activity are fundamentally destabilising to the peace process. There cannot be inclusive institutions until they are definitively removed from the equation. I fully understand and appreciate that this may be an uncomfortable reality for some people to accept. However, if we are to move beyond the present impasse and get the process back on track, we must honestly acknowledge the nature of the problem.

Denials, evasions or projections of blame on to others will not solve the problem. The Government does not seek to humiliate any community or score political points off any party. We fully respect the mandates of all parties. However, electoral representation in itself does not override the need for adherence to fundamental democratic norms and standards, including a credible commitment to exclusively peaceful means. Until there is a clear demonstration of that commitment, no prospective Unionist partner will share government with Sinn Féin.

I want to see these core problems addressed and resolved so that we can all move on to enjoy the full promise and potential of the Agreement. We have asked the Sinn Féin leadership to reflect on how these issues of instability can be tackled and resolved and expect to engage with it further in the period ahead. If that engagement is to lead us out of the present impasse, it needs to be properly grounded on the realities and challenges of the core problems that must be resolved.

I do not intend to comment on the detailed content of the IRA statements issued last week. I cannot be sure what the intent of the IRA was in framing them. Given the track record of the organisation in the past, it is only prudent that we should assess these statements very carefully indeed. Threats, however implicit or subtle, have no place in a process of conflict resolution and they will certainly not intimidate the Government from doing its duty nor improperly influence it in its stewardship of the peace process. I cannot believe that any rational person looking at the benefits which the peace process has brought to all of the people of this island in recent years, would contemplate a return to armed conflict. Whatever difficulties there are cannot and will not be resolved in this way or by otherwise threatening the rights and safety of Irish people, North or South.

Some people have drawn comfort from the fact that the first statement last week indicated that the IRA would not tolerate criminality within its ranks. If that represents some acknowledgement on the part of the IRA that its volunteers should not carry out criminal activity, I welcome that development. However, any such commitment needs to be much more clearly articulated and validated if it is to have any confidence building impact on the community at large and, of course, it needs to be clear that the criminality being desisted from includes the full spectrum of illegal activity, as defined by the legitimate forces of law and order in the State.

As Archbishop Brady eloquently said on Friday: "No cause, no sense of alienation from the State, no warped moral logic can ever regard activities such as armed robbery, racketeering and maiming as anything other than gravely contrary to the common good and therefore criminal, sinful and a constant threat to justice and peace".

Later this week, the Governments will publish the ad hoc report on the Northern Bank raid received in recent days from the Independent Monitoring Commission. The integrity of the commission is beyond question. It has formed its own judgment based on the information that it has available to it. It will call it as it sees it. We will be discussing its findings with the British authorities.

I have already expressed my scepticism about the application of sanctions against Sinn Féin. My concern is that their application might distract attention from the essential issue that must be dealt with rather than focus people on the challenge that must be confronted.

The fact that the Governments have asked the Sinn Féin leadership to reflect on the challenges of trust building that I mentioned earlier does not absolve the rest of us from our responsibility. The Good Friday Agreement is far wider than devolved government. It is a charter for change across the full range of issues where progress is required in order that society in Northern Ireland will be normalised. It comprises agendas for action and change in crucial areas such as policing, security normalisation, criminal justice, human rights, equality, community relations and language and cultural issues. In all of these areas, considerable progress has been made in recent years but more needs to be done to finish the job of fully implementing the Agreement.

The issue of policing has been a notable achievement of the Agreement. The participation by the SDLP in the policing board, arising from Weston Park, was an historic and courageous decision. The board has performed in a very effective way tackling difficult issues and ensuring durable and fair outcomes. Huge progress has been made.

In his latest report, the police oversight commissioner, Al Hutchinson, described the changes carried out to policing in the North as "unparalleled in the history of democratic policing reform". This is not to say that we are complacent. We are determined to ensure that the momentum of policing change is maintained so that Northern Ireland has the police service envisaged by the Patten report. The last great obstacle to the complete implementation of the Patten report is the continuing refusal of the broad republican community to engage with the PSNI. All communities deserve good policing, but many communities are denied it because of the current situation. I say to those who claim that problems remain with the police service in Northern Ireland that there are clear structures to address such problems; namely, the policing board, the police ombudsman and the district policing partnerships.

Those who demand policing that is acceptable to their communities are challenged with engaging with the policing structures and helping to bring about further changes that may be necessary to fully realise the Agreement's vision of a new beginning. The Government is determined to ensure that the gains and achievements of the Agreement, such as policing, will be protected and developed. It intends to use the Agreement's intergovernmental machinery in a proactive manner to ensure that positive agendas for change continue to be advanced, irrespective of the political impasse.

A particular priority of the Government, which I clearly signalled last week to the British Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, is the imperative of maintaining and advancing the North-South arrangements provided for in the Agreement. Not only do the arrangements provide practical mutual benefits for both parts of the island, but they also represent the all-island dimension that is important for Nationalists and for which this State changed its Constitution in 1998. The Government has a strategic interest in promoting the optimum operation of the North-South dimension. It will pursue this agenda proactively with the British Government in the coming months.

Regardless of the difficulties, the Government remains focused on the objective of inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland. The Agreement provided for such a form of government and the people of this island endorsed it. A departure from inclusivity would not lead to stable and lasting government in Northern Ireland. Stability cannot be secured by excluding the largest Nationalist party, just as it cannot be secured by excluding the largest Unionist party. We must be equally clear-eyed in recognising the major obstacle to achieving the objective of inclusivity. I refer to the destabilising and confidence-destroying impact of continuing IRA paramilitary and criminal activity. If we resolve that problem, the way will be clear to advance towards the stable and inclusive dispensation we have collectively been working to achieve for the past seven years.

The Government will strain itself to the limit and beyond to achieve that objective. Its efforts will be futile, however, unless it is clearly told that the IRA is prepared to bring closure to the activity and capability that has frustrated the Government's efforts so far. If the prospect of such a statement is clearly available, we can resume the journey in the knowledge that the political destination is achievable. If it is not available, we risk going up a further cul-de-sac of dashed hopes, deepening recriminations and increased polarisation. The Good Friday Agreement and the peace process are indispensable parts of the political landscape of this island. All parties to the Agreement have helped to drive the important agenda of change that the Agreement embraces, sometimes in difficult circumstances.

I do not seek to deny or diminish the part Sinn Féin has played in bringing the peace process to this point. It is an indisputable part of the political landscape. The Government has made it clear that it is keeping its door open, but it needs to hear from Sinn Féin on how the fundamental issues that have been raised can be resolved in a conclusive manner. We will continue to engage with all the other parties. We have one goal, the removal of the final obstacles which will allow us to finish collectively the journey that was begun on Good Friday 1998.

I referred earlier to the case of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe. As a consequence of its discussions with Fine Gael, the Government has circulated an amendment that reflects the position I set out in the House earlier today. The amendment, which amends the Government's original amendment, states that Dáil Éireann "welcomes the Taoiseach's recent statement that the question regarding the early release of the murderers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was no longer on the table".

Deputies:

Hear, hear.

Tom Kitt (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak during this debate. I am pleased we have been able to follow common ground on the motion, following our discussions with Fine Gael. I hope the Labour Party and the Green Party will support it.

When talking about the Good Friday Agreement, one often needs to reach for the well-worn line of pointing out how far we have come. Like all such lines, it contains a deeper truth so it cannot be any harm to repeat it every so often. We have indeed come a long way in our relations on this island and with our nearest neighbour since the Good Friday Agreement was signed and democratically endorsed by the people of this island in 1998.

The principles of consent, partnership, equality, mutual respect and exclusively peaceful means, which are set out in the Good Friday Agreement and in the Mitchell principles, are the defining characteristics which govern our relationships. A new framework for co-operation on this island has been developed, based on that political and constitutional accommodation, which recognises the political and practical realities involved. The Agreement's North-South dimension has put a focus on the practical and tangible benefits for both parts of the island. The mutual benefit test is essential for all North-South co-operative endeavour under the Agreement.

As the Taoiseach indicated, the maintenance and development of existing North-South arrangements is a major priority for the Government. A practical and tangible expression of the nexus of co-operation is found in the tourism sector. A limited company, Tourism Ireland, was established under the Good Friday Agreement to promote and market the island of Ireland abroad as a single tourist destination. I do not need to tell Deputies how important the tourism industry is to our island. It is a vital component of our economic success of recent years. It has contributed to the positive transformation of communities and regions on both sides of the Border.

The establishment of Tourism Ireland underlined the Government's firm commitment to, and belief in, the potential for North-South co-operation. The mutual benefits which accrue from such co-operation make economic and financial sense. Tourism Ireland's work has encouraged growing numbers of people to visit our island. Its latest estimate suggests that the number of tourists visiting the island grew last year by 4.5%. The relevant number is even higher for Northern Ireland, which saw an increase of approximately 13% in tourist numbers last year.

The benefits of the Good Friday Agreement are most clearly seen in the area of policing, which has long been regarded as a vexed question. Policing was a deeply problematic issue when we started the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. The challenge we faced was to reconcile the views of one side, which felt that no change was desirable, with those of the other side, which wanted the RUC to be disbanded and replaced. The Agreement provided a framework for successfully tackling this thorny problem. It provided clear and precise terms of reference for an international commission to provide a way forward.

The recommendations of the Patten commission, which engaged in deep research and wide consultation, were powerful and compelling. The Government fought successfully to ensure that the resulting British legislation and the implementation plans adhered to the Patten report. Under the effective leadership of Des Rea and Denis Bradley, the policing board has done magnificent work in advancing the agenda of change proposed in the Patten report. That work involved dealing with the police symbol, for example, or shaping the human resources strategy of the PSNI.

Significant progress has been made across a range of issues as a result of this leadership and the exceptional input made by the SDLP and other committed board members. Progress has been made in the composition of the PSNI, the decline in the use of plastic bullets, the normalisation of the police profile and engagement with local communities through the district policing partnerships. I am confident that this change will continue and that, under the effective and able leadership of its chief constable, Hugh Orde, the PSNI will continue to evolve towards the model of a community policing service envisaged in the Patten report.

The Taoiseach indicated that the full realisation of the new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland will not be complete until the PSNI and the new structures enjoy the support and participation of the republican community. Similarly, the definitive ending of paramilitary activity cannot be sustained until the policing project has been completed. Closing the circle on policing is, therefore, an indispensable part of securing stability and normality in Northern Ireland.

The principle of inclusivity, which is outlined in the Agreement, is vital for the achievement of an outcome that is stable and capable of accommodating the various shades of political opinion in Northern Ireland. The Government and other parties in this House have made great strides towards achieving a respectful and mutually beneficial dialogue with unionism, particularly with the DUP over the past year. There is a growing recognition of the importance of inclusivity across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland.

I concur with the assessment of Senator Mansergh, who wrote last Saturday that the fundamental cause of the present crisis is that the republican movement's twin-track approach has run out of road. I fully support the Taoiseach's view that there is no prospect of restoring inclusive government in Northern Ireland unless the destabilising issues of IRA paramilitary and criminal activity are addressed and resolved. That may be an unwelcome and uncomfortable reality for some people to accept, but its denial compounds the present difficulties and prolongs the period of impasse. I am conscious that the prospect of restoring inclusive government in Northern Ireland depends equally on the willingness of Unionists to embrace the principle and practice of partnership in the operation of the institutions of the Agreement. Very encouraging progress was made during 2004 in bringing the DUP to accept the principle of government characterised by inclusiveness and partnership. The two Governments' proposals for a comprehensive agreement, published on 8 December and accepted by the DUP, essentially committed that party to working the institutions of the Agreement. Despite recent setbacks, it is encouraging that the DUP has not resiled from the broad thrust of the comprehensive agreement. I acknowledge that, despite this movement on the part of the DUP, there is still some scepticism within the broad Nationalist community as to whether all sections of that party are fully signed up to power-sharing and partnership. In this regard, it points, understandably, to the weakness of power-sharing in district councils in Northern Ireland controlled by the DUP. Whatever the merit of this view, continuing IRA paramilitarism and criminality provide political cover to those who might be averse to inclusivity and partnership. Once these destabilising elements are removed from the equation, those who are resistant to power-sharing and positive change will be fully exposed to the pressure of public opinion and the insistence of both Governments, the US Administration and others that the principles of partnership at the heart of the Agreement be accepted and respected.

Although electoral campaigns are likely to dominate the airwaves in Northern Ireland over the coming months, I hope the parties will take the time to listen to one another respectfully and to try to maintain operational channels of communication during that period.

During the talks that took place as part of the review of the Agreement, which took place last year, I had the opportunity to discuss with all the parties issues such as North-South co-operation and east-west links within the British-Irish Council and to consider ways in which the parties' operation could be improved. The atmosphere of calm and mutual respect in which the review took place impressed me. Although it might seem over-optimistic in light of the polemics of recent weeks, I feel it would profit us all to return to "the methodology and language of patient and constructive dialogue", to use the words of Archbishop Brady.

The peace process and the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement carry with them obligations and we would all do well to reflect on what we can do to facilitate the end to paramilitarism and criminality, which is necessary for us to move forward politically. In that spirit, I commend the motion to the House.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Fine Gael motion. The Labour Party will support it. I welcome the fact that the Government was able to come around to supporting it. I pay tribute to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and former Minster of State, Deputy O'Donnell, for their unstinting work on this very important issue.

It is important and timely that Fine Gael has given the democratic parties in this House the opportunity to set out their views because Sinn Féin appears to have persuaded itself that it alone is the protector of the peace process and that everyone else, including the two Governments, the democratic parties of the North and South and sections of the media, are all undermining it. In this version of history, propagated daily by Sinn Féin and its apologists, only Sinn Féin has made concessions to take us this far and only Sinn Féin has made sacrifices to keep the process going.

It is arguable that the Governments, particularly the Irish Government, have aided this process of propaganda. This is especially evident in the way in which other parties in Northern Ireland have effectively been excluded from the process. I find it unconscionable that parties such as the UUP, and the SDLP in particular, should be expected to sign up to a comprehensive solution sight unseen. There would be no peace process and no evidence of workable institutions in Northern Ireland without the work of people such as Mark Durkan and David Trimble. The exclusion from the real negotiations of parties and individuals who have an enormous contribution to make will come to be seen as one of the reasons the process has hit so many obstacles in recent times. It is not sufficient to say that because the SDLP has no guns, there is no need to involve it.

The main obstacle to progress appears, increasingly, to arise from the fact that Sinn Féin has used the peace process for its own political ends. Far from "making sacrifices" for peace, as the phrase used to have it, Sinn Féin appears to believe that everyone else should make sacrifices for it. Thanks in no small measure to its belief that it is a contributor to a genuine and lasting peace process, the Sinn Féin organisation has grown from what the Taoiseach has called "a 2% party" and has become a force in Irish politics at the expense of the democratic parties. In spite of this, Sinn Féin believes it is hard put upon because the democratic parties now insist that it must comply with the same democratic principles and democratic practices required of the rest of us.

The democratic parties, particularly those parties involved in the early stages of the peace process, have ceded support, to varying degrees, to Sinn Féin. These political parties knew this was likely to happen if the peace process was to work. Consciously and deliberately, they embarked on a course in which, if successful, they knew they would risk losing electoral support to a newly "respectabilised" Sinn Féin. They did it because peace was the bigger prize. In particular, the SDLP in Northern Ireland and Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party in the Republic have lost some traditional support to Sinn Féin. The SDLP knew what it was doing when John Hume made the first tentative steps towards Sinn Féin. Dick Spring knew what he was doing when he dedicated his time and energy to progressing the project. The Fianna Fáil leadership also knew that some of the party's traditional support would peel off to the new democratic peace-makers in Sinn Féin. They each did what they did in order to remove, once and for all, the spectre of violence from Irish politics. Sinn Féin seems to be under the misapprehension that its support has grown solely because of the genius of its leadership. It seems to believe that it made all the sacrifices while the other parties risked nothing. In fact, the democratic parties have knowingly facilitated the emergence of Sinn Féin as a representative force because this seemed the best way to copper-fasten the peace process.

It is this moral authority that now enables us to demand that Sinn Féin contest the political space according to the same rules that apply to the rest of us. We have demonstrated restraint, tolerance and patience and, almost seven years after the Irish people North and South voted for the Good Friday Agreement, we are all running out of understanding. If the leadership of the republican movement reflects for a while, it will surely understand why the democratic parties cannot acquiesce indefinitely in Sinn Féin's failing to conclude the peace process while maintaining a stranglehold over disadvantaged communities through undemocratic means.

The manner of conduct of the peace process has put Sinn Féin centre-stage. Its organic links to an undemocratic and violent force inevitably invite the kind of attention that does not accompany a democratic party. Perversely, this quality has, in the eyes of some, conferred almost celebrity status on its leaders. For those who have been alienated and excluded from the uneven economic progress of recent years, that is a good enough reason to support Sinn Féin. However, many others have opted to give their democratic franchise to Sinn Féin to encourage the party into democratic politics and to remove violence from the political equation in Ireland.

When called to account, it is behind this "mandate" that Sinn Féin spokespersons take shelter. It would be foolhardy for Sinn Féin to interpret its mandate as a licence to threaten the duly elected Irish Government if it is not left to pursue its agenda through undemocratic and violent means. Sinn Féin cannot claim credibly that the strength of its electoral support mandates it to persist with its twin-track strategy. If it does persist in retaining the capacity to control communities through punishment beatings and to illegally fund a network of offices, personnel and infrastructure with which even the well-resourced Fianna Fáil cannot compete, many of those who lent them an encouraging vote will — and should — rethink that support.

From recent statements it is clear that Sinn Féin thinks otherwise. It believes that it is possible to fool most of the people most of the time. The Members of this House are expected to deny the evidence of their own eyes and acquiesce in Sinn Féin's manipulation of the peace process. Is the purpose of the peace process to restore devolved institutions to Northern Ireland and enhance political co-operation between both parts of the island or is it to grow the Sinn Féin Party? We need an unambiguous answer to that question.

The proposition that the democratic parties should provide a footbridge to power for a twin-track Sinn Féin is untenable. I am happy to have the Irish people pass judgment on the respective merits of our policies and public representatives. I am not happy however, to continue to compete indefinitely on an uneven playing pitch.

The Labour Party cannot provide an unofficial policing service and, in any event, would not. It cannot afford to provide a network of constituency offices, or employ the personnel that goes with them in the case of Sinn Féin. Sections of the desk-bound media captivated by ecstasy politics are overcome by "the work on the ground" of Sinn Féin public representatives and their new army of "community workers".

The Labour Party has a far better record in servicing disadvantaged communities, and if we could fund it, we would love to have more full-time "workers on the ground". Perhaps the commentators who are so overawed by the supposed work rate on the ground of Sinn Féin "community workers" might take a little time out to locate where, how and by whom the same "community workers" are paid on Thursday evenings.

The parties in this House have up to now been prepared to turn a blind eye for the greater good. If the growth of Sinn Féin is the actual and only goal and the objective of the greater good has been relegated to whatever Sinn Féin wants it to be, we have a new situation.

Tolerance of undemocratic methods has changed since we embarked upon this process. Since the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York on 11 September 2001 we live in a new environment. The Sinn Féin leadership must recognise this fact. Jesuitical arguments about refusing to interpret IRA statements are yesterday's business. We have reached make-your-mind-up time.

There is no percentage in blaming the DUP, British "securocrats" or the Irish or British Governments. Whoever robbed the bank in Belfast it was not Ian Paisley or Tony Blair or even Deputy McDowell. Sinn Féin needs to tell us what it means when it says the two Governments have abused Sinn Féin's messenger role for the IRA. More particularly, it needs to interpret for us what the IRA meant when it claimed that the two Governments appear "intent on changing the basis of the peace process."

Specifically, it identifies this changed basis in the Governments' statement that "the obstacle now to a lasting and durable settlement is the continuing paramilitary and criminal activity of the IRA". Does it mean that the insistence on ending criminality is a change in the basis of the peace process? For the people who voted for the Good Friday Agreement and who thought it would lead to the end of paramilitarism in all its manifestations, it is an astonishing charge.

Is the leadership of the republican movement saying that if it stopped killing British soldiers and policemen a blind eye would be turned to other forms of paramilitary activity? The Government needs to rebut this charge. Statements like that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, some weeks before 8 December, that he could foresee Sinn Féin in Government earlier than others might think, sent out conflicting signals. When the Taoiseach lists the various robberies carried out before that of Northern Bank, it begs the question why they seem to have been accepted as business as usual.

The Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform are on record — the latter on several occasions — as saying that IRA criminality had fallen off. These too are conflicting signals. In the interests of accuracy, the Taoiseach moved to explain this phenomenon when he told the Dáil that the republican movement can switch it on and off as the negotiations require. However, people are again being treated to a new, tougher line on criminality and simultaneously to entreaties from the Taoiseach to the Independent Monitoring Commission, and others, that there should be no sanctions against Sinn Féin. Meanwhile, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in Washington trying — vainly it would appear — to negotiate passes for Sinn Féin to the White House for St. Patrick's Day celebrations. The Taoiseach unnecessarily invited the television cameras into his office to picture him posing with Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness in front of the Padraig Pearse portrait over his desk. This sends out conflicting signals. These actions confuse people.

It is possible that the Government in its dealings with Sinn Féin has allowed the impression to be created that the occasional bit of criminality would not be contested, and that it was the size of the haul, as Deputy Kenny said, in the Northern Bank robbery, rather than the fact of the robbery itself, that has so strained relations between the Government and Sinn Féin. If it is true, as it is implied, that the Government has allowed Sinn Féin to bask in the knowledge that criminality at a certain level would be tolerated, that would be a shameful indictment.

I prefer to believe that it is not true, that no democratic Government would allow such an understanding to develop. Although I would be grateful for a definitive statement from the Taoiseach on the matter, I prefer to rely on the repeated affirmations by both Governments of the same basic underlying principle, that of democracy and exclusively democratic means.

We remember the Downing Street Declaration of December 1993 which stated that "the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence". In those circumstances,"democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process" would be free to participate fully in democratic politics.

We remember every subsequent statement and declaration that re-emphasised the same essential prerequisite: "agreement must be pursued and established by exclusively democratic, peaceful means, without resort to violence or coercion"; issues should be examined in the most comprehensive attainable negotiations with "democratically mandated political parties in Northern Ireland which abide exclusively by peaceful means and wish to join in dialogue on the way ahead"; and negotiations should include all relevant parties "which established a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and had shown that they abided by the democratic process".

We remember the Mitchell report on decommissioning in January 1996, which set out the "Mitchell Principles", the criteria for entry into talks. Parties to the negotiations were asked to affirm their total and absolute commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues and to the total disarmament, verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission, of all paramilitary organisations. They were to renounce for themselves, and oppose any effort by others, to use or threaten to use force to influence political negotiations and they were to urge that punishment killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.

We remember, finally, that under the Good Friday Agreement the parties:

reaffirm our total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues, and our opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose, whether in regard to this agreement or otherwise.

What we have seen and heard from the republican movement at every step in response to this consistent and united front has been downright denial.

Both wings deny that decommissioning has anything to do with them: the IRA because it never signed up to it, never endorsed the Mitchell principles, was not party to the talks or the Agreement, had engaged with General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission in a voluntary, spontaneous and unreciprocated act of generosity and refused to recognise the role or functions of the independent monitoring commission; and Sinn Féin members because all that sort of thing was a matter for the IRA. They were politicians like everyone else. They did not speak for the IRA but merely had a shared analysis of the situation and shared republican objectives.

The British Prime Minister made it clear in October 2002 that the Governments had grown tired of this routine. He referred to four and a half years of hassle, frustration and messy compromise, stating: "Each negotiation in each office or stately home, [it would help if we had less of the stately homes] accompanied by each ritual press conference, has often been groundhog day, for you, for me, for all of us." He called for:

. . . a fundamental choice of direction, a turning point. Another inch by inch negotiation won't work. Symbolic gestures, important in their time, no longer build trust. It is time for acts of completion.

That is about as clear-cut and as unambiguous a statement as you could get. Yet now, two years later, as Deputy Crawford stated, all other parties who repeat that message, including those who have done their utmost to facilitate a transition by Sinn Féin to democratic status, are condemned by it as petty politicians motivated by selfish interests who have acted in bad faith, broken their commitments and made false and malicious accusations.

What the two Governments and the rest of us have done has been to point out to the republican movement that its shape-shifting representations of itself, sometimes as monolith and sometimes as a duality, are so transparent that it has become an obvious weakness and not a strength, and it does not wash any longer. According to one of Sinn Féin's senior Ard Comhairle members, Jim Gibney, we should, however, continue to put our faith in creative ambiguity. He stated:

If there is one big lesson coming out of the peace process over the last ten years, it is words like "certainty" and '"clarity" are not part of the creative lexicon that conflict resolution requires if it is to be successful. Can anyone point to a period over the last ten years when such words were used and they helped the peace process here? Give me the language of ambiguity. It has served the people of this country well over the last ten years. It has oiled the engine of the peace process. Long may it continue to do so.

It is true that at an early stage the whole peace process involved the two Governments and the SDLP in sustained efforts to create the space for Sinn Féin to engage in the political process, on the basis that a commitment to politics would ultimately involve the abandonment of other ways and means. There would be initial and inevitable awkwardness during a transition phase but a transition there would have to be — it was all a matter of timing.

I acknowledge the contribution made during those years by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. However, ambiguity has long since had its day. All parties to the Agreement must buy into its essential validity, legitimacy and authority: that what it establishes is the only legitimate system of governance and that there are no other quasi-political, quasi-military entities claiming pre-eminence, from which parties can either request or accept instructions, or to which they owe prior allegiance, or which in any other way compromise or qualify the performance by those parties of their commitments under the Agreement.

The bogeyman has now reasserted itself. We are warned of a dangerous instability within militant unionism and that the British-loyalist apparatus for collusion remains intact. The IRA will not remain quiescent within this unacceptable and unstable situation: "It has tried our patience to the limit." Therefore, it has taken all talk of arms decommissioning off the table and now intends to protect to the best of its ability the rights of republicans and their support base. Then, on Thursday, because the Governments did not seem to fully grasp the point, came the warning: "Do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation". According to Danny Morrison:

The IRA defies conventional analysis. If it decided there was a case to be made for a return to armed struggle, it would go down that road without regard to the post 9/11 perception of the world.

As Mark Durkan put it: "The IRA is coming close to saying: 'Don't dare criticise us or question us — or the peace process gets it'." The House cannot bow the democratic knee to such a threat.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, by agreement.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute on the important motion before the House. The Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, outlined clearly in their contributions the full commitment the Government has given to the advancement of the peace process in recent years. Both cited the valuable contribution made by other political parties in the House and on the island.

Deputy Crawford outlined some of the difficulties faced over the many years of the Troubles on our doorstep, in our province of Ulster. As representatives of two southern Ulster Border counties, we see first-hand the gains that have come from an island relatively at peace. This is the first generation since 1918 to have the opportunity, in the May 1998 referendum, to vote on one question put to the electorate North and South in regard to the future political configuration on our island.

The overwhelming endorsement of the Good Friday Agreement by the electorate North and South gave those in politics on this island one mandate. We have heard one grouping on this island talk about a mandate. There is one mandate for those who want to practice politics on this island, namely, that emanating from the referenda North and South in 1998 when politicians were given the mandate to implement in full the Good Friday Agreement.

Unfortunately, that mandate is not being honoured because a few groups are putting obstacles in the way of full implementation of the Agreement. Some wrongly quote the word "republicanism". If republicanism means anything, it is that the people are sovereign and that when the people give politicians a mandate, it is incumbent upon those politicians to implement that mandate. Sadly, one group which classes itself as republican is doing the opposite of what is meant by republicanism.

Representing two of the southern Ulster Border counties, I see first-hand the benefits to people in going about their daily business in counties Cavan, Monaghan, Donegal, Louth, Sligo and Leitrim. When I travelled to clinics throughout my constituency in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I often passed through County Fermanagh and was held up at checkpoints. Thankfully, substantial progress has been made in demilitarisation on this island, where our people, including farmers, shopkeepers and children going to school, can travel without hindrance and are not held up at checkpoints for hours, day in, day out.

This progress is evident when we note the level of employment on both sides of the Border. People now traverse the Border, but they did not have that opportunity in the late 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. Thankfully, they have had that opportunity since the 1990s. The economy on both sides of the Border is growing, perhaps not as much as we would like, but growing substantially nonetheless. By and large, the local economy in Ulster, north and south of the Border, generates jobs for its people in their own areas.

When Members meet people in Border constituencies, the one question asked is when will politicians ensure that full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement is achieved. The people want to be assured that the difficulties, maiming and senseless murders by paramilitaries from both traditions is behind us once and for all. We have all lived through a period when we lost friends and neighbours from both traditions. I hope this island will never return to that era. We want to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement is underpinned and that the dividends for all the people become a reality as soon as possible. It is not good enough that an agreement endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the electorate in the Thirty-two counties has not been implemented in full.