Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies Kirk and Glennon and the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy.

I speak as a constitutional republican who, to use the words of Article 3 of the Constitution, shares the firm will of the Irish nation in harmony and in friendship to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people democratically expressed in both jurisdictions on this island. I also speak as a constitutional republican who believes that the tricolour of green, white and orange, our national flag under Article 7 of the Constitution, is a symbol of a fundamental value that the vocation of true Irish republicans is the reconciliation of those traditions and their unity, not the creation or perpetuation of conflict between green and orange.

I also speak as one who believes the Good Friday Agreement, which is embodied in our Constitution, is a solemn, legitimate and an authoritative expression of the democratic wishes of the people of both parts of this island freely given in fair and democratic referenda. As a republican, I, and everybody in this House, cannot accept that any contending mandate from history or any theory overrides or supersedes the Good Friday Agreement. Still less could any genuine republican claim that a tiny group of secret paramilitaries have some superior right or root of title to governmental authority on this island which authorises or justifies them in usurping the freely given, solemnly expressed will of the Irish people embodied in that Agreement.

Such a claim is the very antithesis of republicanism. Not only is it bogus, it is bereft of any historical truth or morality. The very notion that the popular mandate of the second Dáil, as we are told by some theorists, could be somehow handed down 20 years after its election in December 1928, long after the Dáil's term was spent, by two elderly persons describing themselves as Comhairle na dTeachtaí in secret to a paramilitary body, such as the IRA, and that it would in January of 1939 announce that it was, as a consequence of that transmission of authority, the legitimate Government of this country is not simply absurd but it is grotesque.

Democratic mandates, like democracy itself, are not capable of being taken hostage or of being transmitted like property by tiny groups to be used or abused by them in their future quest for power or influence. On the contrary, true republicanism can never be severed from the principle of democratic mandates, about which we hear so much. It is not a holy flame kept burning by some secret cult. The Irish Republic derives its authority from the strong voice of the people not from some ghostly whisper from history. That is why we republicans in this House must stand by the one and only Republic that exists on this island. We must stand by its Constitution — Bunreacht na hÉireann — its Defence Forces, the only Óglaigh na hÉireann on this island, its Garda Síochána, the only police force of this State and its democratic institutions, courts and laws. Nobody on this island has the right to say they make up their own laws or that they decide what is lawful or unlawful or that they decide what is criminal or not criminal. All of those obligations are impressed upon us by our fundamental political duties as citizens of this State and of loyalty to that State, which is also set out in the Constitution.

The motion before this House is, happily, one that I think commands the support of the majority of Members. It is a motion which has been crafted not to be negative but to be positive and, above all, to be truthful and to describe things as they are and to identify the problems that now exist. Those of us who believe in the values of republicanism, in a united Ireland, in reconciling green and orange and in the rule of law and the authority of that rule of law must unite in expressing those values and in standing by them.

We must take this opportunity to unite behind a simple message to those who have difficulty with these concepts. The message is that there is no room on this island, North or South, for those who seek to share in the executive authority of any institution set up by the people on the basis that they can pursue democratic politics while in alliance with paramilitaries. That cannot be done. It is a cul-de-sac and a road that has no end as far as republicanism is concerned.

Like many other speakers, I support the Good Friday Agreement. However, we must realise now in early 2005 that, going back to the time the Agreement was hammered out in 1998, it was based upon the supposition and assumption that all who were to take part in its implementation would abandon paramilitarism, end any alliance with the use of violence for political ends and use entirely peaceful and democratic means thereafter to achieve those ends.

However, it also requires, and this is the point the House should dwell upon for a moment, some basic element of political integrity. This is not some high, moral and arch political posturing. It is the basic political integrity which recognises there cannot be a situation in which some people distinguish between acts that are against the criminal law of this State or of Northern Ireland and say that when they are carried out by some people they are lawful, and when they are carried out by other people they are not, and that crimes are not committed by some people depending on their theory of history, where the self-same identical act when committed by another person without that mandate from history is a crime. That cannot be a basis for going forward.

I have been accused, as have other Government members, of somehow being unenthusiastic about the peace process. The Good Friday Agreement is the peace process and working it out and implementing it is what the peace process is all about. The Government is united, and no effort to divide it will succeed, in the full and fair implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. We are positive about everybody's opportunity to participate in implementing that Agreement. We seek to exclude, marginalise or criminalise nobody.

Criminalisation, marginalisation and exclusion on the part of the provisional movement are self-inflicted handicaps deriving solely from its refusal to face up to the implications of what it claims to have agreed to in 1998. This was the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the Mitchell principles and the commitment not merely to exclusively peaceful and democratic means in the pursuit of political goals, but also to oppose the use of violence by others. That obligation of the Agreement to oppose the use of violence by others is as central to participation in its implementation as any mandate.

It is not possible to claim opposition to the use of violence by others if armed robbery, armed punishment beating — which is a euphemism for torture and mutilation — extortion, exiling under threat, attempted murder and murder fall to be viewed by one as things that are not crimes. One cannot hope to participate in the political process while one has those mental reservations. I say this not on an exclusionary basis but on the basis of appealing to those who hold those views to exit that time warp and parallel universe and to come into the democratic world occupied by the rest of us on equal terms.

Equality is what is on offer but equality is a challenging item. It is a matter of give as well as take. Those who seek equality for their mandate must equally accept that their mandate was not sought and obtained on the basis of a continued alliance with the threat and use of violence and criminality to support any particular end.

Where does this leave us now, looking at where the negotiations in December ended? It is not true to say they ended on the basis of an impasse about a photograph, nor is it true to say they ended solely because of reservations and an unwillingness of the part of the Unionists in Northern Ireland, the DUP and the UUP, to take part in the democratic institutions. They ended in large part because the Sinn Féin negotiators communicated to the two Governments that they could not sign up to the simple proposition that in future the provisional movement, in both its parts, would undertake solemnly and as a condition of further progress to respect the rights and safety of others.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a misrepresentation.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that a demanding question or requirement to make of anybody? Of course it is not. It is the basis upon which we all participate in politics, to uphold the rights and safety of others. Time and again, however — and I know this because I sat there and saw the drafts going this way and that — this proposition was put to Sinn Féin. Time and again, every effort was made to avoid signing up to that proposition. Every effort was made to equivocate around that obstacle, as they saw it, to get around it, to fudge it and to claim it would be all right on the night and they would think of something later. In the last analysis, however, that simple proposition was apparently too much to be swallowed.

Criminality did not begin on the day the Northern Bank was raided, nor did it begin with the recent rash of punishment beatings in Belfast which was turned on with the click of fingers by a provisional movement which decided it was now time to exert its authority on the Nationalist communities over which it holds sway. Criminality has been taking place on both sides of the Border on a sustained basis since 1998, moderated now and then to suit the provisional strategy.

I told this House of how the Dublin brigade of the IRA was stood down because its members were sticky-fingered and began to share in the proceeds of the fund-raising operations which they were carrying out on behalf of the provisional movement. Some of them were brought north of the Border and shot in the limbs for their troubles. However, the implication of that action to the gullible might be that this was an end to all that behaviour — far from it.

What took place afterwards was that criminal activity, including fund-raising, robberies and so on, were then moved, as far as their organisation and planning was concerned, to Belfast. The adjutant of the IRA in Belfast, a man who rubs shoulders with people we see on television prating on about human rights, the peace process and their mandate, began to organise major criminality in this city and came down here to discover what was going wrong and to threaten with death those who had made a mess of his arrangements if these things ever happened again.

Criminality will not go away as an issue. As long as that is in doubt in some minds, we have a major problem. However, when it is clearly understood, we have the chink of light that will allow those people who have sought a mandate to create peace in Northern Ireland and on this island and to pursue their republican and socialist policy objectives to participate as equals. This is possible once light begins to fall on that one simple proposition as to whether it is possible to continue with violence into the future in tandem with democratic politics or whether violence and the threat of violence and criminality must end.

No basis exists for anybody to claim they are being victimised by the unanimity and consensus that has emerged in recent weeks on these matters. Nobody is being marginalised or has their mandate devalued and above all nobody is being cornered or pushed towards some intolerable position. Nobody has his or her patience tested. On the contrary, as in the past, every opportunity is being offered to those who are democrats to take up the challenge of the mandate they have received and to contest the democratic process on equal terms with the rest of us. I welcome the fact that this motion was tabled on an all-party basis.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not the case.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the fact that the motion has been so widely supported in the House. I believe the motion will attract not only the support of the great majority of Members of the House but also that of the great majority of the Irish people. Failing to live up to the logic of this motion is a self-inflicted handicap that the provisional movement has taken upon itself. When and if its members go away and consider all these matters and when they wake up to the truth, we will have made some progress.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this vital debate and to express my full support for the Government motion. It is of the utmost importance, at this difficult time for the peace process, not to lose sight of the need to uphold the Good Friday Agreement, to consolidate the progress already made and to seek to achieve its full implementation.

As a Member of this House representing a Border constituency, I am very conscious of the real and marked change which has been brought about since the signing of the Agreement in 1998. It is a matter of deep personal regret to me that this progress should be in any way delayed and that the full implementation of the Agreement should be impeded by the ongoing failure to decommission illegal arms and to end, once and for all, paramilitary and criminal activity. This is simply not acceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.

Tremendous work was done by the Government last autumn in working with the British Government and the parties towards the achievement of a comprehensive agreement. This would have seen the restoration of the power-sharing Executive, the Assembly and the North-South Ministerial Council. I recall very well the great sense of optimism for the future, which pervaded the atmosphere at the time.

I have been a long-standing member of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body and its steering committee. Contacts, both British and Irish, made through that body have always reinforced for me the very broad, popular and cross-party support, which exists for the Good Friday Agreement and for its complete implementation. Last October, at a time when the Governments were engaged in extensive talks with the parties, I co-chaired a meeting of the body in Wales. The mood at that meeting was most optimistic and hopeful, and the fair wind behind the effort to reach comprehensive agreement at that time was obvious to all. It will be a tremendous loss if these hopes cannot be realised.

As well as the encouragement received from the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, the peace process in this country has also benefited from the support and solidarity of many friends overseas. The continuing support of the United States for the Government's work in pursuit of lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland simply cannot be underestimated. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is in Washington this week to discuss recent developments. The Minister is also engaging with key contacts in the US Administration and in Congress this week as well as in the Irish-American community. Such contacts have been invaluable in promoting progress over many years. As many Members are aware, the Taoiseach will visit Washington on St. Patrick's Day and we look forward to this valuable tradition continuing in the years to come.

Jim Glennon (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the motion, which addresses the full context in which the Government and the parties in this House can assess the current state of the process. As the Taoiseach and other speakers have outlined, the present situation is very serious. The tensions of the marching season are already not far off. At this point, we can only hope that the cross-community work on the ground of recent years and the wise adjudication of the Parades Commission will ensure that tensions and conflict on the interfaces are contained and minimised. As with many other problems, the issue of contentious parades can only be resolved through dialogue and agreement. The Good Friday Agreement envisaged that no one should need to yield his or her cherished convictions or beliefs. It enshrined the belief that everyone should respect the views and rights of others as equal to their own.

In current circumstances, when the focus is inevitably on recent events and the difficulties of securing momentum in the political process, this idealistic vision of the Good Friday Agreement may seem remote. Nevertheless, it is hugely important to take account of some of the encouraging progress made to date on human rights and equality, which, despite being at the heart of the Agreement, are often overshadowed by other issues.

The Agreement, particularly in its rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity section, represents an important accommodation that protects and promotes the identities and entitlements of all political traditions, groups and individuals. I know the Government attaches a high priority to the human rights agenda of the Agreement. It is discussed with the British Government on an ongoing basis, including through the framework of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and was a central component of the Joint Declaration published by both Government in May 2003.

We have seen the establishment of human rights commissions, North and South. The two commissions have set up a joint committee of representatives that considers human rights issues on the island of Ireland. The operation of the Equality Commission in Northern Ireland is another of the success stories of the Agreement. Despite this progress, I know the Government recognises that there is no room for complacency and that it will continue to strive for the full implementation of the human rights and equality agendas, which are at the core of the Good Friday Agreement. The creation and consolidation of a culture and framework of equality and human rights on this island will serve to underpin and support the pressing goal of attaining stable, inclusive, power-sharing government in Northern Ireland.

Certain parties seem to feel that they have cornered the market on human rights and equality. They seek to explain away any legitimate political criticism that is directed at them as being an infringement of their human rights or a denial of equality. I hope my remarks this evening have shown that sustaining human rights and equality is not about slogans thrown around for political convenience but about patiently building up frameworks and processes that, over time, institutionalise them at the heart of government and society.

It is in all our interests and it is our responsibility to continue to build a society in Northern Ireland where the legitimate rights of each individual and each community are accommodated and respected. That is our programme and I commend the motion to the House.

Noel Treacy (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As both Governments have made clear, the current difficulties in the peace process have been immeasurably complicated and deepened by the robbery of the Northern Bank. Continuing paramilitary activity and criminality is rightly the focus of our efforts to remedy the current difficulties. Removing the impasse and securing the establishment of the institutions of devolved government in Northern Ireland, as set out in the Agreement, on a stable and durable foundation must remain our overriding objective.

The Good Friday Agreement is an expression of the democratic will as expressed on this island, North and South, in May 1998. As has been made clear by the Taoiseach in the course of this debate, the agenda set out in the Agreement and endorsed by the people is a comprehensive one, addressing all aspects of the problem of Northern Ireland. As well as resolving the problem of the residual paramilitarism of today, we also need to focus on dealing with the legacy of the violence of the past. The Good Friday Agreement set out the principle, that it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence, as a necessary element of reconciliation.

Victims have a right to be remembered and to contribute to the debate about the transition to a normal peaceful democratic society. It is important for all of us to remember that behind the statistics of the Northern Ireland conflict lie vivid and painful events, which have personal repercussions for victims, their families and friends and for the communities they come from. It may sometimes seem that the most positive thing to do is move on and focus on the future, but that is often exceptionally difficult for those for whom a sense of loss, anger and confusion persists. Their stories have been chronicled in a deeply impressive and moving book, Lost Lives: The Stories of the Men, Women and Children Who Died Through the Northern Ireland Troubles, which has become an important testimonial and act of remembrance for many victims.

If one reads at random some of the cases outlined in the book, one is reminded of what life in Northern Ireland was like before the ceasefires of 1994. It was a recurring nightmare of violence and retaliation visited on the innocent. Many lives and families were wrecked by death and injury. The details of many, if not most, of the cases have long passed from the public consciousness, but some cases continue to generate headlines many years later. How we collectively respond is at the heart of the matter. The need to understand what occurred and to acknowledge and address it is a common theme in the long-running debate about how to address the legacy of a violent past.

The possibility of establishing a truth and reconciliation body has been discussed at length. No firm conclusions can be drawn at this stage about what such a body might entail. We do not know whether such a model can be applied successfully to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Any process or approach that is chosen must have the full support of the victims and their relatives. One of the problems intrinsic to Northern Ireland is that there is no shared or agreed view of what happened and the reasons for such acts. Views of the past remain deeply divided and it is unlikely that consensus would emerge, if it were sought, on the causes of the conflict.

One of the core purposes of the Good Friday Agreement was to offer equality of treatment and identity to both sides, thereby removing the insecurity of both communities that helped to generate the conflict in Northern Ireland. That principle must be adhered to during any process of dealing with the past. I understand that the UK select committee on Northern Ireland affairs is working in this area. It is listening to submissions from groups from both communities and focussing on methods that have been used to bring closure to other conflicts that could assist the process of healing in Northern Ireland. The Government looks forward to reading the committee's recommendations and commenting on them in due course. Any such process will require the support and endorsement of victims' groups as a first principle.

Over 2,000 cases of murder during the conflict, including the deaths of security force personnel, have not yet been solved. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has consulted the chief constable of the PSNI, Hugh Orde, on how the work of the PSNI's serious crimes review unit can be expanded to deal with a greater number of the unsolved murders. That is just one element of the overall debate on how to deal with the past in a way that allows people to move forward.

It is right that the Government and all the parties should dedicate themselves to ensuring that there are no more victims of paramilitarism now or in the future. Equally, it is vital to recall and remember the victims of past violence and to ensure that we learn about their experiences. That process is necessary to ensure that such experiences are not repeated or inflicted on future generations. I fully support and endorse the motion.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an bpróiseás. Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na TeachtaíÓ Caoláin, Connolly, Finian McGrath, Harkin agus Joe Higgins.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have heard a number of views during this debate, all of which have been broadly supportive of the motion before the House. Several speakers referred to the need to support a party's electoral mandate, which strikes me as a fundamental issue. The Green Party thought the issue was dealt with at the time of the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, which it supported wholeheartedly. My party is willing to work in any way it can to help to implement the Agreement. I hope those from the physical force tradition will recognise that the mandate that was given by the entire island in 1998 supersedes the mandate from the 1918 election, to which they always claimed allegiance. That there seems to be some ambiguity about the timing of the ending of violence, which was supposed to have been dealt with in 1998, is a great disappointment. I do not doubt that there is some foot-dragging about the implementation of the Agreement.

As we call for an end to violence, perpetrated by a state or otherwise, it is important to remind ourselves that the Agreement put in place practical and beneficial forms of cross-Border co-operation in 13 areas. Such co-operation in the agriculture sector, for example, saved us from the worst ravages of foot and mouth disease. The tourism industry has benefited from marketing on an all-island basis. The Irish and Ulster Scots languages are undergoing vibrant renewal and development as a result of cross-Border co-operation. The energy sector will be absolutely essential because we are at the end of a Siberian natural gas pipeline.

There are other areas in which practical co-operation is needed, such as the health service. The crisis in health care in County Donegal would be alleviated significantly if services in Derry's main hospital were available to the people of Inishowen, for example. I appeal to the representatives of the British Government, who may be observing this debate, to do what needs to be done in respect of this issue. While it does not relate to bombing or any other form of violence, the need to develop health care systems on a cross-Border basis is certainly a matter of life and death. The Green Party is interested in such practical issues that affect people on the ground.

The peace process has to be pursued and its key elements need to be implemented. It is important to focus on what has been achieved, rather than concentrating on what remains to be done. The Green Party is playing its part in this regard by planning on becoming an all-island political party in the future. Its beliefs are shared North and South, as well as by the Green Parties of Scotland, England and Wales.

The development of the peace process has been delayed significantly by a lack of cohesion within the Government, which seems to be adopting a good cop, bad cop approach. The Taoiseach seems to be going soft and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, has predicted a role for Sinn Féin in Government. On the other hand, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, is constantly talking about how such involvement is not possible because of ongoing instances of criminality. People like the leader of the DUP have exploited the breakdown in the cohesiveness of the Government's approach by adopting a "sackcloth and ashes" view of the peace process. The raid on the Northern Bank in Belfast made things worse, of course.

Sinn Féin needs to reflect on its position in respect of policing. If it grasps the nettle by participating in the policing board and being part of the investigation into the robbery, the allegations it is making about some kind of set-up could be investigated. It is no longer possible to straddle both sides of the fence. Sinn Féin needs to move on. The kind of courage that has been shown in the past needs to be shown again.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I intend to propose later in the debate the Sinn Féin amendment to the motion before the House in the names of Deputy Kenny and the Taoiseach, the third version of the Fine Gael motion to be placed on the Dáil Order Paper within a few days. Fine Gael's inability to craft a motion for its Private Members' time does little for its claim to be the Government in waiting. Its ham-fisted approach to this debate reflects the bungling of its previous leadership of the peace process and illustrates its failure to understand the complexities of the issues we face.

My fellow Sinn Féin Deputies and I are proud to represent in this House our electorate and our party, which is a democratic party. We are here on the basis of our democratic mandate. Sinn Féin's negotiators have participated in every stage of the talks process and in every phase of negotiations on the basis of the party's electoral support and on that basis alone. Sinn Féin has the electoral support of well over one third of a million people in Ireland. We take seriously the responsibility our electors have given us and our obligation to represent them effectively.

As leader of the Sinn Féin Deputies, I wish to make clear our absolute refutation of all the false accusations of criminality made against our party. As the Sinn Féin amendment states, we reject criminality of any kind. I do not intend to use my limited time to address every false allegation thrown around this House and around the media. The charges do not relate to criminality, the IRA or even the peace process, they are about the party politics of this State. Charges are being made in a climate in which the old opponents of the peace process have come out of the woodwork. These are the people who vilified John Hume and Albert Reynolds for taking risks for peace a decade ago. The current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was among the begrudgers at that time. His recent conduct shows that while he claims to have changed his mind, his heart is still back in the days of section 31, internment without trial and the demonisation of the entire Nationalist community in the North.

It is ludicrous to suggest that somehow Sinn Féin has been assisted in achieving increased electoral support by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Progressive Democrats. What a joke. All these parties have tried and are trying everything to stop us. What are the so-called concessions or "acts of appeasement" referred to during this debate? Was the lifting of the political censorship of the broadcast media a concession or an act of appeasement? What elements of the Good Friday Agreement are now to be viewed as concessions and what elements do those who talk of appeasement want to see removed? Do they include the equality agenda, human rights issues and the status of the Irish language?

Let me make very clear to the two Ministers present and all others listening that we accept the validity of the institutions of this State. I have said so before in this House. We will not accept lectures on that score from either side of this House. Where the Government is concerned, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should use his expensive time dealing with the real crime and anti-social behaviour that bedevils communities in this State rather than indulging his antipathy to Sinn Féin. He and his colleagues would do better in the eyes of the electorate if they addressed in a real way the social and economic inequalities they have allowed to fester in this prosperous economy.

Great progress was made in this peace process last December. It is sad that so many in this House are so blinded by their anti-republican prejudice that they cannot acknowledge or understand the enormity of what the IRA was on the point of delivering at that time, including putting all arms beyond use by the end of 2004. Instead of building on that, the Governments allowed the agenda to be set by rejectionist unionism and thus created the impasse that exists today. It was a repetition of October 2003 when David Trimble was allowed to rubbish the report of the IICD.

The Sinn Féin amendment states that the two Governments can and should proceed with the implementation of those elements of the Good Friday Agreement for which they are directly responsible. These include demilitarisation by the British Government. Let its representatives in the House note and report this. Other elements include the full implementation of the Patten report and a new beginning to policing of a kind we can all support and in which we can all participate, increased all-Ireland co-operation and a thorough re-commitment by both Governments to the human rights agenda. We need to see full co-operation from the British Government with inquiries into collusion, including into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and the many other instances of collusion in this State.

I firmly believe we can put this process back on track. Sinn Féin is determined to fulfil its part of the collective responsibility to address all the outstanding issues, including Unionist reluctance to share power with Nationalists and the issues of arms and armed groups. It must be made patently clear that we oppose a return to violence by any armed group. We will also oppose any attempt to penalise our electorate, treat them as lesser citizens, impose preconditions on our participation in dialogue and negotiations, or reduce those engagements to a one-item agenda. Sinn Féin is committed to building this process, building towards real change and the reunification of our island and our people. Accordingly, I commend the Sinn Féin amendment to the House.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. Most Members have relied on soundbites by the media to inform themselves on what has been happening in the peace process over the past ten or 12 years. We are not on the inside track and could be accused of making remarks based on a wealth of ignorance. Having said that, I believe, as a Border Deputy, that I have a fair understanding of how we should make progress. I have a good depth of feeling for and knowledge of the subject.

I remember clearly the day on which the provisional IRA's ceasefire broke down in 1975. I happened to be in what one might call the wrong area of Belfast. If one could have bottled hatred, one would have obtained a lifetime supply of it in certain communities in Belfast. There is a very deep sense of distrust and blame. This surfaced recently when the President made what could be considered an unhelpful remark to the effect that Protestants were taught to hate Catholics.

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

References to the President should not be made in the House.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will leave it at that. I believe the President was 50% correct but there is a two-way process involved. I regret that I was not aware that I could not make reference to this matter.

Some 95% of people in Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant, want to co-exist with one another. The feeling of hatred is restricted to small areas. It is sometimes fed to the communities in question and therefore the political leaders must consider the effects of their public statements on people in some of the ghetto areas.

The peace process has achieved a great deal. We have come a very long way, particularly when one considers the circumstances that obtained in 1975 and, more recently, over the past ten or 11 years. Many lives have been saved as a result of the peace process and we should not risk abandoning it. We had an offer of arms decommissioning, which I felt was good enough because it was to be verified by two men of the cloth. If we lose respect for such men, we must question the direction in which our society is going.

The photograph issue was a fudge. The two Governments should have bitten the bullet when it arose, requested that the photograph be forgotten about and moved on. Criminality is still an issue and I do not know who is responsible but we have courts and I suggest that we use them to tackle it. We noted today that there is a ceasefire in Israel and Palestine. I did not hear any talk of preconditions, clarifications or verifications in this regard. We will have to take risks in the peace process in Northern Ireland. I would like the talks to be resumed and the media to take a step back for another month.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak to this motion on the current stalemate in the peace process. It is time for cool heads but straight talking is also needed. We need to turn off the megaphones and start listening to one another rather than scoring political points for the sake of electoral gain. I accept that my view might be unpopular but I am sticking with the architects of the peace process. My position is clear and I do not want it misrepresented in the media. We should all pursue our political objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I reject criminality in all its forms.

I commend those who took risks for peace and support the positive and constructive role played by all those who have participated actively in the peace process. I want the process to involve inclusive dialogue and negotiation. However, I have some concern about sections of this motion because I believe all victims should be treated with equal respect and dignity. I do not accept that some are more equal and important than others.

I have many friends who were victims of the Troubles and I have yet to hear them call for revenge, exclusion or retaliation. They all want this project to succeed. We should listen to and learn from those affected by the Troubles and not use the 3,000-plus people who were killed to score political points.

We must face up to the reality that there were three major groups involved in violence on this island. There was physical force on the part of republicans, Unionist violence and British state violence mixed with collusion. There is no high moral ground on which some sections of Irish society can stand. I call on all sides to change to move the process forward. By this, I do not mean they should scrap their political principles but that they should take another step forward to implement the Good Friday Agreement.

We all need the courage and bottle to change. I am immediately reminded of the words of Nelson Mandela who stated: "One of the things I learned when I was negotiating was that, until I changed myself, I could not change others." This is very relevant to this debate. We must realise that only a peace between equals can last. Equality, respect, diversity and accommodating difference comprise the way out of this crisis. These principles represent true republicanism. That is why I have major concerns about the exclusive element of this motion. When Nelson Mandela invited his jailer to his presidential inauguration he set a fine example for a country that needed to forgive its past mistakes in order to build a brighter future.

Martin Luther King said:

Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what was done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship.

Let us use the ideas of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and James Connolly and move on from this crisis in our peace process.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to make a short input to this debate. I am happy to support the Private Members' motion. In this debate very few punches have been pulled. There has been tough but fair comment which will clear the air. I welcome the fact that political parties and individuals have aired their views publicly in this House, and elsewhere, in a way I have not heard before.

The central issue is the continuing activity of the IRA and its links to Sinn Féin. In recent weeks Gerry Adams said the IRA was not involved in the Northern Bank robbery. That statement indicates a link because in order to say that one must know the business of the IRA. That is the situation with which Sinn Féin must deal.

I welcome and applaud Deputy Ó Caoláin's comments this evening. Last week, however, the IRA warned us not to underestimate the seriousness of the situation. Were those remarks addressed to the institutions of this State, the Government, the Garda Síochána, the Army, and more important, to the people who voted for the Good Friday Agreement, who mandated all politicians on the island to proceed to build peace?

The Good Friday Agreement is not an À la carte menu from which we pick and choose. It resembles a structure encompassing the different facets of the agreement, from human rights to policing, from equality to an end to criminality. If any of these supports is removed the structure is in danger of collapse. That is the position now, the structure is unstable. Those who have invested heavily in the process, individuals and parties, well-known and unsung heroes, must make painful choices.

Governments often put structures and mechanisms in place but real peace building——

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

The time for this slot is concluded. I understand that Deputy Joe Higgins was to speak for two minutes.

Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Real peace building happens on the ground and in communities. The two Governments should look at article 19, annexe A, strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement and set up the North-South forum for civic society.

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

The Deputy should allow Deputy Joe Higgins speak. He has been offered two minutes.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 2 reads as follows:

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

—believes that events in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement show clearly that a resolution cannot be found based on the institutionalisation of sectarian division and on political parties that are based on sectarian division;

—believes that the large majority of the population in Northern Ireland want peace and no resumption of paramilitary attacks;

—demands the continuation of ceasefires by paramilitary organisations but notes the continuation by these organisations on both sides of the community of undemocratic and oppressive methods to maintain control over areas where they are based and calls for an end to these activities;

—has no confidence that the current British or Irish Governments, which are implementing neo-liberal economic policies, have any solution to the underlying social and economic problems which blight in particular catholic and protestant working class communities;

—notes in particular the British Government's policy for further privatisation of public services and the planned introduction in 2006 of water charges for householders;

—believes that a resolution to the problems in Northern Ireland can only be based on a united working class mobilising to resolve the economic, social and political problems that confront society;

—calls for complete demilitarisation;

—calls for an end to all activity by all paramilitaries, loyalist and republican;

—calls for the establishment of genuine policing services that are locally based and under the control of democratically elected policing committees; and

—calls for the building of a mass political party capable of uniting the working class in the struggle for a socialist solution.

I oppose the motion and the amendments by the Government and Sinn Féin which seek to restore what has failed, namely, the institutionalisation of sectarian division for which the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement provide. It beggars belief that anybody can believe that a continuation of these structures, based on sectarian divisions and parties, can advance the situation. It is unbelievable that anyone would think that for a section of the republican movement, which is not a socialist movement, to be in government with an extreme right wing section of unionism is an advance for working class people in Northern Ireland.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputies McGinley, O'Dowd and Kehoe. I reject the Sinn Féin amendment and its rather ludicrous presentation. The debate on the Fine Gael motion was worthwhile. It has succeeded in its objectives, to unite the fully democratic parties behind the Good Friday Agreement and to reaffirm the continuation of cross-party support in this House for the peace process. The debate has allowed the elected representatives of this jurisdiction to reaffirm the vote of the people in the referendum of May 1998 which confirmed support for the pursuit of political objectives by exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

As a follow-up there should be further debate. That is why I support the proposal to re-establish the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation as a forum for honest dialogue and debate where hard questions could be asked. The SDLP favours this too. That party contributed a great deal to this process over a long time and has recently been too often sidelined.

I also welcome more debate on the SDLP's recent proposal arising from the impasse, to move forward the Good Friday Agreement as far as possible pending the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The forum would be a good place for that debate.

This debate was a reality check for all the parties in the House. It confirmed Fine Gael's bipartisan approach, and enabled it to establish acceptable boundaries and reiterate red line issues, generally on criminality and in particular on the release of the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe.

It assures the Government of support in its honest efforts on behalf of the Good Friday Agreement and makes it aware of the boundaries and the red line issues. I support every word the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, said so eloquently tonight. The day when he must drive to Limerick to tell Mrs. Ann McCabe that the killers of her husband were to be released has been deferred sine die.

I welcome Sinn Féin aboard the democratic train on the basis of full acceptance of the democratic norms that apply to everybody else. Sometimes Sinn Féin seems to live in a cloud cuckoo land, a make-believe world that began when the party was established as a breakaway organisation in 1969, and which it continues to maintain is the only world in which everybody else should live.

The party must address some fundamental questions, such as whether it accepts fully the rule of law in this jurisdiction, that the law is defined by this House, and is interpreted by the courts of this land. It needs to reassure us that it fully accepts its obligations under Bunreacht na hÉireann, for example, Article 9.2, "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens"; and Article 6.2, "These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution."

I believe passionately in the Constitution and the rule of law. If Sinn Féin claims to be democratic it must fully accept the institutions set down in this Constitution, the Oireachtas, the courts and the police.

On the issue of criminality, there is no scope for a Humpty Dumpty approach. Humpty Dumpty said: "When I use a word it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." Crime is as established and laid down by legislation in this House and interpreted by the courts. This is a fundamental point that must be accepted.

It appears when Gerry Adams speaks of a crime he is guided by whether it was an action sanctioned by the IRA army council, a collection of nameless, faceless cowards, accountable only to themselves. On that basis, it appears the murder of Jean McConville was not a crime. How can any sane person present this view? Sinn Féin can try to convince us that the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe was not a crime. There are bridges to be crossed before Sinn Féin can be accepted as a fully democratic party, but it must cross those bridges itself.

With regard to Sinn Féin's friends in the IRA, I do not accept that the recent statements of the IRA were thinly veiled. They were stark threats. My reaction is to tell the IRA it has a brass neck. In many ways decommissioning is not now the answer as other gangs such as the Mafia can replace guns at any time. The real issues with regard to the IRA are criminality and racketeering. However, the core issue is the existence of the IRA. This debate has served to send a simple message from this House to the IRA, namely, this House sends a P45 to Mr. P. O'Neill and all his gang. The message is: "Get off the pitch, your game is up."

The message to Sinn Féin is that it is welcome on the pitch but only if it fully accepts the provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann and the rule of law. If those messages reach home and are accepted and agreed, we can make progress in the not too distant future on a complete resolution of the national issue on this island.

Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform define his constitutional republicanism and I would not find myself a stranger in that land. Too often, we in this country have had to accept there was only one type of republican. I hope we are all seen as republicans. I was born in this country and became a citizen of the Republic in 1949. My allegiance is to the flag, the President, the Army, the Garda Síochána and the institutions of the State. Surely, that is good enough for any man or woman in this country to term himself or herself a republican in the true sense of the word.

I listened to Deputy Ó Caoláin. As usual, he stated that his mandate is not being adequately recognised. I put it to him and the entire Sinn Féin Party that their mandate is more than recognised here, and it is being firmly enhanced and reinforced. We all have a mandate to come to the House to speak — that is why we are here and it is the reason Deputies Ó Caoláin and Ferris are here. They have their mandate but it is firmly enhanced and stronger than my mandate because when I speak in the House and want to convince people of my argument, I try to do so by the force of that argument, not by other force. Let me leave it at that.

The only mandate not being recognised in this country is that of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people who in 1998 voted for the Good Friday Agreement. That mandate is not being recognised by Sinn Féin and certainly not by the IRA. Until we get them to recognise it, progress will be very limited.

Democracy and the rule of law in this country have made many sacrifices in the past seven years in nurturing what has become known as the peace process. However, the intractable barriers and obstacles are as permanent today as they were seven years ago — echoes of the steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone. Arsenals have not been decommissioned. Criminality, punishment beatings, intimidation, extortion and general lawlessness have become almost institutionalised in Northern Ireland. Moreover, while some of us may be reluctant to admit it publicly, it is also spreading, whether we like it, into our jurisdiction. Money laundering and other criminal activities are thriving on both sides of the Border.

The Irish and British Governments have tolerated and turned a blind eye to these activities in the vain hope of coaxing the republican movement into the democratic fold. One of the least acceptable results of this appeasement is its disastrous consequences for the body politic in Northern Ireland. It has obliterated the parties of moderation in Northern Ireland. The SDLP and other parties have been sidelined because of this appeasement.

This has not been confined to the Governments. Amazingly, the media has participated in this cozy arrangement and our national broadcaster has joined this consensus. A few weeks ago, I watched a television bulletin following the major meeting between the Government and representatives of Sinn Féin. It was disgraceful that representatives of Sinn Féin and others were interviewed for five or six minutes whereas Ministers only came in as an afterthought; they came a poor second and third. Such a situation should not be allowed to continue and our national broadcast media should be brought to heel on the issue.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Coming from a Border county, I wish to relate my personal experiences and those of my family in regard to the Troubles. My family have played some part in bringing about a resolution to the problem in that my brother Niall, in New York, has played his part in the peace process. My children have not physically seen or heard what happened in the North in those years as they are too young. However, what this country does not want and will not accept is a return to violence.

The body of Jean McConville was laid at Cooley in north County Louth after she was murdered by the IRA. The day after the body was found, I, with my wife and friends, prayed for her there. We saw the care and love of her family in the words on the flat stone placed on the spot where she had lain for 32 years. It was a sad and tragic moment in a beautiful place in my county. We never want that to happen again.

There is no more appalling crime than to take a mother of ten children and bury her in an unmarked grave for 32 years. It was a tragic and appalling crime. We also know of the murder in County Louth of Tom Oliver, who was well known in his community in Cooley. He was a wonderful, fine family man who was done so low and desperately by the Provisional IRA.

The people want an end to the hooded and tortured dead bodies on the by-lanes and roads of south Armagh and north Louth. They do not want a return to violence, bank robberies and criminality, they want an end to all that forever. That is what we voted for in the Good Friday Agreement and what Ireland and Britain are working together on. There is no imperialist tyranny in Westminster. Instead, there is a British Prime Minister who wants to bring peace forever to our country, North and South. Successive Governments in the South have wanted the same thing.

An apology was made today to the Conlon family by the British Prime Minister — a touching, deep and sincere apology. Since the Northern Bank robbery, 500 British troops have been withdrawn from the North, barracks have closed and efforts have been made by the Government and others to show to members of Sinn Féin and the IRA that we will listen and that we want peace. We want them to sit honourably at the table but we do not and cannot accept that they would sit there with guns and criminality. There must be an end to that forever. This is a turning point in our history. It is a turning point in the modern Ireland of the 21st century and I urge Sinn Féin to listen to all of us, move forward in peace and democracy, bury forever its guns and end its criminality. That is what the public want. It is what voters, the British people and the American people want, so let us do it.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank my party leader for tabling this important motion and obtaining cross-party support in the House. I am pleased to speak on the motion. As a young person, I do not remember the bad old days in Northern Ireland. However, I do not want to go back to the bad old days in Northern Ireland that my parents and some of my older colleagues remember. It is up to Sinn Féin and the IRA to ensure that we do not go back to the bad old days. I remember coming home from Mass on Good Friday 1998 and seeing the moving scenes on television of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, reaching an agreement in Northern Ireland. The referendum in May 1998 re-affirmed what the Irish people want. They and I want peace throughout this small island of Ireland.

I recall visiting other countries in my youth and people saying that southern Ireland and Northern Ireland were all the one. Southern Ireland is not part of Northern Ireland, but we want it to be one and to be at peace. I recall a number of years ago bringing the youths from my local GAA club on an exchange trip to Northern Ireland. Some of the parents did not allow their children to travel because we were going to Northern Ireland. I said they should not be afraid, that they should let us go. A number of them agreed and we really enjoyed that exchange trip. I would like to see more of this happening with people not being afraid to travel to Northern Ireland.

A number of Sinn Féin representatives who are interested in the real political process are unhappy with what is happening at present. This has gone beyond the realm of scoring political points. If Sinn Féin is interested in going forward, it will become part of the political process. Sinn Féin and its IRA friends have a motto — if we do not get our own way, we will take the gun out of the holster. I am involved in the democratic process, not in violence, criminality, racketeering, smuggling and robbery. Let us go forward with a successful peace process. We belong to a very important Ireland and I want to see a very happy Ireland in the future.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on the motion before the House. I support the agreed motion set out by many parties in the House. However, I would like to say something about the current position in which we find ourselves and how we should move forward.

The whole idea of the Good Friday Agreement is to agree on a common journey rather than prescribe an ultimate destination. The paradigm of politics in the past on this island has been about confronting two realities which were deemed not to be mutually co-existent — those whose nationality and loyalty is to Westminster, Britain and the Crown and those who believe it is in the best interests of the country and the nation, regardless of the diversity of its tradition, to work together on the basis of achieving a republic in our own country. The major strategic political decisions that have been taken on this island, and between these islands, since the issue became the clarifying principle on which politics was discussed, for example, the accession to the European Union and the growing globalisation and inter-dependency of States, has meant that if we are to shape the future, we must stop this idea that we can look to the future by building from the past. However, we must proceed on the basis of clear democratic principles. The peace process emerging out of conflict has been about a preparedness to give a voice and space to everyone, not on the basis of right and wrong or win or lose but on the basis of equality and justice for all. We were prepared to build institutions creatively which reflected the core of our nationalities and recognised the connection with Britain for those whose adherence is to Britain, and the adherence of the remainder of those on the island to this country. We are also prepared to work together, not on the basis of who won but on the basis of who can win in future, which means all of us.

People in this country who talk about the peace process, which has proved to be very resilient against many difficulties, mishaps and misjudgments since the Good Friday Agreement was signed, should try to avoid the terminology that the peace process has failed each time there is a difficulty. The sceptics should avoid coming out into the open, having been silent and hoping it will work but, where they see a difficulty, suggesting it was all a bad idea in the first place. The only way we can move from where we are currently is if we see the last seven years not as being on the verge of the completion of a process but as bedding down the institutions. This has been the main concentration for both Governments and all the parties, as well as the reforms in policing, criminal justice and equality issues generally, in an attempt to convey to people that we are changing the reality and that people can subscribe to their own political principles and work with others who oppose these on the basis of democratic debate and dialogue.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, said last night, if we are to get out of this impasse, people must submit themselves to the will of the people. They must trust the people and not seek to trust political opponents if they cannot find it in their hearts to do so now because of some foolhardy statements that might have been made at crucial times in the recent past, and there were some. What we are trying to achieve is to transform the country and change the reality for future generations in a way that has not been possible in the past because our politics has been confined to a narrow stream of consciousness that sees people as being the exact opposite and as those who cannot or will not work in harmony with us.

If we want to turn our rhetoric and aspirations into reality, what the Good Friday Agreement signifies is not that we will ultimately achieve the noble aspirations or objectives that we all share in the broad Nationalist tradition, where we genuinely believe that coming together under our own agreed structures is the best way forward, but that we accept that the creative institutional framework of the Good Friday Agreement provides the means by which we can make a quantum leap forward. One of the ways of dealing with this issue and dealing with people who are emerging from conflict with a distrust, lack of ambition, understanding or acquaintance with the dynamic of politics is that if this dynamic is allowed to flow and people are allowed to look forward rather than trying not to betray the past, there will be a greater chance of moving much further up the road of these aspirations than people would otherwise think. We found that in our own body politic in terms of coalition Government with people of different persuasions.

I say to people that they must adhere to the Agreement's fundamental principles if we are to achieve the potential it provides. We have not even scratched the potential of the Agreement, nor have we even begun the common journey which will move this process, not incrementally or gradually, but way beyond where we are. I say to these people who can provide trust and confidence in the process in terms of the existence of paramilitary weapons, and the need to convince others this is no longer a process to which we can return and that we have reached an irreversible democratic road forward, to do so for the sake of our people in the part of the nation to whom they believe they have a loyalty. I say to those people to leave the spectre of paramilitarism behind us forever, not because one seeks to impugn defeat or victory but because one is trying to bring about a situation where the politics of dialogue, of working together and of building a democracy is given an opportunity for the first time in two, three or four centuries on this island to make sure we can provide the same level of opportunity north of the Border as we can provide thankfully south of the Border, particularly in the past 15 years. That is the issue. True republicanism is about expanding opportunities. That will not be done by a 60% public sector-led economy in the North or with only ten firms in the North providing 50% of exports. It will not be done by communities who have been alienated from all the basic institutions of a state. We have to be prepared.

Having come to the point before Christmas where there were only two issues in question, we must remember those in the Provisional IRA, who claimed they were not signatories to the Agreement, stated on a number of occasions that the context in which they would, as I put it, clear the pitch was on the basis of full implementation of the Agreement. We were at that point. We were agreed that we were at that point. Therefore, we should not allow even foolhardy or less than magnanimous leadership on the other side at a critical point to deflect us from our obligation to our own people and, ultimately, to expand that philosophy in a way which would be meaningful to people of another tradition through politics. It will not be done through violence — that we know — but it will be done through politics.

I ask people, in the context of the internal dialogue that should be going on at present, to take that brave and solid decision. If they do that, they will serve the people they seek to represent. More importantly, the democratic road for this country would become a far more open road for everyone on the basis of the basic principles of democracy being respected.

Gay Mitchell (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

"L'État, c'est moi", the motto of Louis XIV, is the real motto of the Provisionals. What is a state? It is a group of people forming a sovereign entity; it usually includes a head of state, a parliament, a government or executive and a judicial wing. The Provos have sought, in perpetuity, to assign to themselves the role of our State. They claim that the Provisional IRA is the army of the State and that they also supply the Government, the Parliament and the courts: quite literally they are the judge, jury and executioner.

We might pause to consider the definition of the word "bigot". It means "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own". Is this a term that describes the typical philosophy of the Provisionals? I believe it is. It is the hallmark of the Provos.

We might also consider what the term "infallible" means. It means "incapable of failure or error". The Provos have created for themselves an illusionary state built on their claimed incapacity for wrongdoing or criminality. The then IRA, or one of its breakaway wings, refused to recognise the third Dáil, to which the Minister referred, when it met in September 1922 and its claimed successors have continued the myth that the current Dáil is not a legitimate successor to the first and second Dála, claiming that the oath was required before a Deputy could take his seat and that the third Dáil therefore derived its authority from the Treaty and not from the Irish people.

An interesting point is that the second Dáil was mostly nominated, not elected. With the exception of a handful of mainly Unionist seats the rest were uncontested. Michael Collins and Harry Boland largely carved up the second Dáil between them by agreeing the nominated and uncontested candidates. A Dáil elected unopposed is supposed to be the legitimate Dáil in perpetuity.

It might be noted for the purposes of this debate and for the record when it is read later that on 20 August 1921 Cathal Brugha, President of the first Ministry of the first Dáil, proposed a motion that every Deputy, officer, Clerk of the Dáil and each member of the Irish Volunteers would swear allegiance to the Dáil of the Irish Republic. The text of the oath, which was approved, was:

I, [name], do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I do not support and shall not yield a voluntary support to any pretended Government, authority or power within Ireland hostile and inimical thereto, and I do further swear [or affirm] that to the best of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dáil Éireann against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me God.

The effect of this oath was that the Volunteers became the Army of the Irish Republic or, as they were known, the Irish Republican Army.

It might be noted for the purposes of debate that Article V of the Constitution of Dáil Éireann noted that "this Constitution is provisional and liable to alteration". If P. O'Neill and his or her friends here on the benches of the 29th Dáil do not recognise this Dáil, to which Dáil Éireann do they lend their allegiance? How do a sovereign people dismiss that alleged "Dáil Éireann" and when will that "Dáil Éireann" to which they claim to give this allegiance seek a renewed mandate for its role? The answer is never, for a mythical parliament cannot be dissolved.

Whatever semantics are involved in that argument, nobody can doubt that for the first time since December 1918, and in a real sense for the very first time in a common vote on a common issue because in December 1918 some people were voting to elect people to the British House of Commons and others were voting to elect people to what they thought was the Irish Parliament, the Irish people, North and South, in a free act of determination approved the Good Friday Agreement almost seven years ago.

Nor is it semantics to ask, did the Provos when they broke away from what was known as the Official IRA take with them the sole right to declare themselves the real state, the real Dáil Éireann. If so, did the Real IRA or the Continuity IRA wrest that from them, or could some other self-appointed group do so? The reality is they could and it would have as much authenticity as the alleged inherited role of the other claimants.

I listened carefully to what Deputy Ó Caoláin said in his latest terminological inexactitude. He said Sinn Féin accepts the validity of the institutions of the State. Then who is P. O'Neill? For what Óglaigh na hÉireann does he purport to speak? He certainly is not a PR consultant with the Irish Defence Forces.

The real issue before us this evening is that we are dealing with deluded people who have assigned to themselves, in a bigoted manner, an alleged infallible doctrine and they continue to sell this cult of myth and mayhem to gullible people who then carry out the dirty deeds of armchair generals.

The name of Bobby Sands was dragged into this issue on "Questions & Answers" recently by a prominent Provisional spokesman. I regret the death of Bobby Sands and I hope his soul rests in peace. Those who sent him to his death, as they have many others in the prime of their lives, have much to answer for. The same great leaders sent their army to murder a widowed mother of ten young children because she showed humanity to a dying soldier. In the annals of conflict there is hardly a more heinous or less virtuous act on record——

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

Allow Deputy Gay Mitchell to continue.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Cheann Comhairle——

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

I ask the Deputy to keep quiet and allow Deputy Gay Mitchell to continue without interruption.

Gay Mitchell (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I see the army council is in tonight.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bobby Sands died——

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

The Deputy should desist.

Gay Mitchell (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If patriotism is the love of one's country does this mean the love of soil before the love of souls? Surely people rather than geography is what counts. If souls count more than soil, then a united Ireland can only come about by agreement. I want a united Ireland; I am a Nationalist. The word "nationalism" comes from the word "natio" which means greater community. The community I envisage is a community of people, living willingly side-by-side and without coercion.

All political entities evolve. We learn from our mistakes, the horrors of war and the pains of the past. This learning process is, for example, the raison d'être of the European Union, the objective of which is to ensure that the mayhem of two world wars never revisits our Continent. If the seven signatories of the Proclamation of 1916 could have looked forward to an Irish State which had successfully completed its sixth Presidency of a European Union of 25 member states, would they have been proud? I believe they would and we should be proud too.

A million Protestants cannot be bombed into a united Ireland. What is more, 4 million Nationalists cannot be bombed, blackguarded or bullied either.

Provisional Sinn Féin won the equivalent of the lottery — the opportunity to be in government in Northern Ireland on a permanent basis, to choose the Deputy First Minister, to participate in the North-South Ministerial Council and to make appointments to the specially created North-South organisations. It also has the right to sit in Dáil Éireann and, if it takes its chances with the rest of us, the opportunity to be in government here too. It also appears that under the proposals made before Christmas, its Northern representatives could be given the right to participate in some way in the debates of the Oireachtas. This for an organisation that can muster five Deputies out of 166 and has no Senators. Avarice and bad judgment on the part of the Provos has turned what was a win-win situation for them into a win or lose situation unless common sense penetrates very hard heads.

In the final analysis, the question the Provos face is whether they have become addicted to the daily and weekly need for the photo opportunity at Government Buildings, Downing Street or the White House, or are they prepared to roll up their sleeves and take on the often mundane but honourable and sometimes exciting role which political activity can provide, a real role in healing and shaping our society?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Including coming to listen to Deputy Mitchell.

Gay Mitchell (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sinn Féin talks regularly about its mandate and it is absolutely right. It won seats in this House and deserves to be heard. With rights, however, come responsibilities. It must accept the mandate of the other 161 Members of this House and the democratically expressed wish of the Irish people for a complete and irrevocable end to violence and to all forms of criminality.

Democracy is not as exciting and attractive for some of the members of the Provos as the direct action of the baseball bat and the lump hammer. Democracy can be frustrating if, as is the case for my party, there has only been a chance to shape the direction of the country inside Government for two and a half of the past 17 years. That, however, is the challenge of democracy, the need to convince people of their free will to grant their support and to accept the decision of the people and the democratic institutions to which they have given their allegiance.

Over 36 years ago, in December 1968, as the island began to slip into the abyss of a quarter of a century of death and destruction, the then Norther Ireland Prime Minister warned the people of the North that they stood at a crossroads. Unfortunately, the opportunity to right the wrongs of 50 years was missed.

Over the past 100 years there have been many crossroads for people of the broad republican tradition: the treaty in the 1920s, the response to the Army mutiny of 1924, the entry of Fianna Fáil into this House in 1927 following the murder of Kevin O'Higgins, the emergence of Clann na Poblachta in the late 1940s or the evolution of Sinn Féin the Workers Party and its final entry into Government as Democratic Left in 1994. All these developments had one thing in common, the acceptance that the democratic will of the Irish people had to be respected, as had the sovereignty of the Oireachtas as the representative body of those people.

Now Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA face their own crossroads. They have an opportunity to build on the contribution they made in saner moments in developing, with others on these islands, the peace process following, in the words of the Mitchell principles, exclusively democratic means. Alternatively, they can continue the impossible task of keeping one foot in the democratic world and one foot outside it, endangering the opportunity of a new beginning for these islands, which we all so passionately desire.

If we are to make the Ireland of the 21st century a place where enterprise can flourish and the fruits of that enterprise can be used to bring about a just society where we each take on our responsibilities as well as our rights, we need the mindset to do so. There must be no more violence or threats of violence. We have a golden opportunity, unprecedented in the history of this island, to bring about and sustain an Ireland of full employment where poverty can be eradicated and a high quality of life can at last be sustained. We can build an Ireland which meets in full its obligations to the hungry and the oppressed at home and abroad. We could become a beacon of light for others to follow. Let us put our collective energies into creating such an island and such a society. To bring about such a society, we do not need intimidation. Intimidation must end and inspiration and perspiration must take its place.

I thank all who contributed to this debate and commend the agreed motion to the House.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under Standing Order 51, I ask the Ceann Comhairle to rule the Taoiseach's amendment out of order.

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

We debated that yesterday in my office and the Chair has ruled that the amendment is in order. The Chair now proposes to put the amendment.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

An amendment should seek to at least add or substitute words.

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

Will the Deputies who are claiming a division please rise?

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

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Deputies:

Votáil.

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

The question is: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to." On that question a division has been challenged. Will the Members who claim a division please rise in their places?

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

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.