Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

I am grateful to this House for affording me the opportunity to report on the progress made last week on the Northern Ireland peace process. I would like to explain why the recent developments are important.

It is my belief that we have reached the final, difficult phase of our peace process. I have heard some people say that things are quiet in Northern Ireland and that we should leave well enough alone. In my view, however, this would be an entirely wrong approach. We must continue, in every way that we can, with the efforts to try and bring agreement and final closure all round. I was privileged to have been part of history at the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. It is now my responsibility and duty to make history work fairly and well for everybody.

The proposals we published last week cover key issues that must be resolved to finally and definitively assure peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Blair and I had obviously wished to be able to present our proposals in the context of full agreement but we are not quite at the point of total success. Our work will, therefore, continue to secure closure on what, by any standard, is a landmark package.

Since the devolved institutions were suspended in October 2002, there have been two previous intensive negotiations designed to achieve a comprehensive agreement that delivered acts of completion on all sides. They were not wholly successful but each, in its own way, pushed the process forward and helped to bring us today to the point where completion is achievable.

When the results of last year's election became known, many believed that it would never be possible for the two main parties involved to work together. I did not share that pessimism. Following my meeting with the DUP at our embassy in London in January this year — the first such meeting between the DUP leadership and the Government on political matters — I was convinced that the DUP recognised this responsibility and wished to pursue a solution.

At Lancaster House in June this year, after several months of tentative engagement, both Governments identified four critical issues that had to be resolved as part of any comprehensive agreement. They were a definitive and conclusive end to all paramilitary activity; the decommissioning through the IICD of all paramilitary weapons to an early timescale and on a convincing basis; a clear commitment on all sides to the stability of the political institutions and to any changes to their operation agreed within the review of the Good Friday Agreement; and support for policing from all sides of the community, and on an agreed framework for the devolution of policing.

Since then, we have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on these issues, the satisfactory resolution of which would open the way for the widest possible agreement. The package published by both Governments last week seeks to address and resolve the four core issues identified at Lancaster House. It does not in any way transcend the Good Friday Agreement, whose principles and values remain the template for both Governments.

Sometimes it is a good idea for everyone to step back for a moment and pause. That is what we should do when considering what was published last Wednesday. We considered that the publication of these proposals was appropriate at this time. Both Governments made it clear in publishing their proposals that, while considerable progress had been made, not all elements were agreed. Nonetheless, we expressed the hope that the people of Northern Ireland would reflect on what was in prospect and the opportunity which the agreement, if accepted in its entirety, represented.

The proposals of the two Governments address, first, the ending of all paramilitary and other illegal activity. This is a prospect that everyone on this island will welcome. The ending of all paramilitary activity must also encompass all other illegal activity. The IRA statement on Thursday, while confirming its intentions regarding that organisation moving to a new mode, issuing instructions to volunteers and completing decommissioning to a rapid timescale, did not address this issue in the clear terms required by the Government. What we have been talking about was the completion of decommissioning by New Year's Eve.

Clarification is required that the IRA's commitment is, indeed, to a complete ending of paramilitarism and other illegal activity. The whole initiative is based on this vital premise. Any ending of paramilitary activity and other illegal activity would continue to be monitored by the Independent Monitoring Commission, which was set up jointly by both Governments last year.

The second issue with which we are dealing is completing the process of IRA arms decommissioning in a rapid time-scale. The proposals envisage two independent witnesses and the availability of photographs for inspection, as well as their later publication. The Governments' proposals in this respect continue to represent a fair and reasonable judgment and in the context of an overall comprehensive agreement, should have been sufficient to close the gap on this most sensitive issue.

I should make it clear that we always understood the photographs issue would be a difficult one for the IRA. However, in the context of an overall package, it was our understanding that this proposal would be considered by it. It has, of course, since said that they are unable to agree to it.

The third issue concerns the Governments' proposals seeking to secure a basis for the full operation of the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, on an inclusive basis. The question of changes to the operation of the institutions of the Agreement has been exhaustively discussed and analysed since the review of the Agreement commenced in February of this year.

We were open to sensible changes which improved the working of the institutions or which addressed operational difficulties that had been experienced between 1999 and 2002. However, the fundamental architecture of the Agreement was not open to change, nor were its fundamental principles.

The Governments' proposals do envisage change in the operation of certain aspects of the operation of the Good Friday Agreement. Inevitably, every aspect of these institutional changes will not attract total agreement from all sides. However, the Government is fully satisfied that they respect and protect the fundamentals of the Agreement.

In the context of an agreement, I welcome the prospect of the DUP operating and participating in all the new arrangements. I acknowledge, too, the support of Sinn Féin, which Gerry Adams has confirmed to me, for the political aspects of the Governments' proposals, which include those relating to the review of the Good Friday Agreement.

Fourth, we have agreement on the basis on which the republican community would support the new policing arrangements. Agreement on the modalities of the devolution of justice and policing will be difficult but if enactment of the legislation can be secured as envisaged, it should allow Sinn Féin to take a positive decision on policing later next year. Such a decision by Sinn Féin on policing would be an enormous breakthrough and radically alter the climate of confidence and trust throughout Northern Ireland. I have always believed that the completion of the policing project would represent the consolidation of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland.

The Governments' Joint Declaration of May 2003 outlines in considerable detail the many other issues that will be addressed in the context of overall closure, including moving ahead rapidly with reducing the British military presence and addressing the matter of on-the-runs, or the OTRs as they are known. I have had further copies of the Governments' Joint Declaration placed in the Oireachtas Library as it is an important part of the architecture of the completion we are trying to secure.

The combined impact of our proposals would fully realise the vision of a new beginning promised by the Good Friday Agreement and the agreement of last week. Compared to where we were a year ago, the Governments' proposals represent a dramatic surge towards final closure. I have made it clear that the Government would play its part in addressing those areas, although few in number, that are relevant to us in this overall context.

Each of us — Governments and parties — must fulfil our obligations, some of which, taken in isolation, present the most profound difficulties. For our part, there are three such issues. First, there is the case of the killers of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe and the wounding of Detective Garda Ben O'Sullivan. I have previously addressed, in a comprehensive way, the circumstances in which their release would arise but let me repeat what those circumstances are. It will only arise in the context of a comprehensive agreement in which the International Monitoring Commission reported that all IRA paramilitary activity had ceased and the IICD reported that all IRA arms had been decommissioned.

I said in Belfast that nothing can console those who were bereaved. The last thing we wish to do is to add further pain to the suffering these innocent families have already endured. My only hope is that the full knowledge of the comprehensive agreement that we have been seeking to secure will help clarify the environment in which we have been working. It was always the intention of the Government that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would meet with the McCabe and O'Sullivan families in advance of any decision on early release. Consultation with the GRA was also envisaged.

Second, there is the issue of the so-called "on-the-runs". These are individuals who have been on the run for crimes committed prior to the Good Friday Agreement. The two Governments agreed in Weston Park in July 2001 that these cases would have to be addressed. We went into some detail on this in the May 2003 Joint Declaration. Again, the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform addressed this issue in the House earlier.

Third, on the question of following-up, in an appropriate way on the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution (Seventh Report), this is an issue that has been discussed many times in the Dáil. I have frequently registered my support for the proposal to invite, on a periodic basis, Northern Ireland MPs to a committee of the Dáil regarding Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement, as I have for inviting MEPs from Northern Ireland to attend Seanad discussions on EU matters. Both such proposals are properly a matter for the Oireachtas itself and would have to be the subject of consultation and agreement with parties in this House and in the Dáil. There have been exaggerated reports about all of this. These proposals would not involve the granting of any rights or privileges. There would be no constitutional implications, nor would there be any question of cutting across the architecture and operation of the Good Friday Agreement.

In the context of Seanad reform, and recognising the contributions made by Senators from Northern Ireland in the past to the work of this House, people such Seamus Mallon, Bríd Rodgers, John Robb, Gordon Wilson and, now, Senator Maurice Hayes, who have given insightful perspectives that have proven invaluable, I support increasing membership of the Seanad to provide cross-community representation from Northern Ireland. This could only be done by referendum. I imagine this is a matter on which all parties will have views. For my part, I would like to see such a referendum before the next general election.

The scope of what is in prospect is of real potential. The future lies in sorting out our differences through politics. Through politics, we have come a long way. The package that was unveiled last Wednesday is the signpost to a shared society. What is now required is a collective decision by all concerned to leave the past behind. I hope people will resist the temptation to score short-term political points against each other and see the opportunity that is staring us in the face for what it is. Another prolonged fallow period will only make the urgent task of building a new society more difficult. We need everyone's support to fully secure this comprehensive agreement. If we do not get agreement soon, we risk major delay in the restoration of the institutions. I therefore strongly urge all the parties not to delay unduly and to seize this moment of opportunity and real hope.

Let me add to what was said earlier today. It is clear to everybody now, a week on, that what was on offer was full decommissioning of the arms held by the IRA GHQ staff. The issue of the modalities of decommissioning, which had not been quite sorted out, was finalised at meetings between the IRA representative and General John de Chastelain which concluded in Friday night.

There were questions regarding whether the issue of demilitarisation in Northern Ireland had been worked out between the parties, namely, Sinn Féin and the British Government. They are not issues that would be helpful, and that was accepted by everybody in the other House today. There was also the issue of making sure the agreement was fulfilled and ensuring stability of the institutions. There was also the very important issue of getting Sinn Féin and the IRA to sign up comprehensively on the issue of illegality. The Government statement right through this process included not only paramilitary activity but also illegality.

I want to make one further point which I made earlier today. In the context of the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe, some people referred to the fact that in 1988 the Government was very strong right through the discussions. Perhaps those of us who have been dealing with this matter over the past number of years understand it so well that we expect everybody else to understand it as well. When we moved in the past two years, and particularly in the past 20 months, to acts of completion, we did not set the agenda. The British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, made a speech in Belfast in October 2002. I made a similar speech shortly after that. We said that many issues in the Good Friday Agreement were not completed, but there were also issues that were not in the Good Friday Agreement with which we had to deal to get to a comprehensive statement.

Since that day in October 2002, two years and two months ago, we have been trying to get a comprehensive deal. The issue was moved along in March of last year and again in October of last year but was not finalised and moved to the final stage. We do not decide what are the acts of completion for the other side. I wish I could decide the acts of completion with the British Government, the DUP, the UUP, the PUP, Sinn Féin and everybody else. Everybody has issues.

In the discussions to bring an end to the IRA, to move it to a new mode, to end the decommissioning issue once and for all, for the IRA to give in its guns to an international commission, to have the monitoring commission examine and monitor the new mode put on the table by the IRA, the release of the five remaining prisoners, we have left out the 57 others since 1988 to 1999. A number of those were in for capital murder and would not have been released until 2025. Those who killed Garda Hand and Garda Quaid, and many other prisoners, would not have been released until 2015-18. They have all been released.

However, we did not allow the McCabe killers out. Six and a half years on this was an issue. It was not open to us in negotiations to end the IRA in the form in which we have all known for 30 years if not longer, to eliminate arms, obtain stability of the institutions, and to leave the prisoners in jail. It would have been great if it was. Arguments were made against releasing them. However, saying we were in favour of a comprehensive agreement and leaving out the bits we did not like was not a choice that was open to the Irish Government or to the British Government — I am here today in the Seanad to speak for the Irish Government. It was an impossibility to say that all the aspects were right, that we were right to try to end criminality and illegality, but that the issue regarding the killers of Garda McCabe should not have been conceded. Let us call a spade a spade. To say that we should not have conceded on a certain point would mean one is not in favour of a comprehensive agreement because that was part of it and we could not negotiate it. I want this to be very clear because there has already been mention of "no fudging". To say one is in favour of a comprehensive agreement implies that one must be in favour of all aspects of it.

We did not decide this and would perhaps have liked it to be another way. Certainly, we would have liked a situation where the killers of Detective Garda McCabe would never be considered for early release. If one takes that view, however, then one must accept that decommissioning and other aspects of the settlement will not be achieved. I wish to be clear on this point.

We will obviously continue our efforts and will carry on as far as we can in dealing with the fundamental issues that must be resolved around the question of illegality. We hope to make progress on this and on the issue of the transparency of the entire operation of decommissioning, including independent witnesses, photographs and other issues. Our position in this regard remains the same as that outlined last week. We will continue with our efforts. Some helpful suggestions were made in the Dáil today which we will consider seriously, as we will any suggestions made in this House.

I thank the Leader for inviting me to the House and affording me the opportunity to speak on this issue. This is the last occasion on which I will be in the House before Christmas. I wish the Cathaoirleach, all Members and staff a happy Christmas.