Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will digress slightly in my remarks because at the heart at this motion is the issue of dialogue. Let us have a dialogue because that is healthy, warranted and does no harm given the institution we are in. I listened very intently to Senator Blaney's remarks. I do not question for one second the beliefs that he holds very firm and dear, but I would never come into this institution and tell him to stop advocating for those beliefs. I would never, through him, tell the people who share his views to stop advocating for what they believe in. I certainly would not choose a motion on the Good Friday Agreement through which to do that.

There was much for me, other colleagues and people outside the House to absorb in what Senator Blaney said. As a republican and Sinn Féin representative from the Short Strand in east Belfast I have had very difficult, tetchy, stretching and trying conversations with my unionist counterparts. I never backed away from that. I have never just spoken about it in institutions like this. I have put myself forward and, indeed, my family home, which has been attacked. I have put my feet on the street to engage with unionists and loyalists when times were much more difficult. I resent any kind of suggestion that republicans and Sinn Féin have not stretched themselves and have not been part of that engagement.

That is why I take issue with some of what Senator McGreehan said. Again, it was a pity that a motion on the Good Friday Agreement was chosen to launch what I felt was a very partisan attack on my party. Senator McGreehan spoke about Sinn Féin sowing division in the North and its failure to implement the Good Friday Agreement. It made me think about the ten years Martin McGuinness spent heading up the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement through the letters from America, the "curry my yoghurt" controversy and the initiatives he took to stretch himself and Irish republicans and nationalists in the North into building reconciliation and firming up the Good Friday Agreement and peace. I reject that accusation outright and am deeply offended at the suggestion.

I commend the motion as it is timely in a range of different ways. The key component to tonight's Private Members' business is the first line calling for the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. In that regard, the motion most certainly chimes with the national mood, primarily among nationalists across this country who are actively and daily involved in the debate about this country's constitutional future.

The debate is not the exclusive domain of nationalists. Members of the broad unionist community are also involved in that debate. It is important to acknowledge the role of the unionist, loyalist and Protestant, the PUL community, in this and many other debates over a long number of years. In my experience, the PUL community are keen debaters and frequent participants, with other members of the Oireachtas, at forums such as the west Belfast community festival, Féile an Phobail, which is just one example of such spaces.

While most unionists are obviously advocates for the union, some no longer are given events of recent times. The important point to be made at this juncture of the debate is that all views are needed if we are to have a full and thorough debate about the future direction of our country in these fast moving and dramatically changing times.I have said on many occasions that the Seanad and the Dáil need to not only participate in the national debate on the constitutional future of this country but that they need to help to lead that debate. It was implied through the course of a number of contributions but I do not know where the notion has come from that people like me who advocate for unity, as do others around the Chamber, advocate for a border poll tomorrow. I think I must have been screaming into a vacuum as opposed to speaking in the Seanad over the last five years, when I have called for the planning, engagement, preparation, consultation and research. I was told that it was not the right time and that it should not happen. That is what needs to happen and what I am calling for. Many people want to see that preparation begun, which is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement did not settle the constitutional question. It asked us the constitutional question. Some 23 years after that agreement, we should not be afraid of that aspect of the agreement either.

I have significantly more than I intended to say in the course of my remarks so I will try to fly through it. I note the positive and welcome interventions from people such as Deputies O'Callaghan, Richmond and Kelly, the Labour Party leader, coming in to this debate and making similar arguments for that preparation and planning to take place. I acknowledge the Cathaoirleach's role in this discussion and what he has done to reach out to others with a different perspective and to encourage his Government colleagues to prepare for this. I acknowledge Senator Black and everything that she does in trying to drive discourse forward in this House. It is a great pity that I will not get to say all that I wanted to say because I thought it was quite good, if I do say so myself.